|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 16 2016 02:00 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 01:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2016 01:28 a_flayer wrote:13th Division - received weapons from the US, funding from Qatar. On 13 March 2016, al-Nusra Front and Jund al-Aqsa seized the headquarters of the 13th Division after an overnight battle for control of Maarrat al-Nu'man. Division 13 was involved in a truce with the Syrian army since February 27. Several fighters have deserted before the conflict with the Nusra began. Division 13 has confirmed that al-Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa captured all of their weapons. This was not intended, fair enough. Still, this could be used as evidence to suggest that maybe giving weapons to people isn't such a good idea because you don't know where they're going to end up. Northern Division - received weapons from the US, funding from Qatar. The group received funding, including salaries for its fighters, from the CIA, before being cut off in December 2014 following battlefield reversals at the hands of the al-Nusra Front.[13] Gave weapons and funding, voluntarily joined with al-Qaeda. Granted, the US cut off the funding once they discovered this, but still this is exactly the problem. You give people weapons, they run off and use them to fight for wherever they think they gain the most. This is why not interfering is the more appealing option to me in most of these cases. I read people here suggesting that such a viewpoint is perhaps uninformed of the nuances, but I think that is nonsense when it comes to giving people weapons. Weapons tend to remove nuance from confrontations and push towards extreme responses. Mountain Hawks Brigade - received weapons from the US, funding from Qatar. The group also participated along with other Fatah Halab factions in the shelling of the Sheikh Maqsood neighborhood in Aleppo.[6] These guys are nice, killing civilians on a large scale. Keep it up, USA. Also, Biff, maybe you're confusing what I say versus what IFP is saying. I tend to be quite critical of Hillary and her presidential candidacy, while IFP has been mostly focused on Syria. Well look, what you point out is perfectly legit; that the Obama's administration support of the syrian opposition has been a fuck up, and that weapons have ended in bad hands because the country is a clusterfuck. And they should have figured that out, the line between the secular opposition and jihadi is really, really thin. And you can blame Clinton, and the Obama administration for playing with fire, although it has to be said that there were and are not too many options ( I guess the kurds are a blessing in that regards). The US support for the kurds prompted Turkey to invade Syria and stop them from uniting their cantons.
So? Turkey is a nation we have reasonable relations with. We would like to have reasonable relations with the Kurds too. Relationships with international powers is a not a zero sum game.
|
On October 16 2016 01:51 Plansix wrote:
Jeff Sessions has been a piece of shit since before he jumped on the Trump train. Doesn't surprise me at all.
|
The Kurds are quite cooperative with US interests and are worth supporting, but also are severely whitewashed and far from the angels they are presented to be in the US media. While Turkey has some bizarre and disproportionate hatred towards them, this is far from any "good vs. evil" battle like the US media narrative makes them out to be.
|
On October 16 2016 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Kurds are quite cooperative with US interests and are worth supporting, but also are severely whitewashed and far from the angels they are presented to be in the US media. While Turkey has some bizarre and disproportionate hatred towards them, this is far from any "good vs. evil" battle like the US media narrative makes them out to be.
The relationship both sides have with the US only decreases the chances they will engage in open conflict. If we stopped interacting with both parties because it was to "complex" won't make their relationship better.
|
On October 16 2016 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Kurds are quite cooperative with US interests and are worth supporting, but also are severely whitewashed and far from the angels they are presented to be in the US media. While Turkey has some bizarre and disproportionate hatred towards them, this is far from any "good vs. evil" battle like the US media narrative makes them out to be.
