|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this russian stuff is at the border where likelihood bleeds into certainty. this is also the same border where fierce skepticism reaches the limit of credulity. a fair view of the situation would still yield substantial evidentiary weight. that there is substantial part of the populace in complete denial, refusing to even acknowledge the bayesian effect of evidence, is the more significant fact about the present situation. even people like Legallord who seem to understand the difference between likelihood and proof still wants to claim that it's people who are biased against russia that are the problem while ignoring the hilarious paralysis of u.s. polity. the u.s. is quite powerless, people are quitting the intel community rather than fighting back. the u.s. is much more of a low grade industrial robot than sentient skynet, sorry to disappoint.
anyway, that russia moved to help trump is pretty obvious, but trying to push on the point when it's clear there are people very resistant to believing it is pretty futile.
when there is no credible factual dispute, skeptics that still insist that there are factual disputes are not going to be convinced by sorting out the factual arguments unless the background view informing their skepticism is itself examined and exposed.
the liberal world needs to adopt an opportunistic posture and focus on building the kind of core narrative about the world that opponents have been developing for decades. there is some opportunity here for a real liberal politics that aligns the free world against authoritarian kleptocracy, a confrontation that starts at home. but there is no actual genuine liberal politics anymore. it's a bunch of reactionary outrages from vaguely held values.
some good old liberal ideology, while blinding and crude, is looking better and better in relation to the current mess.
|
On January 06 2017 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
this russian stuff is at the border where likelihood bleeds into certainty. this is also the same border where fierce skepticism reaches the limit of credulity. a fair view of the situation would still yield substantial evidentiary weight. that there is substantial part of the populace in complete denial, refusing to even acknowledge the bayesian effect of evidence, is the more significant fact about the present situation. even people like Legallord who seem to understand the difference between likelihood and proof still wants to claim that it's people who are biased against russia that are the problem while ignoring the hilarious paralysis of u.s. polity. the u.s. is quite powerless, people are quitting the intel community rather than fighting back. the u.s. is much more of a low grade industrial robot than sentient skynet, sorry to disappoint.
anyway, that russia moved to help trump is pretty obvious, but trying to push on the point when it's clear there are people very resistant to believing it is pretty futile.
when there is no credible factual dispute, skeptics that still insist that there are factual disputes are not going to be convinced by sorting out the factual arguments unless the background view informing their skepticism is itself examined and exposed.
the liberal world needs to adopt an opportunistic posture and focus on building the kind of core narrative about the world that opponents have been developing for decades. there is some opportunity here for a real liberal politics that aligns the free world against authoritarian kleptocracy, a confrontation that starts at home. but there is no actual genuine liberal politics anymore. it's a bunch of reactionary outrages from vaguely held values.
some good old liberal ideology, while blinding and crude, is looking better and better in relation to the current mess.
Wanting more evidence (any evidence really) is not a weakness.
The Russia thing is purely about trust. How much do you trust the FBI/CIA? I trust them a lot (in that I don't believe they should be shut down or defunded, and I would not be against giving them a bigger budget) which means that I am willing to take them at their word--but it's just that, their word. People who distrust them will be less willing to do this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
speech has content and a speaker. the trust issue exists, but it pertains to the speaker only.
there is an independent question about the content, a question evaluated based on the specific evidence and circumstances.
on that level, when you look at the evidence and circumstances involved, it's pretty clear. at the very least, there should be a lot of evidentiary weight pulling for a conclusion. so it's not just about trust but also background knowledge that is required to interpret evidence, for the general population, it's also about motivated presentation of information by fragmented media. not even fake news, just various crank biased news.
intelligence is always presented in terms of likelihood, and in very clear cases, the likelihood judgement is ancillary to the actual evidence presented to the deicsionmaker. in this situation it's somewhat of a middle ground where the evidence is clear, but the background info about russian activity, modus operandi etc is also important.
the actual threat here isn't a state level conflict between u.s. and russia. loss of sovereignty etc. we should rather care about the tremendous vulnerability of the u.s. to elite corruption of the sort likely brought about by trump. all the usually craven actors from congress to corporations would be fine accepting the model of capitalism that dominates the authoritarian parts of the world, one based on control of strategic positions rather than fancies of competition and productivity etc.
|
On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while.
