The Dictator observations thread.

[eumaas]

This is where my rational self, which knows exactly why this shit happens, disconnects from my emotional self who just can't deal with it.

[JennyB]

This is where my rational self, which knows exactly why this shit happens, disconnects from my emotional self who just can't deal with it.

It's really fucking awful. There is no other way to say it.

[eumaas]

This is where my rational self, which knows exactly why this shit happens, disconnects from my emotional self who just can't deal with it.

It's really fucking awful. There is no other way to say it.

We're looking at having four nuclear powers, the US, Turkey, Israel, and Russia, involved in this goddamn mess. Jesus christ.

[Dr. Medulla]

In other senseless violence news, in two days Canada marks the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was a typical World War I slaughter, but this one made up of Canadian troops. I can grant some leeway in that the battle marked Canada's emergence from colonial state to a more modern, independent nation—in that way that participation in war seems to be marked—but the ads here are going on about how the 4000 men who died did so fighting for freedom. Holy fuck, the idea that World War I was anything but an imperial clusterfuck verges on Orwellian contempt for history. Woodrow Wilson was the only one who believed that the war could be turned into something more noble, and he was laughed out the door by the leaders of the Allied powers in Paris.

[eumaas]

In other senseless violence news, in two days Canada marks the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was a typical World War I slaughter, but this one made up of Canadian troops. I can grant some leeway in that the battle marked Canada's emergence from colonial state to a more modern, independent nation—in that way that participation in war seems to be marked—but the ads here are going on about how the 4000 men who died did so fighting for freedom. Holy fuck, the idea that World War I was anything but an imperial clusterfuck verges on Orwellian contempt for history. Woodrow Wilson was the only one who believed that the war could be turned into something more noble, and he was laughed out the door by the leaders of the Allied powers in Paris.

ahhh christ

[BostonBeaneater]

In other senseless violence news, in two days Canada marks the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was a typical World War I slaughter, but this one made up of Canadian troops. I can grant some leeway in that the battle marked Canada's emergence from colonial state to a more modern, independent nation—in that way that participation in war seems to be marked—but the ads here are going on about how the 4000 men who died did so fighting for freedom. Holy fuck, the idea that World War I was anything but an imperial clusterfuck verges on Orwellian contempt for history. Woodrow Wilson was the only one who believed that the war could be turned into something more noble, and he was laughed out the door by the leaders of the Allied powers in Paris.

ahhh christ

Here is a picture of old Adolf paying his respects at the Vimy memorial:

[Dr. Medulla]

In other senseless violence news, in two days Canada marks the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was a typical World War I slaughter, but this one made up of Canadian troops. I can grant some leeway in that the battle marked Canada's emergence from colonial state to a more modern, independent nation—in that way that participation in war seems to be marked—but the ads here are going on about how the 4000 men who died did so fighting for freedom. Holy fuck, the idea that World War I was anything but an imperial clusterfuck verges on Orwellian contempt for history. Woodrow Wilson was the only one who believed that the war could be turned into something more noble, and he was laughed out the door by the leaders of the Allied powers in Paris.

ahhh christ

Here is a picture of old Adolf paying his respects at the Vimy memorial:

Maybe he can tell Canadians today what it was about.

[Dr. Medulla]

I figured Timothy Snyder would have an op-ed about the latest distortions of history from the White House: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ak-volumes

His book Black Earth emphasized that citizenship, however much a legal distinction, was key to facilitating the Holocaust. Removing people's citizenship, making them official non-persons, left them at the mercy of the killers. That's why the steady erosion of Americans' rights as citizens does fucking matter.

(That said, I'm not fully sold on Snyder's argument—I have friends far more knowledgeable about the Holocaust that think it's bullshit—but it's something worth working through the implications.)

