22032

I think it’s a combination of that and “so what if they are lying to my face, here is an example of somebody else lying. Everyone lies about everything!”

22033

Sure,

but during an active conflict, they are not going to share anything worth knowing. Unless they want to direct some Russian drones there.

22034

It’s asking why we should give any credence to wild claims like a million Russian soldiers on the front by winter (didn’t happen, obviously) and that sort of thing. If Russia is going to train a million soldiers, equip them, and send them to the front then one should be able to explain how that’s going to happen when there is evidence they can’t supply their existing forces. In order for Russians to be able to do so, they would have to completely overhaul their logistics. There should be evidence of that happening. Massive road/truck production, rail lines being built, factories going up and Russians being put to work, etc.

And now the claim is that Russia is attritting Ukrainian forces at nearly a 10:1 ratio, excluding DPR militias. If the Russian military is mostly intact, why were they routed in Kharkiv, retreated from Kherson, and unable to successfully conduct an offensive? If Russia has an abundance of artillery shells and the ability to supply the front, why is the fire rate of their artillery dropping substantially?

22035

I mean, we are all making predictions in this thread, and most will be wrong.

I don’t get being hung up on sources being cited or not.

22036

That’s how he’s explained it, yeah. And as he also posted, sometimes you get the occasional Western rube to actually believe it, which is a bonus.

22037

I don’t think that is entirely true, if you’re talking about reporting on alleged facts on the ground. Operational security is a thing, but it doesn’t prevent all reporting about the war.

22038

Speaking of artillery ammo production.

22039

I wonder if it’s possible that all information is not true, but it’s possible to construct some reasonable approximation of the truth given a large number of credible sources and the preponderance of the evidence.

Naw, probably not!

22040

The UK MoD puts out an update daily with lots of good information that doesn’t betray Ukrainian operational security. Things like artillery production has been covered more than once. Upthread I linked to an update from just before Christmas where they discussed it!

22041

I read this argument as you saying that, because many predictions will be wrong, all predictions are equally thoughtful or equally thoughtless, and all are equally worthy or unworthy of consideration. I don’t think you really believe that, so I’m confused about what you’re trying to argue. Sorry.

22042

Look, all predictions are either true or false. So basically, predictions are 50/50 likely to be correct. You just have to choose the correct half.

That’s just math.

22043

Then you have to cite your sources for why you chose the half you did.

22044

But if it’s all Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, then surely it’s 1/3 each?

22045

Yes, I think so. I’m not sure how much of it is conscious ingenious design and how much of it is just bad propaganda. But bad propaganda still works for this idea, you watch it and see how BS is this and feel smart about yourself. I see Putin talking about how this war is justified by fighting against gay rights and I know it’s dumb. Those Americans and Europeans on the other hand probably believe in fighting for gay rights, idiots. I know truth is relative and it doesn’t matter if I repeat what the guy on the top wants cause it keeps me safe. Those who endanger themselves for some abstract ideas are dumb dangerous fanatics who believe in fairytales like international law or democracy or checks and balances in government.

22046

If you walk into a discussion with a bombastic 180 of all commonly held positions by every government in the world and then you cite a source that disagrees with what you said and then insult everyone for not believing you…

Well. There are terms for that, the most generous of which is “not arguing in good faith”.

And it’s not a one off. It’s a repeated pattern.

“There is no evidence for my position, but you’re all fucking rubes and idiots for not agreeing with me,” has been the “discussion” for months at this point. And then a citation of something that doesn’t even agree with the position proposed. Followed by more insults and possible a random Youtube idiot, who is held as being above NATO, the AP, Ukraine and even Russia.

It’s conspiracy theory shit at every level and in every way.

Edit: There is the fog of war, no doubt. If you see a video of a tank getting blown up and then claims of 500 tanks being destroyed, that’s questionable. But if you say that Russia secretly has an army bigger than the one they have deployed and are actually winning, then you need citations of that because we know what the battle lines are. But the fallback position seems to be “it’s a grand conspiracy of all of NATO all of the media and every person on the ground,” which is QAnon level bullshit and people are going to ask for evidence.

And “there is no such thing as evidence” is not a position.

22047

In addition to being contradictory to observable facts on the ground.

22048

To quote Maeby Funke in Arrested Development: “Marry Me”.

22049

Not really, all predictions are not created equal. Those based upon known facts, trends, and reasonable estimates are worth more than wild assed guesses or unrealistic probabilities.

22050

Satire detection failure alert!

22051

Hi! My name is Jim. You may know me from the Covid thread, where I was (mostly) a Serious Man. In most other threads, this is sometimes not the case. If a charitable reading of my post might indicate sarcasm, a flippant post, silliness, or other thread-shitting (which I really try to keep to a minimum these days, sorry!), it’s possible my post should not be taken at face value. I will generally cite sources carefully to back up scientific claims when posting seriously.

In a given post, I can either be very serious, or not so serious. I’ll leave the likelihood calculation to someone else.