All I gotta say is hold onto this base revulsion at the double standard. I have a good idea that there will be an effort to push opinion the other way.
On January 06 2017 06:00 Slaughter wrote:
Sounds like everyone in congress should be replaced. I had enough of the GOP shit cock blocking Obama on everything. The Dems are looking to do the same thing to Trump and that isn't good.
On the narrow issue of presidential appointments, I'm all with you. Trump will clearly attempt some very objectionable legislation and I'm all for obstructing that. If he's going Obama style on executive orders and administrative directives, I want the threat of defunding those departments to hold it in line.
|
On January 06 2017 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
this russian stuff is at the border where likelihood bleeds into certainty. this is also the same border where fierce skepticism reaches the limit of credulity. a fair view of the situation would still yield substantial evidentiary weight. that there is substantial part of the populace in complete denial, refusing to even acknowledge the bayesian effect of evidence, is the more significant fact about the present situation. even people like Legallord who seem to understand the difference between likelihood and proof still wants to claim that it's people who are biased against russia that are the problem while ignoring the hilarious paralysis of u.s. polity. the u.s. is quite powerless, people are quitting the intel community rather than fighting back. the u.s. is much more of a low grade industrial robot than sentient skynet, sorry to disappoint.
anyway, that russia moved to help trump is pretty obvious, but trying to push on the point when it's clear there are people very resistant to believing it is pretty futile.
when there is no credible factual dispute, skeptics that still insist that there are factual disputes are not going to be convinced by sorting out the factual arguments unless the background view informing their skepticism is itself examined and exposed.
the liberal world needs to adopt an opportunistic posture and focus on building the kind of core narrative about the world that opponents have been developing for decades. there is some opportunity here for a real liberal politics that aligns the free world against authoritarian kleptocracy, a confrontation that starts at home. but there is no actual genuine liberal politics anymore. it's a bunch of reactionary outrages from vaguely held values.
some good old liberal ideology, while blinding and crude, is looking better and better in relation to the current mess.
That should start by pushing for government option as the change to the ACA. Most Americans want a government option, so they should give it to us. It's in the Dem platform, so I expect Hillary and others to be fighting for it.
|
On January 06 2017 07:21 oneofthem wrote:
speech has content and a speaker. the trust issue exists, but it pertains to the speaker only.
there is an independent question about the content, a question evaluated based on the specific evidence and circumstances.
on that level, when you look at the evidence and circumstances involved, it's pretty clear. at the very least, there should be a lot of evidentiary weight pulling for a conclusion. so it's not just about trust but also background knowledge that is required to interpret evidence, for the general population, it's also about motivated presentation of information by fragmented media. not even fake news, just various crank biased news.
Circumstantial evidence is still circumstantial--no matter how convincing it is. However, between that plus sources who say they have more proof but cant' share it yet, I do find it convincing. But no, I disagree that there is sufficient "hard evidence."
|
I know this much:
1. Whether or not Russia did it, I would not be surprised to see such a "consensus" against them.
2. The evidence seems strong, but if you dig into it you find that there is something of a confirmation bias effect in the consensus that is here. It's not like there is any lack of parties that would be interested in leaking info for that matter.
3. I am familiar enough with the work of our intelligence wing to know that "proof or GTFO" is the only proper way to deal with them.
So. Proof or GTFO. Unless you want to play a game of "the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
|
The level of proof required depends in part on what actions you want to take contingent on the conclusion.
For something like war you want a very high level of proof. for doing more counterespionage efforts the standards would be quite low. For expelling some diplomats and a small number of highly targeted sanctions, probably some sort of medium standard, not too sure on that though.
I feel the level of evidence provided is sufficient for the actions taken thus far; i'm not sure what other actions people would like done, or if there have been calls for much more.
|
On January 06 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:
I know this much:
1. Whether or not Russia did it, I would not be surprised to see such a "consensus" against them.
2. The evidence seems strong, but if you dig into it you find that there is something of a confirmation bias effect in the consensus that is here. It's not like there is any lack of parties that would be interested in leaking info for that matter.
3. I am familiar enough with the work of our intelligence wing to know that "proof or GTFO" is the only proper way to deal with them.
So. Proof or GTFO. Unless you want to play a game of "the smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
I'd like to emphasize the first point of your list.
The CIA telling us that the KGB is doing spy stuff is 100% status quo.
The FBI telling us the Putin is a threat to the United States is 100% status quo.
The media saying that there might be a scandal in one of the most divisive elections is 100% status quo.
I see very little chance for Russia to not have been involved--but that's because I don't trust Russia and trust the feds/CIA.
|
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective.
|
On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective.
you are correct that it appears that way.
do you believe Obama should have done some other actions?
and if so, what?
|
On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective.
So lets assume for a moment that they did it. What sort of response would you be satisfied with?
|
On January 06 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective. So lets assume for a moment that they did it. What sort of response would you be satisfied with?
Hard to say. It's a difficult thing to respond to precisely because if the CIA is correct that they wanted Trump elected, they got it. They could leak docs, but historically in Russia those tend to see a mention or two then have a tendency to die down and be forgotten.
I'd target something more along the lines of international correspondence. Something that would piss people off who are involved in some negotiation or other in the world, while not being significant enough to start a real cyber war. But the response would absolutely, definitely have to be through hacking, or else it looks quite toothless.
On January 06 2017 07:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective. you are correct that it appears that way. do you believe Obama should have done some other actions? and if so, what?
All he really did at this point is to bait Trump. "Repeal this sanction order, I dare you." Maybe that was the point more so than a real response to Russia given that Russia chose not to retaliate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's always about strength of evidence and likelihood as a result of a combination of specific evidence on a particular act and MO or circumstantial evidence about a particular actor.
proof or gtfo is an attitude a radical skeptic of the sort whose very worldview is at stake would demand, not one with an open mind.
even if we discard this likelihood and weight talk, the evidence is pretty overdetermined, though mainly based on evidence pointing to the groups involved, and then tracing these groups' affiliations. the public bit.ly accounts is about as smoking gun as they come.
any response would have to be a part of a credible overall strategy towards confronting the kind of asymmetric warfare that this attack is a part of. so it's mainly about securing and reaffirming our own values, re-establishing confidence in our own systems, and getting some better leadership worthy of that trust. i would be very against pushing on russia/china at the state-state level.
|
so legal, you'd like something similar to the us diplomatic cable leak, but a leak of russian diplomatic stuff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak
personally, I kinda assume that there's also some secret retaliation, which we may not ever hear about.
I also feel that the response so far has been measured and reasonable.
|
On January 06 2017 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
this russian stuff is at the border where likelihood bleeds into certainty. this is also the same border where fierce skepticism reaches the limit of credulity. a fair view of the situation would still yield substantial evidentiary weight. that there is substantial part of the populace in complete denial, refusing to even acknowledge the bayesian effect of evidence, is the more significant fact about the present situation. even people like Legallord who seem to understand the difference between likelihood and proof still wants to claim that it's people who are biased against russia that are the problem while ignoring the hilarious paralysis of u.s. polity. the u.s. is quite powerless, people are quitting the intel community rather than fighting back. the u.s. is much more of a low grade industrial robot than sentient skynet, sorry to disappoint.
anyway, that russia moved to help trump is pretty obvious, but trying to push on the point when it's clear there are people very resistant to believing it is pretty futile.
when there is no credible factual dispute, skeptics that still insist that there are factual disputes are not going to be convinced by sorting out the factual arguments unless the background view informing their skepticism is itself examined and exposed.
the liberal world needs to adopt an opportunistic posture and focus on building the kind of core narrative about the world that opponents have been developing for decades. there is some opportunity here for a real liberal politics that aligns the free world against authoritarian kleptocracy, a confrontation that starts at home. but there is no actual genuine liberal politics anymore. it's a bunch of reactionary outrages from vaguely held values.
some good old liberal ideology, while blinding and crude, is looking better and better in relation to the current mess.
the liberal world needs to adopt an opportunistic posture and focus on building the kind of core narrative about the world that opponents have been developing for decades
The liberal world has done this for decades already. You make it sound like the liberal world is like some holy sheep between the wolves but if that was the case they would have been ran over ages ago. We have guatanamo,our Iraq wars,our middle east policy,our green house emissions,our 3+trillion bank/investors bail out.
