Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Symmachus »

Stringing words together comprehensibly in a coherent whole only seems magical to those who can't do it. For example, calling me simultaneously "cynical" and "naïve" seemed to make sense to you, though I don't know what kind of black magic can do that. I could never do that.
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 2:33 am
The issue isn't with failing to comprehend what you say. It's that what you say shifts around on the points you wish to make the most heat out of while avoiding obvious issues with your comments.
Point out my shifting position.
Is the issue not understanding how ethnic Russians have swallowed the propaganda claims? Or that the truth is being manipulated by Western media outlets to inform bad policy that is simply neocon imperialism writ small? Are the issues with US policy that they are unclear? Or that you believe them to be warmed over attempts at reasserting US hegemony on the world? Is nationalism as expressed by Putin's claims of a Russian sphere of influence that has seen former Soviet states pulled or forced back into the RF a return to the Alexander I, Nicholas I, and Nicholas II expansions and claims over the same regions under pressure to return to where the rightfully belong anyway?
What the fVck do you think this place is? Let me use my magic to transmute that for you: "You have been responding, Symmachus, to several people over a few weeks who have raised different issues with different parts of your posts, and you have responded to almost all of them; I myself introduced the issues of nationalism, the international system of the 19th century, the Fourth Geneva Convention, foreign policy realism vs. idealism, and now I am going to bring in Russian history, ultimately showing that I know nothing about it, as in my other random issues: but the fact that you have failed to put them all together into one concise essay is proof that you are just throwing words around. Got ya!" Your problem is that I am not magical enough, actually.

I have done my best to address these issues as they have arisen by different people. My own problem I have stated again and again. It is fairly short (a few sentences) and to the point. You have even quoted it. Almost no one is interested in discussing it. Fine. Your responses to it have been wanting.

I'm sorry I am not magical enough to answer everyone in a 128 characters for you. Even my powers reach their limits.
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

If your response to practically every participant is they fail to grasp your point, and suggest it is due to their biases causing them to ignore what you have actually been saying, you are doing something wrong.

I don't think you are succeeding because your argument is essentially born from cynicism towards the US. I know, I know. That's not what you say you said and I'm putting you in a box so I can dismiss you. Alternatively, what you've expressed fits in the box of cynicism and all you've done when that was pointed out was protest and claim you are misunderstood by people conveniently fitting into the box you claim for them. Funny how that works.

The canal issue turn out to not be about atrocities being committed against ethnic Russians but a rather obvious matter of cross border infrastructure. You protested that from multiple angles, including calling it cynical and positivist, and most recently dismissing the questions your own point raised as failing to attempt to understand how others view the propaganda being fed to them. Apparently it was a feint to suggest there were actual Ukrainian atrocities involved there. Or, given the discussion around it, you overreached and ended up falling back on the post-modern claim what mattered all along is just that ethnic Russians believe the Ukraine is out to rid the world of Russians. You know, banning their language, giving shelter to fascists, and playing all the tried and true hits. Did you know one of your links, when chased down, ultimately led to a staged Russian IED attack that used cadavers to make grim claims the Ukrainians were targeting Russians in their borders before the invasion? What matters isn't that Russia pulled a Gulf a Tonkin. What matters is the US clarify its long term, realistic aims to Symmachus who is totally not a dude whose world view is warmed over US skepticism having come of age in th Bush years and absorbed the attitude because we've failed to be moral on enough fronts we should shut up and stay home. Can you pantomime being in a box for me, mouthamagician? Street art can be more than card tricks.
Bond
Deacon
Posts: 211
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:28 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Bond »

Will S has returned from the wilderness and everything's fine for mother Russia.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1569 ... 45312.html
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Symmachus »

honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:21 am
If your response to practically every participant is they fail to grasp your point, and suggest it is due to their biases causing them to ignore what you have actually been saying, you are doing something wrong.
So on the one hand I'm verbose, but on the other hand my only response to "practically every participant" is to say that people don't grasp my point. I wonder why it takes so many words for me to say that. I must not be as magical as you thought.

As you yourself said "many posters here have likely read your comments as echoing Russian propoganda for reasons other than the ones you propose." Yes, that indeed is an issue, because the initial responses to any critical look at what we are doing there largely consisted of emotive statements about how bad Russians are because of their atrocities, and how they are wrong for invading. That is understandable, given the highly charged media environment in the US. That is also the general way that Will Shryver, the ostensible subject of this thread, has been attacked: he's a Putler shill. We are in a "support the troops or you support the terrorists" kind of environment. I understand that, and am attempting to navigate a difficult terrain. If I say that the definition of an atrocity is not always clear-cut, the media reports usually aren't that reliable, and that this whole thing is soaked in propaganda—openly so—I run the risk of being interpreted as saying that Russians are justified or that they aren't committing/haven't committed atrocities. Analytics got that, though I didn't necessarily agree with his framing of it. Others did too eventually. You're the only one who is trying to keep it up as a debate.

As I responded, some people acknowledged my points while still feeling that the moral questions overrode any others (Kishkumen and Chap, for example); we just have a difference of view, then, and I am not sure there is much to discuss when the difference is settled like that. I am not trying to win them over to a position. But I had perfectly normal conversations with others (Morley), even though we didn't fully agree. Some people just quickly resorted to name calling, and I pretty much that left that alone ("I a libertarian!? Take that back sir!").

The only one that has proved tiresome and lacking in understanding is you, because you are not actually interested in having a dialogue but in winning a non-existent debate, or you can't tell the difference. When I discuss a problem from multiple points of view, you see that as "shifts around on the points you wish to make the most heat out of." I am not "making heat" out of points; things come up naturally in a discussion. But this is the position of me you settled on:
Your statements early in the thread posited that the equivalency between them would be more obvious to someone who could read Russian and Ukrainian and was seeking out those sources directly.


Never argued for any equivalency; I openly said that I was not about establishing equivalency or justifying anything.
The result being it likely matters little what our policies or intentions are, we are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past by doing more harm than good.
Never said any such thing about what we are likely to do. I gave no prescriptions.
With Russia being a nuclear power, the risk involved in a misstep is greater.
Finally, something accurate: yes I did say that I think this is the danger.
The US would probably do the most good by sitting this out and letting what's going to happen otherwise just happen as it will likely resolve itself in ways at least no more harmful than if we continued to support a prolonged war.
You completely made this up. Never said any of this.

So, out of your characterization of my position, you reflected only one thing that I actually wrote. I took you seriously from the beginning and responded sincerely, as well as in great depth, to everything you raised. You have ignored almost everything I have written in reply to issues you have brought up—probably because you realized that you know little about a lot of the stuff you introduced into the discussion—you gradually dialed up the personal insults, the attempted "gotchas," the moral superiority ("you're just cynical"), and the attempted intellectual put down ("your naïve"). That's because you thought there was a debate, and you started reaching for the kinds of tactics that debaters use when they think they are losing.
I don't think you are succeeding because your argument is essentially born from cynicism towards the US.
What arguments? I keep saying what my problem is: I don't see what the overall goals of this are. It's a statement of my perception, and that perception has many parts that I have tried to explore with people who have responded to my posts. I have discussed all of this just fine with others.
That's not what you say you said and I'm putting you in a box so I can dismiss you. Alternatively, what you've expressed fits in the box of cynicism and all you've done when that was pointed out was protest and claim you are misunderstood by people conveniently fitting into the box you claim for them. Funny how that works.
In the characterization you posted that I just went through, almost all of it was pulled from somewhere other than my posts here. You ascribed to me positions I don't hold and statement I haven't made. Other than that Russia's nuclear status should give us pause, I have said literally none of these other things. You invented fictitious opinions and put them in the mind of fictitious Symmachus.