That's true but its funny to see the contradictions of the US foreign policy when you have groups that are strongly supported by the the americans like the YPG and SDF fighting against the FSA and Turkish coalition (Euphrates Shield) even when they were supposedly there to fight a common enemy. (isis)
|
On October 16 2016 02:22 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Kurds are quite cooperative with US interests and are worth supporting, but also are severely whitewashed and far from the angels they are presented to be in the US media. While Turkey has some bizarre and disproportionate hatred towards them, this is far from any "good vs. evil" battle like the US media narrative makes them out to be. That's true but its funny to see the contradictions of the US foreign policy when you have groups that are strongly supported by the the americans like the YPG and SDF fighting against the FSA and Turkish coalition (Euphrates Shield) even when they were supposedly there to fight a common enemy. (isis)
It isn't a zero sum game. These groups represent entire nations, demographics and cultures, each with their own intent and relationship. If we limit our allies to groups that will do exactly what we say and never have conflicts with each other, we will have none.
|
|
|
On October 16 2016 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
The Kurds are quite cooperative with US interests and are worth supporting, but also are severely whitewashed and far from the angels they are presented to be in the US media. While Turkey has some bizarre and disproportionate hatred towards them, this is far from any "good vs. evil" battle like the US media narrative makes them out to be. The relationship both sides have with the US only decreases the chances they will engage in open conflict. If we stopped interacting with both parties because it was to "complex" won't make their relationship better.
The Kurds have good choice in allies and enemies - fight Al Qaeda and ISIS, cooperate with Syrian govt, US, and Russia - and actually are stable enough not to be co-opted by Islamists due to desperation. Turkey kind of is the only one who gets shafted by this arrangement, but the current Turkish government is nothing if not obtuse and difficult to work with.
|
More tweets from his rally.
|
On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 01:29 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 00:10 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if there's a decent way to do a math analysis of the how much ideological area a party can cover and still stick together, and how that compares to various possible coverage areas for a party.
My impression is that around 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (ona bell curve) seems about how far you can cover on a single axis. then the question becomes how orthogonal various issues are. you do realize that this would be the modern day equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin right? not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out.
one can establish methodologies for most anything, the problem is its correlation to the Real. i have no doubt that someone could do such a study. but lets take a step back and ask ourselves what you are even talking about. making a bell curve with arbitrarily selected political gradients? measuring orthogonality with r values? coming up with some relation between these arbitrarily selected groupings wth data obtained via polling methods (in an era where polling itself is undergoing an existential crisis)?
it would have no predictive power whatsoever
|
On October 16 2016 02:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 01:29 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 00:10 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if there's a decent way to do a math analysis of the how much ideological area a party can cover and still stick together, and how that compares to various possible coverage areas for a party.
My impression is that around 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (ona bell curve) seems about how far you can cover on a single axis. then the question becomes how orthogonal various issues are. you do realize that this would be the modern day equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin right? not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out. one can establish methodologies for most anything, the problem is its correlation to the Real. i have no doubt that someone could do such a study. but lets take a step back and ask ourselves what you are even talking about. making a bell curve with arbitrarily selected political gradients? measuring orthogonality with r values? coming up with some relation between these arbitrarily selected groupings wth data obtained via polling methods (in an era where polling itself is undergoing an existential crisis)? it would have no predictive power whatsoever
it seems premature to assume it owuld have no predictive power before doing any research at all.
there's plenty of existing political gradients that are used for various purposes.
there clearly exists some sort of limit to how much ground a party can cover, if you have a better proposal or initial hypothesis to investigate, what is it?
|
On October 16 2016 00:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 00:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 16 2016 00:32 LegalLord wrote:On October 16 2016 00:05 Plansix wrote:On October 15 2016 23:47 LegalLord wrote:On October 15 2016 22:08 Plansix wrote:
This discussion of FP is the most basic we have had in a while. A very valid observation about the bizarre trajectory of this current discussion. This is why internet discussions of FP are terrible. People often have a limited knowledge of their own country's history, let alone the 25 other nations their country interacts with. And there is the churlish theme that nations can just ignore each other era of the internet and air travel. No nation can ignore Saudi Arabia and they are a complicated nation that few can speak about with authority. To be good they require people to be charitable towards others and their knowledge and opinions which may come from a different perspective. However, FP discussions tend to have people who are about as uncharitable as you can get. This thread has been a good example of that. I don't think it's about being charitable. It's about being really careful with what you advance because we all have very little clue. If people go full confrontational with really bold assertions on stuff we all don't really know anything about, like, for example, Saudi Arabia and Syria, which are awfully awfully complicated cases, well, the thread turns to shit. Well it can be both. Sometimes people are talking out of their ass, sometimes you just think they are and go full aggressive mode on them when it wasn't warranted.
You're probably my favourite poster on this thread right now.
|
On October 16 2016 02:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:50 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 01:29 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 00:10 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if there's a decent way to do a math analysis of the how much ideological area a party can cover and still stick together, and how that compares to various possible coverage areas for a party.
My impression is that around 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (ona bell curve) seems about how far you can cover on a single axis. then the question becomes how orthogonal various issues are. you do realize that this would be the modern day equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin right? not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out. one can establish methodologies for most anything, the problem is its correlation to the Real. i have no doubt that someone could do such a study. but lets take a step back and ask ourselves what you are even talking about. making a bell curve with arbitrarily selected political gradients? measuring orthogonality with r values? coming up with some relation between these arbitrarily selected groupings wth data obtained via polling methods (in an era where polling itself is undergoing an existential crisis)? it would have no predictive power whatsoever it seems premature to assume it owuld have no predictive power before doing any research at all. there's plenty of existing political gradients that are used for various purposes. there clearly exists some sort of limit to how much ground a party can cover, if you have a better proposal or initial hypothesis to investigate, what is it?
on the contrary, there is no clear limit on "how much ground a party can cover." this past year's events, from berniebros to trump's candidacy, should have made that abundantly clear.
let's imagine this hypothetical study of yours had been conducted in 2012. do you honestly think it would have helped us understand trump?
|
Oh boy. This is unreal.
You guys are fucked.
|
On October 16 2016 02:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:53 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 02:50 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 01:29 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 00:10 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if there's a decent way to do a math analysis of the how much ideological area a party can cover and still stick together, and how that compares to various possible coverage areas for a party.
My impression is that around 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (ona bell curve) seems about how far you can cover on a single axis. then the question becomes how orthogonal various issues are. you do realize that this would be the modern day equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin right? not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out. one can establish methodologies for most anything, the problem is its correlation to the Real. i have no doubt that someone could do such a study. but lets take a step back and ask ourselves what you are even talking about. making a bell curve with arbitrarily selected political gradients? measuring orthogonality with r values? coming up with some relation between these arbitrarily selected groupings wth data obtained via polling methods (in an era where polling itself is undergoing an existential crisis)? it would have no predictive power whatsoever it seems premature to assume it owuld have no predictive power before doing any research at all. there's plenty of existing political gradients that are used for various purposes. there clearly exists some sort of limit to how much ground a party can cover, if you have a better proposal or initial hypothesis to investigate, what is it? on the contrary, there is no clear limit on "how much ground a party can cover." this past year's events, from berniebros to trump's candidacy, should have made that abundantly clear. let's imagine this hypothetical study of yours had been conducted in 2012. do you honestly think it would have helped us understand trump?
I fail to see how berniebros or trump's candidacy disprove my assertion on limits, especially factoring in orthogonality; please explain.
and trump is moderately well understood already.
|
Oh the irony of Mr. Sniffles...
|
On October 16 2016 02:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 02:57 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 02:53 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 02:50 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 02:01 zlefin wrote:On October 16 2016 01:29 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2016 00:10 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if there's a decent way to do a math analysis of the how much ideological area a party can cover and still stick together, and how that compares to various possible coverage areas for a party.