And the liberal world is getting less liberal and democratic by the day.
|
Ryan planning to allow planned parenthood defunding into the Obamacare repeal bill. Apparently abortion is still a winning issue for Republicans?
|
On January 06 2017 07:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective. So lets assume for a moment that they did it. What sort of response would you be satisfied with? Hard to say. It's a difficult thing to respond to precisely because if the CIA is correct that they wanted Trump elected, they got it. They could leak docs, but historically in Russia those tend to see a mention or two then have a tendency to die down and be forgotten. I'd target something more along the lines of international correspondence. Something that would piss people off who are involved in some negotiation or other in the world, while not being significant enough to start a real cyber war. But the response would absolutely, definitely have to be through hacking, or else it looks quite toothless.
Such a thing has to exist, you have to be able to get to it. It has to be damaging enough to not be 'toothless' and your probably pissing off a 3e party they were corresponding or negotiating with. Oh and it has to be somewhat insignificant? (how does that not make it toothless?)
That's quiet a lot of if.
Honestly if your calling the sanctions toothless I don't see how your solution would do better. But hey, by stating it needs to be a hack you sure got yourself into a good old fashion dick measuring contest...
Punishing another major country is a tricky business and a tightrope between wanting to be harsh enough to deter repeat action but not wanted to start WW3. I think sanctions are decent tool that is not to damaging to force a response and public enough to be a statement.
|
On January 06 2017 08:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 07:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 06 2017 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'd also like to mention that sanctions being the best "response" Obama could think of looks pretty pathetic. With all the talk of "we'll show you that two can play at this game" it looks pretty pathetic from a tit-for-tat perspective. So lets assume for a moment that they did it. What sort of response would you be satisfied with? Hard to say. It's a difficult thing to respond to precisely because if the CIA is correct that they wanted Trump elected, they got it. They could leak docs, but historically in Russia those tend to see a mention or two then have a tendency to die down and be forgotten. I'd target something more along the lines of international correspondence. Something that would piss people off who are involved in some negotiation or other in the world, while not being significant enough to start a real cyber war. But the response would absolutely, definitely have to be through hacking, or else it looks quite toothless. Such a thing has to exist, you have to be able to get to it. It has to be damaging enough to not be 'toothless' and your probably pissing off a 3e party they were corresponding or negotiating with. Oh and it has to be somewhat insignificant? (how does that not make it toothless?) That's quiet a lot of if. Honestly if your calling the sanctions toothless I don't see how your solution would do better. But hey, by stating it needs to be a hack you sure got yourself into a good old fashion dick measuring contest... Punishing another major country is a tricky business and a tightrope between wanting to be harsh enough to deter repeat action but not wanted to start WW3. I think sanctions are decent tool that is not to damaging to force a response and public enough to be a statement.
How is the accusation of "White house is a puppet government of Russia" in the same weight class as "some goods will not be as cheap for you, maybe, I hope so."
If the US gives the sanction, they admit that Russia controls the US. If they don't give the sanction, then they show that you can do anything to them without repercussions.
So no, sanctions are shit.
|
On January 06 2017 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
it's always about strength of evidence and likelihood as a result of a combination of specific evidence on a particular act and MO or circumstantial evidence about a particular actor.
proof or gtfo is an attitude a radical skeptic of the sort whose very worldview is at stake would demand, not one with an open mind.
even if we discard this likelihood and weight talk, the evidence is pretty overdetermined, though mainly based on evidence pointing to the groups involved, and then tracing these groups' affiliations. the public bit.ly accounts is about as smoking gun as they come.
Frankly this is just a long-winded way of saying "we don't need proof, how can so many sources be wrong?" I suppose we could give the example of the pollsters predicting a Clinton win. The consensus of so many people saying Clinton 99%, Clinton 99.9%, didn't change the reality that it wasn't actually a sure deal. I made the case that it wasn't well before the result showed that the less-likely, but still highly plausible, event occurred. And yet the 99.9%-ers (Sam Wang PhD etc) were heralded as the true masters of data and probability while being wrong.
If it's so obvious, then why can't the intelligence folk simply provide the proof? "So many different reasons that it's obvious" isn't proof. Neither is circumstantial evidence. The intelligence wing needs to make the case, simple as that. If they have some methods to protect, then I'm sure they are capable of figuring out a way to give only the unclassified info to the public, given that this isn't the first time that they needed to prove something to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