[Dr. Medulla]

[Dr. Medulla]

A hypothesis what came to mind while on a walk: The conversations/arguments I've had online or in seminars have been satisfying or unsatisfying not based on whether the other parties and I agree or disagree, but based on each person's aim. There are two approaches to argument, which are extremes on a continuum. One end is the political, where the whole point is to win or the other person to lose; the other is the scholarly, where the point is some kind of mutual benefit from the exchange, to learn something. The easiest way to figure out a person's inclination is whether they're inclined to acknowledge the validity of another person's point or of criticism of their own perspective—yes is scholarly, no is political. Neither position is superior to the other, but depends on the circumstances. A political aim can lead to skewing evidence or making it up outright, but it can also lead to genuine resolution and a means forward on a particular issue. The scholarly intent can result in better analysis and awareness of alternate interpretations for all those involved, but it can also just be dicking around, intellectual masturbation. Neither is either side represented by the smart crowd or the dopes—I've known plenty of examples of smart people and morons in both groups. The point, tho, is that arguments between likeminded groups work because they operate on shared assumptions. (Even if a political person loses the argument to another political person, they know how and why the game is played.) It's when scholarly and political people argue that mutual dissatisfaction is more likely, sometimes with accusations of insincerity on the other person's part. I'm deeply on the scholarly side of that spectrum—which isn't to say I don't like to have my side "win," but my interests are far more in the exchange than the resolution—and pretty much all my frustrating exchanges have come with people whose interest is primarily in winning the argument.

[Kory]

A hypothesis what came to mind while on a walk: The conversations/arguments I've had online or in seminars have been satisfying or unsatisfying not based on whether the other parties and I agree or disagree, but based on each person's aim. There are two approaches to argument, which are extremes on a continuum. One end is the political, where the whole point is to win or the other person to lose; the other is the scholarly, where the point is some kind of mutual benefit from the exchange, to learn something. The easiest way to figure out a person's inclination is whether they're inclined to acknowledge the validity of another person's point or of criticism of their own perspective—yes is scholarly, no is political. Neither position is superior to the other, but depends on the circumstances. A political aim can lead to skewing evidence or making it up outright, but it can also lead to genuine resolution and a means forward on a particular issue. The scholarly intent can result in better analysis and awareness of alternate interpretations for all those involved, but it can also just be dicking around, intellectual masturbation. Neither is either side represented by the smart crowd or the dopes—I've known plenty of examples of smart people and morons in both groups. The point, tho, is that arguments between likeminded groups work because they operate on shared assumptions. (Even if a political person loses the argument to another political person, they know how and why the game is played.) It's when scholarly and political people argue that mutual dissatisfaction is more likely, sometimes with accusations of insincerity on the other person's part. I'm deeply on the scholarly side of that spectrum—which isn't to say I don't like to have my side "win," but my interests are far more in the exchange than the resolution—and pretty much all my frustrating exchanges have come with people whose interest is primarily in winning the argument.

Super-agreed here. My best friend is on the political side and I'm on the scholarly. He's well known within our friend group to change the past or other facts with the aim of winning any argument, even supremely trivial ones. We try not to engage him anymore because it's just really boring. Nothing is gained.

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.kingstonregion.com/news-sto ... -searches/

The US tourism industry's lobbying wing must be absolute shit because this will further gut willingness to travel there. The missuz is thinking long and hard about attending any academic conference held in the US.

[Silent Majority]

https://www.kingstonregion.com/news-sto ... -searches/

The US tourism industry's lobbying wing must be absolute shit because this will further gut willingness to travel there. The missuz is thinking long and hard about attending any academic conference held in the US.

Doubt I'll holiday in the US while the man's in thr White Houae.

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.kingstonregion.com/news-sto ... -searches/

The US tourism industry's lobbying wing must be absolute shit because this will further gut willingness to travel there. The missuz is thinking long and hard about attending any academic conference held in the US.

Doubt I'll holiday in the US while the man's in thr White Houae.

Last fall, B and I were planning on driving to NC in May to catch up with old grad school friends, as well as meet up with Gene, but the election nixed that. I'm an anxious traveller at the best of times, but I just have no interest being down there in that climate.

[matedog]

This could fall under a few different threads but I found this pretty quaint:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/04/europe/lo ... index.html
Armed officers responding to the London Bridge terror attack fired an "unprecedented" number of rounds at the three attackers because they were wearing what appeared to be suicide belts, police said.

Eight officers fired 50 shots at three attackers to ensure they were neutralized, said Mark Rowley, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan Police Service.

All I could think of was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo