What has any of that got to do with the discussion about the realism of ethnic groups? — Isaac

Mr Strawman inventing his own topics of the discussion, it seems.

There's no such claim — Isaac

Then this claim of yours is a lie: neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of because I never made such a claim, and you knew that.

You have to ask? — Isaac

Should I ask again? I want you to state what you claim to be plausible or implausible, so I can quote you, and not creatively rephrase claims as you do.

You think a dislike of racism is akin to a dislike of seafood? — Isaac

I think that you do not have the conceptual tools to make such distinction rationally compelling for the discussion at hand.

Mr Strawman inventing his own topics of the discussion, it seems. — ssu

You can read the discussion from here if you're confused

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/752250

Then this claim of yours is a lie: neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of because I never made such a claim, and you knew that. — neomac

I said...

There's no such claim, it was a long discussion. I'm not citing the entirety of it again. As I said, people can read it from the links in the quotes provided. — Isaac

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example.

I think that you do not have the conceptual tools to make such distinction rationally compelling for the discussion at hand. — neomac

What?

The discussion started with a comment about how 'Ukrainians' deserved a say in the control of Donbas. I disputed that such a group existed with that right. If you just want to spout off more virtue signalling about how much you dislike what the Russian forces are doing, do it in someone else's discussion, don't respond to me to do it. — Isaac

"Virtue signaling" is just another name for ethics.

If there is no such group as "the Russians", then how is it even possible to speak of anti-Russian racism?

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example. — Isaac

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely. Besides what is the partial quote I made of you that you find so problematic wrt what I claim against you? And why?

What? — Isaac

You play dumb and argue in an intellectually uncooperative way. Your position is embarrassingly self-defeating at any level one wants to see it.

"Virtue signaling" is just another name for ethics. — Olivier5

No it isn't. Look it up.

If there is no such group as "the Russians" — Olivier5

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which...". It's about the properties of any such group. The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. No other.

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely. — neomac

That's right. One cannot 'quote' the entirety of a discussion. I cannot 'quote' your entire position. I paraphrase it supported by selected quotes. It completely normal procedure, exegeses are not composed entirely of quotes.

no you wrote "neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...". I never made such a claim.
A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty. And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors.

A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty. — neomac

Of course. The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it.

And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors. — neomac

People's propensity to use accusations of this sort to avoid uncomfortable arguments is neither here nor there. I doubt there's a single person on this forum who hasn't been accused of strawmanning or similar rhetorical devices. Certainly everyone that has accused me of it has also been accused of it themselves in turn. It's quite a common trick. A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive.

The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it. — Isaac

Yes that's how you shift the burden of proof on your interlocutor. It's always your opponent that must catch up to whatever bullshit you claim about them. This is your rhetoric trick. An intellectually miserable one.

A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive. — Isaac

I have enough evidence of that. And don't expect the liar to admit his own lies.

Keep insulting people, dude, that's the best argument you can offer to support your humanitarian goals.

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which...". It's about the properties of any such group. The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. No other. — Isaac

So do Russians exist or not?

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." — Isaac

So your claims are like "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." share the property of having Russian passports.

But then you claim also:

The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. — Isaac

I could ask for a minimum level of truthfulness and conceptual clarity, but that'd be asking too much.

If a group exists, called the Russians, and defined by their nationality, is that a bad thing because hey, nationalism is caca?

I'm not hand-holding you both through this, you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension. — Isaac

What is there to comprehend? You have no clue what you are talking about.

If Russian warships are attacked in the present war, then Ukrainian food bound for various places will be blocked or worse, with food shortages to follow.

U.S. accuses Russia of "weaponizing food" after halting Ukraine grain exports (Axios; Oct 30, 2022)

The logic seems clear enough, yes? Putin values the warships being intact (untouchable) more than he values those people getting food. To me, that doesn't seem approachable as such, though he should be (regularly). What's next? Hold food hostage for Kyiv (London, Tampa Bay)?

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1686181/moscow-politician-says-russia-should-denazify-baltics-and-poland

If a group exists, called the Russians, and defined by their nationality, is that a bad thing because hey, nationalism is caca? — Olivier5

Do I seriously have to explain racism to you.

"Black people have dark skin" - fine.
"Black people are all criminals" - not fine.

"Russians have Russian passports" - fine.
"Russians oppress Chechens" - not fine.

"Roma mostly come from Europe and Anatolia" - fine.
"Roma are all drug addicts" - not fine.

"Russians mostly speak Russian" - fine.
"Russians are responsible for the atrocities of 50 years ago because they live in the same place" - not fine.

This really isn't the place for this, there are courses you can go on if you need help.

Your logical acumen is very poor.

"Russians oppress Chechens" doesn't have the logical form of "Black people are all criminals" or "Roma are all drug addicts" (notice the use of the quantifier "all").
"Russians oppress Chechens" (like “tigers are striped”, “ducks lay eggs”, and “ticks carry Lyme disease”) is a generic proposition which does not carry information about how many members of a given group have the alleged property, therefore it can not be reduced to a quantified (e.g. universal) proposition.