My impression is that around 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (ona bell curve) seems about how far you can cover on a single axis. then the question becomes how orthogonal various issues are. you do realize that this would be the modern day equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin right? not really, I think one could establish some reasonable methodologies and do some actual analyses. There'd of course be reliability issues, as is common in social sciences, but one could make something potentially useful and well thought out. one can establish methodologies for most anything, the problem is its correlation to the Real. i have no doubt that someone could do such a study. but lets take a step back and ask ourselves what you are even talking about. making a bell curve with arbitrarily selected political gradients? measuring orthogonality with r values? coming up with some relation between these arbitrarily selected groupings wth data obtained via polling methods (in an era where polling itself is undergoing an existential crisis)? it would have no predictive power whatsoever it seems premature to assume it owuld have no predictive power before doing any research at all. there's plenty of existing political gradients that are used for various purposes. there clearly exists some sort of limit to how much ground a party can cover, if you have a better proposal or initial hypothesis to investigate, what is it? on the contrary, there is no clear limit on "how much ground a party can cover." this past year's events, from berniebros to trump's candidacy, should have made that abundantly clear. let's imagine this hypothetical study of yours had been conducted in 2012. do you honestly think it would have helped us understand trump? I fail to see how berniebros or trump's candidacy disprove my assertion on limits, especially factoring in orthogonality; please explain. and trump is moderately well understood already.
because orthogonality sheds no light on the hierarchy of those groupings, which itself is historically contingent. the more generalized the study the less predictive power it offers because it lacks sufficient granularity, while the more particular the study the less it tells you about the future because of its very particularity. you are always going to be looking backward because you are inherently limited by the arbitrary selection of presently relevant polling questions.
so is that a yes? you do think that if this hypothetical study of yours was conducted in 2012 it would have been able to shed some light on the shifts in the political parties in 2016?
i dont really understand what you mean saying trump is relatively well understood already. are you saying he's understood presently or that he has been understood since the primaries and that it's puzzling why very few commentators took him seriously 14 months ago?
edit: if you contend that a properly conducted hypothetical survey conducted in 2012 would have predicted the rise of trump i would assert that such a properly conducted study was impossible. my point here is that the bounds of the imaginary in 2012 positively precluded such a study from ever taking place, or at the least, if it had taken place, it would have been ignored by most everyone as fantastic because of the fact that it existed outside the common imaginary, or the "realm of possibility".
|
I don't even know how you'd quantify "ideological area". The difference in ideology between different parts of the political spectrum is entirely relative to begin with. Things that amount to minor differences in a larger schema appear to be major ideological divisions when two groups have very similar ideologies. Without a basic scale to work with, trying to quantify that in any productive fashion seems fruitless.
|
On October 16 2016 03:13 TheYango wrote:
I don't even know how you'd quantify "ideological area". The difference in ideology between different parts of the political spectrum is entirely relative to begin with. Things that amount to minor differences in a larger schema appear to be major ideological divisions when two groups have very similar ideologies. Without a basic scale to work with, trying to quantify that in any productive fashion seems fruitless.
right, its inherently arbitrary and hence always backward looking. thats my point.
edit: and really the fetishizing of these kinds of studies, deeply endebted to the tools of economists, is the greatest tragic flaw in our technocratic leaders. they afford studies like this a reverence almost akin to that afforded divine revelation. the assumptions and presuppositions of all credentialed debate are determined by them, and then when those assumptions give way to the Real the rest of us suffer the tragic consequences of their hubris. as an example just look at the GOP's failure to take trump seriously if you want.
|
As far as predicting Trump goes I don't think the problem is that nobody could have seen it coming, but I think the problem is that so much of Trump's popularity is fuelled by the voterbase. The idea that 'the people' can really fuck shit up hasn't really taken root in the US. The hard honest worker and common sense are so elevated that you can't just go and tell 30% of the population that they're actually deplorable, even if it is true. It's reflected in free speech and also the voting mechanism itself. Nowhere else could somebody just storm up the highest position of a party so suddenly. I think many political institutions in the US will probably have to overthink whether they need to put some safeguards in place so that demagogues can't simply take over so easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