If putting me in a box weren't your objective, then it wouldn't matter whether or not I was cynical.
The canal issue turn out to not be about atrocities being committed against ethnic Russians but a rather obvious matter of cross border infrastructure. You protested that from multiple angles,
I discussed it from multiple angles, including the Russian one. You keep wanting to turn this into a gotcha by making this a debate wherein you are arguing that it is a straightforward issue that is completely legal, and I am arguing that it is an ethnically motivated attack by Ukrainians on Russians. I have never argued that and am not interested in that debate. I used it as an example of a phenomenon I was talking about.
including calling it cynical and positivist
I said your reduction of this to an issue of statute interpretation is cynical and positivist, which it is. It works for your debate, though.
and most recently dismissing the questions your own point raised as failing to attempt to understand how others view the propaganda being fed to them
No word-magic can make sense of this for me.
Apparently it was a feint to suggest there were actual Ukrainian atrocities involved there.
Again, it's a question of being able to look at multiple sides of an issue: "I can see why Russians look at that way" is the extent of the point. You have taken that to mean that I am the pro-Russian debater versus you, the pro-Ukrainian debater.
Or, given the discussion around it, you overreached and ended up falling back
This is literally the kind of language one uses to describe a debate, not a dialogue. You think I am having a debate with you; I thought I was having a discussion, which is my mistake, and that's the problem that confronts us. Look at Morley's exchange with me to see what a discussion looks like.
on the post-modern claim what mattered all along is just that ethnic Russians believe the Ukraine is out to rid the world of Russians.
It's hardly post-modern (yet another reference you don't understand but throw out anyway to impress your imagined audience watching you debate). Yes, I have shown how ethnic Russians take a real thing that has happened and is immoral (i.e. a choice to commit harm against innocent people for a strategic aim) and interpret it as an atrocity against them. I think Ukraine did it for the reasons they stated; one must do immoral things in war, but that doesn't make them moral just because the cause is just. I can see too why Ukrainians place their artillery in civilian areas. The only thing I draw from all that is that I am not going to let moral revulsion guide how I should understand what we are doing there, because one can find moral revulsion everywhere. That is not the same as moral equivalence. Moral equivalence requires tabulating moral revulsions, which I am not doing.
You know, banning their language, giving shelter to fascists, and playing all the tried and true hits.
Again, I have no idea where you are getting most of this from. I did mention the banning of Russian, which is a fact and would in other contexts be treated in our media as sub-genocidal. That is how many Russians view it, and I can understand why, given the other the ethnic discourse around Russians in Ukrainian media. Those too have obviously understandable roots. That doesn't assume a moral equivalency between Ukrainians responding to an invasion and Russian's making it; it does help to understand why this happening, which is what interests me more than being your debating partner.

I haven't said anything about "Giving shelter to fascists," either, but clearly you are now saying that I'm just parroting Russian propaganda—a debating tactic again.
Did you know one of your links, when chased down, ultimately led to a staged Russian IED attack that used cadavers to make grim claims the Ukrainians were targeting Russians in their borders before the invasion?
Again, you think I'm stealthily trying to argue that Ukrainians as just as bad as Russians. If that is what I were doing, this would be relevant. Since I'm not, it's not.
What matters isn't that Russia pulled a Gulf a Tonkin.
You keep making the mistake of introducing historical references which, when I take your bait and pursue them, end up making you look like a poseur. Here you go again...
What matters is the US clarify its long term, realistic aims to Symmachus
That kind of juvenile sarcasm is what happens when someone thinks they are losing a debate. Maybe you should just stop responding to me like an opponent in a debate.
who is totally not a dude whose world view is warmed over US skepticism having come of age in the Bush years and absorbed the attitude because we've failed to be moral on enough fronts we should shut up and stay home.
More juvenile skepticism, and this is a literal ad hominem—another debating tactic.

Once again, you just keep attributing things to me that aren't my position and are not matched in anything that I have said. When I came of age or what my attitudes might be register exactly 0 on the relevance scale. Your whole tack with me is equivalent to the response I would get if I were debating a linguistics point with John Gee: "Symmachus is ultimately not a believer and places secular evidence above spiritual knowledge, and that taints everything he has to say about the placement of accent in Egyptian verbs."

I'm not having a debate though. If you want to have a discussion with me, the only thing you need do is understand what I am saying, not who I am or when I reached majority. But that's not what you're interested in, and that's why you come off as not understanding anything. It took me some to figure it out, and that's my fault. I took you seriously and responded sincerely. But you decided when you jumped into this thread that you had me all figured out, and since you have me figured out, you don't need to bother trying to understand anything: knowing what category I fit in tells you which prepackaged cliches to use and what tricks to deploy. One after the other of these cliches and debating tricks just doesn't register, so you make grand statements that I start pursuing and show to be completely nonsensical, contradictory, or historically illiterate, so then you go back to the personality test you administered to me in your head to figure out what you think the most effective put-downs will be.
Can you pantomime being in a box for me, mouthamagician?
Not as well as you pantomime reading.

