Europe under extreme duress

[ChuckMK23]

There's a lot of media out there. I don't have time for all of it, and I can't scrub every podcast for its validity; I sometimes have to use heuristics to decide what to consume. I'm willing to cut Joe Rogan out based on the basis that he thought Alex Jones was a legitimate enough guest to bring on multiple times. Maybe I'll miss some really insightful guests, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

Thats a reasonable take. I'm interested to know if JR brought Alex Jones on purely for mercenary / theatrical reasons and to swell listener/subscriber metrics.

 

[Brett327]

Thats a reasonable take. I'm interested to know if JR brought Alex Jones on purely for mercenary / theatrical reasons and to swell listener/subscriber metrics.

Is there any other motivation for a commercially lucrative podcast? The bottom line is the bottom line. It would be foolish to ascribe any other motives.

 

[FLGUY]

There's a lot of media out there. I don't have time for all of it, and I can't scrub every podcast for its validity; I sometimes have to use heuristics to decide what to consume. I'm willing to cut Joe Rogan out based on the basis that he thought Alex Jones was a legitimate enough guest to bring on multiple times. Maybe I'll miss some really insightful guests, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

That’s your choice. And it’s fine. Personally, I’m willing to select which guests I choose to listen to. It’s easy to benefit from the guests who’s insight is worth listening to, and stay clear of one’s id rather not hear from.

 

[nittany03]

Back on topic . . . The Atlantic has an interesting op-ed noting the limitations of the classic Russian "throw bodies at the problem" strategy. Never heard of the author, but he appears to be a former Marine infantry officer and Cambridge Ph. D. think tank type. A relevant point (aside from the obvious observation that masses of untrained idiots aren't always decisive against a well-trained opponent) is that the "Russia always wins wars of attrition" crowd are forgetting one huge counterexample: World War I. Where they tried to do the throw-the-grunts-into-the-meatgrinder strategy, got spanked by the Triple Alliance, and ended up out of the fight with the Czar getting overthrown.

Not sure that's a great situation to replay with nukes in the mix, but it's a counterexample.

 

[Random8145]

IMO, Russia doesn't have the manpower to just throw bodies at a war like Ukraine, because Ukraine is too big, with too large a population, and too well-trained a military for that to work. Now if it was a lone Baltic state, maybe things would be different.

Where the Russians have succeeded, or had more success with the Zerg rush strategy, is more when an enemy is advancing deep into the Russian interior, which involves traversing very harsh terrain and very extreme climates, and then very loooooong supply lines, in which case unless the advancing enemy has a very serious logistical, manpower,, and/or technological advantage, they start running into trouble. But this time around, Russia is the aggressor, so they are fighting a dug-in opponent with much shorter supply lines.

 

[Griz882]

Back on topic . . . The Atlantic has an interesting op-ed noting the limitations of the classic Russian "throw bodies at the problem" strategy. Never heard of the author, but he appears to be a former Marine infantry officer and Cambridge Ph. D. think tank type. A relevant point (aside from the obvious observation that masses of untrained idiots aren't always decisive against a well-trained opponent) is that the "Russia always wins wars of attrition" crowd are forgetting one huge counterexample: World War I. Where they tried to do the throw-the-grunts-into-the-meatgrinder strategy, got spanked by the Triple Alliance, and ended up out of the fight with the Czar getting overthrown.

Not sure that's a great situation to replay with nukes in the mix, but it's a counterexample.

I’ve never met him, but I have read his work and his academic chops are solid. His argument here is good but I will add that in a simple body exchange the Russians can’t help but prevail…but…as @nittany03 wisely notes, it all comes down to how long the Russian people will tolerate the losses.

 

[Flash]

And how will you know who the nut jobs, racists, misogynists', and the hater flavor of the month is unless they are heard? You can't just claim you can google it. Where is Wikipedia getting the information it needs to label a person extremist? Isn't it from the speeches made, books written, interviews given and citations made by these people? Silence them, drive them under ground, shout them down, and we won't know who these people are. I'd rather they were out in the light of day to be seen for what they are. You can't defeat them in debate is you don't hear them.

They almost always proclaim it on their own, and a modicum of research through Googling them is almost always sufficient to find out about folks like Alex Jones and his ilk without having to suffer through a 2 hour podcast.

I have never watched or listened to Rogen (except when he was in line at an airport gate). But there is a collection of people that do us a duty. Like criminal defense attorneys who serve the justice system, they must give the most scurrilous, immoral, dangerous criminal their very best effort. That effort benefits us all on a larger scale. I think the people who cavort with the fringe, give them a megaphone or a stage are ultimately doing us a service by pointing a finger at the sort of people we need to laugh at and debate with facts.

What I don't need to do is listen to Joe Rogan to find out about these folks, and I won't patronize him because of some of who he interviews. @SteveHolt!!! stated it much better than I did. Also, while lawyers serve some greater purpose I wouldn't put Rogan in that category.

