Holy shit, the wording of those questions is so telling. "Is war bad, and if so then obviously Ukraine needs to give up its own territory to stop the war" is what every Facebook MAGA I know keeps proffering as a legit argument.
It's amazing watching "Republicans" turn into Neville Chamberlain just because Donny has a hard on for Vlad, but that's the world we live in now
I don't know the answer to the Ukraine situation. I get not rewarding Russia for aggression, and I also get the argument that if we give concessions it will just be a pause, and Russia will try to take the whole thing later. On the other hand, I don't know if Ukraine alone can achieve outright victory, and I don't want to risk a nuclear war.
But your comment did strike me as interesting, because for some people it's always 1938, and anybody who wants to make any concession at all is always Neville Chamberlain. It's like that's literally the only history they know.
Let me ask you this. In December of 1914, along the front in World War I, there was an event now known as the Christmas Truce. Soldiers on both sides stopped fighting, sang Christmas Carols, exchanged gift and even played soccer in No Man's Land. Then, on December 26, they went back to the slaughter. Now imagine a counterfactual: imagine that the governments had gotten wind of this and instead of cracking down on the soldiers had agreed to a one month cease fire and negotiated a peace. Sure, maybe aggressors would have been rewarded.
But . . . World War I really sucked, and it had almost no good results. There is literally no point in the war when a negotiated peace wouldn't have been a better outcome for the world.
So . . . what if it's not 1938? What if it's 1914?
What's interesting about those questions is how few of them involve actual policies, and how many are just internet squabbles. For example, you might ask me 1) what do you think of a wealth tax on unrealized capital gains, 2) what causes inflation, or 3) should business be more or less heavily regulated? Those would actually, you know, get to policy differences.
Holy shit, the wording of those questions is so telling. "Is war bad, and if so then obviously Ukraine needs to give up its own territory to stop the war" is what every Facebook MAGA I know keeps proffering as a legit argument.
It's amazing watching "Republicans" turn into Neville Chamberlain just because Donny has a hard on for Vlad, but that's the world we live in now
I don't know the answer to the Ukraine situation. I get not rewarding Russia for aggression, and I also get the argument that if we give concessions it will just be a pause, and Russia will try to take the whole thing later. On the other hand, I don't know if Ukraine alone can achieve outright victory, and I don't want to risk a nuclear war.
But your comment did strike me as interesting, because for some people it's always 1938, and anybody who wants to make any concession at all is always Neville Chamberlain. It's like that's literally the only history they know.
Let me ask you this. In December of 1914, along the front in World War I, there was an event now known as the Christmas Truce. Soldiers on both sides stopped fighting, sang Christmas Carols, exchanged gift and even played soccer in No Man's Land. Then, on December 26, they went back to the slaughter. Now imagine a counterfactual: imagine that the governments had gotten wind of this and instead of cracking down on the soldiers had agreed to a one month cease fire and negotiated a peace. Sure, maybe aggressors would have been rewarded.
But . . . World War I really sucked, and it had almost no good results. There is literally no point in the war when a negotiated peace wouldn't have been a better outcome for the world.
So . . . what if it's not 1938? What if it's 1914?
What's interesting about those questions is how few of them involve actual policies, and how many are just internet squabbles. For example, you might ask me 1) what do you think of a wealth tax on unrealized capital gains, 2) what causes inflation, or 3) should business be more or less heavily regulated? Those would actually, you know, get to policy differences.