The fact that you ultimately just resorted to personal insults shows you that you are trying to win a debate. Consider yourself the winner if you wish; I don't care. I only wish that I had been as cynical as you need me to be for your little debate, because then I would have seen you for the intellectual poseur I suspected you to be and that you have been in this thread. A little cynicism on my part would have saved me a lot of time.
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

Symmachus wrote:The only one that has proved tiresome and lacking in understanding is you, because you are not actually interested in having a dialogue but in winning a non-existent debate,
Your bloated post above shows otherwise.

When asked in good faith what evidence you had seen for the truths Ukrainians were perpetrating atrocities against ethnic Russians, you offered poor examples misrepresented and colored in with more commentary and thinly veiled disgust over incidents you whatabout. Ultimately for your point as to why you raised the issue we were left with the rather disingenuous claim what mattered is ethnic Russians believe it. Ok son. Brilliant insight, that. It does look like they weren't the only ones, and you had the benefit of the propaganda being questioned to reframe. But no matter.

Am I trying to win a debate? More that I'm finding your presentation to be largely billowing reframings and confabulations which are arguing against US support for Ukraine on false terms. I applaud you leaning into it, as one should play to what's worked well in ones experience rather than be pulled into another's game. But that doesn't change the rather disappointing fact that it was all cover for your most direct post:
So I think it really does matter how we got here. This has every mark of being about Russia's traditional concern over its ever precarious security. We have given them reason to feel it keenly, so any policy that includes the spread of US and European liberal democracy as its goal will get us more of the same. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has had a policy in Eastern Europe that is as imperial a project as any, and we should either assume the burden of empire properly or surrender our pretensions to the principled realism of the past, a realism that recognized real constraints but was motivated and conditioned by a set of ideals that Americans largely shared (one of the great ironies of this for me is that the people most passionately flying Ukrainian flags tend to be the people most open to the idea that America is evil racist country laced with white supremacy through and through—if that's so true, let's get the beam out of our own eye before attempting to extract the mote from our Russian brother's).
As to William, I guess if his, "Ah ha! The AFU has fallen for the RFs brilliant trap as they retreat to create kill sacks where the ultimate plan put in place since February will be revealed for all to see!" is your thing, glad you found a brother. Though he is crowing over the power grid shutdown that only took two hours to shell into blackness, so that may be tough to dance around, considering. Probably best to ignore that one and just keep on with the confabulations for what has proved to be a rather basic cynicism towards the US post-Iraq/Afghanistan.
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Symmachus »

honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:16 am
Ok son. Brilliant insight, that.
I literally said it was a banal observation when I brought it up in service of a fairly simple point. You just wanted to reframe it to something easier to debate.
Am I trying to win a debate? More that I'm finding your presentation to be largely billowing reframings and confabulations which are arguing against US support for Ukraine on false terms. I applaud you leaning into it, as one should play to what's worked well in ones experience rather than be pulled into another's game. But that doesn't change the rather disappointing fact that it was all cover for your most direct post
I’m literally laying out why I am not confident with the apparent goal. You think we are just supporting freedom fighters; I don’t think that it can be that simple and saying why. You apparently believe it is so simple. Fine. Your attempt to answer this critique above the level of an MSNBC contributor only revealed your deep ignorance, so you resort to trying to establish that, basically, I don’t support the troops.

#iSupportLiteracy
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9682
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Bond wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:44 am
Will S has returned from the wilderness and everything's fine for mother Russia.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1569 ... 45312.html
He’s, uh, something. That’s for sure. Meanwhile the adults in the room have updated their assessment:

https://www.understandingwar.org/
Sep 11, 2022 - Press ISW

The Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast is routing Russian forces and collapsing Russia’s northern Donbas axis. Russian forces are not conducting a controlled withdrawal and are hurriedly fleeing southeastern Kharkiv Oblast to escape encirclement around Izyum. Russian forces have previously weakened the northern Donbas axis by redeploying units from this area to Southern Ukraine, complicating efforts to slow the Ukrainian advance or at minimum deploy a covering force for the retreat. Ukrainian gains are not confined to the Izyum area; Ukrainian forces reportedly captured Velikiy Burluk on September 10, which would place Ukrainian forces within 15 kilometers of the international border. Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian lines to a depth of up to 70 kilometers in some places and captured over 3,000 square kilometers of territory in the past five days since September 6 – more territory than Russian forces have captured in all their operations since April.
Sep 11, 2022 - Press ISW