Eh? What’s the background to this? Space-based lasers are a thing.

I was alluding to folks who believe they start forest fires.

 

[Flash]

Back on topic . . . The Atlantic has an interesting op-ed noting the limitations of the classic Russian "throw bodies at the problem" strategy. Never heard of the author, but he appears to be a former Marine infantry officer and Cambridge Ph. D. think tank type. A relevant point (aside from the obvious observation that masses of untrained idiots aren't always decisive against a well-trained opponent) is that the "Russia always wins wars of attrition" crowd are forgetting one huge counterexample: World War I. Where they tried to do the throw-the-grunts-into-the-meatgrinder strategy, got spanked by the Triple Alliance, and ended up out of the fight with the Czar getting overthrown.

Russia also the problem of a declining population as a result of a declining birthrate and large-scale emigration, having ~1 million of your citizens flee the country in a year isn't a good thing.

 

[wink]

Where they tried to do the throw-the-grunts-into-the-meatgrinder strategy, got spanked by the Triple Alliance, and ended up out of the fight with the Czar getting overthrown.

I think maybe mass mutinies and a revolution was as much a reason for the Russians quitting the war. A meat grinder strategy certain motived the mutinies, but the revolution and abdication lead to Russia giving up the fight to concentrate on building a workers utopia. It isn't like the Triple Alliance prevailed in the East strictly due to battle "Ws".

 

[taxi1]

My take on what you’re saying is that some things are so blatantly obvious that they’re beyond a reasonable doubt (ie Alex Jones being verifiably crazy), I just want to ensure that people are able to find that obvious information about him being crazy out for themselves.

I have my Theory of Gulling (yes, it's a word) whereby the probability of someone believing something is a function of
- How gullible they are
- How far you are trying to take them off of what they currently believe (sometimes you are giving them permission to believe in something)
- The manipulator's skill

For reasons that escape me, Alex Jones is pretty good at the third one, aided by the other two. I cringe.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I have my Theory of Gulling (yes, it's a word) whereby the probability of someone believing something is a function of
- How gullible they are
- How far you are trying to take them off of what they currently believe (sometimes you are giving them permission to believe in something)
- The manipulator's skill

For reasons that escape me, Alex Jones is pretty good at the third one, aided by the other two. I cringe.

Gullibility is not a fixed value. It goes dramatically up when people are being asked to believe something that confirms their worldview, especially if it's a "simple" explanation. If something outrageous or offensive is in the offing, the hooks are open to present an "explanation" that is more easily accepted, because it is satisfying to the listener.

It's my observation that most media makes money off this phenomenon. The can claim its entertainment, but it's really propaganda, driven more by profit than by ideology or factual data. That's why I cut the cord with cable years ago.

 

[Random8145]

I have my Theory of Gulling (yes, it's a word) whereby the probability of someone believing something is a function of
- How gullible they are
- How far you are trying to take them off of what they currently believe (sometimes you are giving them permission to believe in something)
- The manipulator's skill

For reasons that escape me, Alex Jones is pretty good at the third one, aided by the other two. I cringe.

Some people also are just stupid. I had a supervisor at work who insisted to me the Moon is hollow and a space station. At first I thought he was joking but he insisted it was true. I told him that is just too silly a claim, he insisted that NO, two Russian scientists even put their careers on the line to make this argument.

So.....not knowing how to refute this, I decided to research it. He "learned" all of this from a video apparently. Some quick Googling/Youtubing brought up the video, turned out it was a segment of an episode of "Ancient Aliens"? So I watched it and yes this was his source of info for his claims. So I then embark on about three hours of research, studying the history of the formation of the Moon, crater formation, craters on the Earth, Mercury, and Mars along with the Moon, ancient Chinese astronomy, the two Soviet scientists, etc...and came to the conclusion that:

1) The Moon is most definitely ***NOT*** an alien space station or hollow and

2) The "Ancient Aliens" episode lied and twisted things totally out of proportion

I presented my refutation to him at work and saw his brain processing as he hadn't thought of things that way. A coworker asked what was up, I said the supervisor insists the Moon is hollow and an alien space station. The coworker basically said that's nuts, to which the supervisor goes, "It is, it's hollow!" to which the co-worker goes, "Yeah, so's your head."

 

[FLGUY]

That's why I cut the cord with cable years ago.

I did the same with Cable. Social media as well. One of the best decisions I’ve made. It’s funny when you see the juxtaposition between how reality is viewed through the lens of media, and how reality is when you just walk outside and experience it firsthand. I much prefer the latter.

 

[Flash]

I did the same with Cable. Social media as well. One of the best decisions I’ve made. It’s funny when you see the juxtaposition between how reality is viewed through the lens of media, and how reality is when you just walk outside and experience it firsthand. I much prefer the latter.

You sure about that?

 

[FLGUY]

You sure about that?

View attachment 37597

Hey, what’s a rule without an exception ?