Fucksake, it's not about the fucking numbers. Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals"

A coincidentally topical piece by David Bromwich in The Nation

Ukraine is a country we are just getting to know. What is more important is to hate Russia: an emotion in which Americans have been well trained. Media workers and the experts they interview, one notices, can’t help stumbling occasionally: “the Soviet Union – I mean, Russia.” A history of contempt takes us back to an entity at once exotic and primitive, suspended in time and space.

Eight years later, in his column on October 7, Will averred that “the behavior of the Russian army in Ukraine demonstrates…a centuries-old continuity: a culture of cruelty.” The reports of atrocities in Bucha are now proof of “Russia’s endemic cruelty” – in short, to be Russian is to be cruel. The diagnosis is medical: “Putin’s Russia has a metabolic urge to export its pathologies.” But consider now the implications of the “metabolic urge.” It resembles what used to be said about the desire by men of the darker races for white women – that, too, was an ingrained and irresistible reflex. Combine the biological tinge of this amateur analysis with the word “endemic” and you are inhabiting a well-known frame of mind: nation-as-race, race-as-virus. There were people in the 1930s who called the Jews a “bacillus.” Hatred is an extraordinary passion.

Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals" — Isaac

Generics can be used to convey or suggest racial stereotypes and incentivize forms of social discrimination, but the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination. Those generics must be understood in the historical, military, cultural and political context I (and others) have specified. If you are intellectually blind to such uses, that's your problem: "you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension" to sound rationally compelling.

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/about-the-project/

The project aims to gather information related to persons of the following categories:

• The “POWER-HOLDERS” of Russia, who seized and unlawfully hold power in the country;
• The “EXECUTORS”, who, as public servants and MPs, directly implement the Kremlin’s policy of felonious retention of power in the country;
• The “TRANSGRESSORS”, from among the judges, prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, law enforcement officers and their agents responsible for the direct implementation of the repression and prosecution of the opposition;
• The “AGGRESSORS”, who are responsible for carrying out the policies of war, occupation and chaos against other countries, in violation of international law, in the political interests of the leadership of the country;
• The “BENEFICIARIES”, foreign partners of the Russian government who contribute to the implementation of its felonious plans to undermine international law and global peace, justice and democracy.
• The “OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS”, who are responsible for plundering Russia on a state-wide scale, by direct membership in the Russian government or proximity to it through relatives and other proxies;
• The “PROPAGANDISTS”, who are responsible for creating and disseminating state information, deliberately deceiving people in the interests of the political leadership and creating an atmosphere of widespread hatred and intolerance;
• The “ACCOMPLICES”, who reap personal profit from cooperation with government authorities, to the detriment of the interests of the country and its citizens;

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/personas/

"Russians have Russian passports" - fine. — Isaac

But then it follows that there is a set as "all the Russians". Like, a nation of Russians.

But if such a nation exists, and legitimately so, what's wrong with nations, exactly?

:up:

Very accurate and quite scary quotes, even some comparisons of Russia to Nazi Germany and the like.

Again, very reminiscent of how mass propaganda was discovered in WWI, turning an isolationist nation to a war crazy society in a short amount of time.

And we still have to say, that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is criminal. Because that's not obvious. If we survive this, be ready for the demonization of China, which has been developing a good deal since Trump and not slowing down with Biden.

The logic seems clear enough, yes? Putin values the warships being intact (untouchable) more than he values those people getting food. To me, that doesn't seem approachable as such, though he should be (regularly). What's next? Hold food hostage for Kyiv (London, Tampa Bay)? — jorndoe

One of the way how navies fight is to create a blockade against the enemy country. And naturally that is against all shipping to and from the country. Russian navy can perform this from out of the reach of Ukrainian missiles and drones. Yet the Sevastapol naval base is in reach of Ukrainian weapons.

the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination. — neomac

As I said. Lazy racism is not an improvement on carefully thought out racism. Absolutely nothing that happens today is justified by the actions of people from generations past, or those who happen to share a passport. No wars, no animosity, no ethnic violence...nothing.

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport, just as there's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which it would ever become OK to say "Blacks are criminals, or "Jews are greedy".

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people.

Lazy racism — Isaac

Define "lazy racism", lazy boy.

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport, — Isaac

Quote me where I claimed that. What is "extend the crimes" supposed to mean?

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people. — Isaac

People may be different. But culture and national identity may still be the same. You are just repeating your moral claims, not making them more rationally compelling.

what's wrong with nations, exactly? — Olivier5

Nothing. Who said there was anything wrong with nations? They're a very efficient means of administering (hopefully) enfranchised populations. Same for electoral districts of any size. A very pragmatic solution to the problem of representation.

Nationalism is not the mere acknowledgement that nations exist. Do I have to explain nationalism too?