Ukrainian forces have inflicted a major operational defeat on Russia, recapturing almost all Kharkiv Oblast in a rapid counter-offensive. The Ukrainian success resulted from skillful campaign design and execution that included efforts to maximize the impact of Western weapons systems such as HIMARS. Kyiv’s long discussion and then an announcement of a counter-offensive operation aimed at Kherson Oblast drew substantial Russian troops away from the sectors on which Ukrainian forces have conducted decisive attacks in the past several days. Ukraine’s armed forces employed HIMARS and other Western systems to attack Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, setting conditions for the success of this operation. Ukrainian leaders discussed the strikes in the south much more ostentatiously, however, successfully confusing the Russians about their intentions in Kharkiv Oblast. Western weapons systems were necessary but not sufficient to secure success for Ukraine. The Ukrainian employment of those systems in a well-designed and well-executed campaign has generated the remarkable success of the counter-offensive operations in Kharkiv Oblast. The Ukrainian recapture of Izyum ended the prospect that Russia could accomplish its stated objectives in Donetsk Oblast.
- Doc
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

Symmachus wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:40 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:16 am
Ok son. Brilliant insight, that.
I literally said it was a banal observation when I brought it up in service of a fairly simple point. You just wanted to reframe it to something easier to debate.
Am I trying to win a debate? More that I'm finding your presentation to be largely billowing reframings and confabulations which are arguing against US support for Ukraine on false terms. I applaud you leaning into it, as one should play to what's worked well in ones experience rather than be pulled into another's game. But that doesn't change the rather disappointing fact that it was all cover for your most direct post
I’m literally laying out why I am not confident with the apparent goal. You think we are just supporting freedom fighters; I don’t think that it can be that simple and saying why. You apparently believe it is so simple. Fine. Your attempt to answer this critique above the level of an MSNBC contributor only revealed your deep ignorance, so you resort to trying to establish that, basically, I don’t support the troops.

#iSupportLiteracy
It is always disappointing to have a trick revealed for the mundane thing it always was behind the misdirections and flourishes.
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by Symmachus »

honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:58 pm
It is always disappointing to have a trick revealed for the mundane thing it always was behind the misdirections and flourishes.
So, you were just trying to find “gotchas” after all. It’s hilarious but totally expected that you think you’ve won your shadow boxing match.

Image
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

Post by honorentheos »

Symmachus wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:23 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Sep 12, 2022 1:58 pm
It is always disappointing to have a trick revealed for the mundane thing it always was behind the misdirections and flourishes.
So, you were just trying to find “gotchas” after all. It’s hilarious but totally expected that you think you’ve won your shadow boxing match.
I was genuinely curious to hear what information you brought to the table after your initial description of where you saw issues regarding the lack of language training among analysts, and particularly where potential atrocities had been committed targeting ethnic Russians. When I say I've been disappointed, that is sincere.

You aren't satisfied with Western support being in favor of defending national sovereignty and discouraging actors from assuming possession of nuclear weapons will prevent the West from intervention in nationalist expansion. Many words gave their existence to the cause, but of little purpose having been stated yet merely bringing the discussion to the same that sentence offers with fewer pirouettes.

We've agreed that propaganda is not policy but seem at an impasse where you believe it is untangling them to continue to assert they make for bad policy. You don't appear to imagine Russian policy is the slave to propaganda but rather propaganda the tool. So your skepticism towards Western news and propaganda as feeding the policy rather than serving it is curious.

You present a case for a 19th century modeled world order hanging on the question of where the major conflicts occur between great powers while bookending the period between major conflicts. It doesn't matter how the period is framed for other reasons, that framing isn't a response to the question as presented but a misreading, and naïve one at that. The nationalist expansions of the 19th and early 20th century are clearly parallel to the types of conflict and aggression being discussed. One could argue the US was a poster child for the issues I point to as a bad model for the future where our technological advantages and desire to establish an American sphere of influence led to our taking lands from the Spanish at the expense of the populations living there who preferred self-rule. The Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii - the issue isn't one posturing as "support the troops" so much as we could and can do better. And yes, you think the offerings provide fall short in justifying US support of the Ukraine. And I imagine you are proving to be a useful idiot for Russian propoganda more than an informed contributor. So here we are.
Last edited by honorentheos on Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply