“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications? Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate. That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate.
That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
“But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial”
I’m relived to hear it!
re:Ulterior motives
I believe we are mostly in agreement over the underlying forces behind this conflict then.