Pi = the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

My mind tells me one of the main revelations of pi is the picture of the straight line of the diameter surrounded by the encircling circumference. This juxtaposition shows concisely that the rectilinearity (straight-lining) of science is only partially commensurable with the curvilinearity (curving) of nature.

The straight lines infinitesimal of the analysis of calculus can only approximate nature's reality.

Science is nature-adjacent rather than natural.

As technology diminishes and displaces nature, humanity rejiggers itself out of mysterious existence into self-reflection. The trick of AI and SAI is baking in a component of mystery and a component of error. Mystery and error support otherness, a component essential to forestalling the cognitive suffocation of an enclosing self-reflection.

Intentional mystery and error preserve the irrationality pictured by pi.

We must pull on and push against the idea our natural world is full mystery and error because some prior race of sentients understood the essential importance of forestalling cognitive suffocation. Having original sin in the mix is better than the damnation of perfection.

Against utopia! — ucarr

I'm unsure why this post hasn't gotten any replies, because this gets at the heart of the matter for why pi continues indefinitely.

A perfect circle simply doesn't exist. It can't be made by man, and not by machine. We can get close, but no matter how close we get, it will never be perfect, much like how a digital rendition of an analog signal can also never be perfect.

If we 'zoom in' one pixel (or one decimal) further, the imperfection shows.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation. What is this cramped passive aggressiveness? :lol:

It's like you know, as none of us other contributors do, what 'masculine' human nature is beyond social and cultural influence, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and degenerate. No doubt you also then know, as I certainly don't, those circumstances if any, when violence is justified and virtuous. — unenlightened

No idea where you're getting this from. I haven't called you or anyone here degenerate. It was in relation to an example I myself gave of a trend which is overtly destructive. I've also no clue where you get the idea I'm about to espouse support for some kind of violence. You seem to be assuming all of this out of some personal dislike, is the sense I am getting.

Kids stabbing each other in the street over an argument is as black and white as it gets. If we cannot even agree on that much then I'm not sure what deep, dark hole of moral relativity you've wandered down into. Or maybe it's you who has trouble listening to opinions they disagree with?

If I had some problem with disagreeable opinions, I wouldn't be on this forum. I've also no problem with calling a spade a spade, nor with unapologetically criticizing bad ideas.

Tying it back to the matter at hand: such destructive fringe cultures, and not some kind of masculine original sin, is at the heart of violent trends in youths.

I'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? That's a normalcy in the Netherlands, by the way. And if you want to know where they get these ideas: it's straight from an ultra-violent fringe of the rap scene, 'drill rap'.



It's degenerate. It's societal cancer, and I don't use the term lightly. There's nothing redeeming about this. It's not some healthy, youthful rebelliousness.

The same goes for various other parts of pop culture, though this one is probably some of the worst.

There is a spectrum, of course. But that spectrum also includes very masculine men and very feminine women. Aspects of this are currently being problematized for no reason. Just like we cannot bully feminine men into becoming masculine, we cannot bully masculine men into becoming feminine - not without denying them their fundamental humanity, that is.

There's nothing wrong with being masculine or even very masculine. Masculinity is not some dirty word, despite what some in this thread seem to suggest.

The promotion of senseless violence is a problem very particular to certain scenes - gangster culture and football hooliganism, for example. Both have been glorified by pop culture, even though the vast majority of society recognizes these scenes as degenerate.

But instead of asking some critical questions about how pop culture uploads all kinds of degeneracy into the brains of impressionable youth, we seemingly have taken to simply blaming 'Men' - no doubt some outgrowth of radical political theories.

I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve. — fdrake

I think it's society that is the straight-jacket here.

Men are going to be masculine no matter how hard society tries to mould them into something else. The degree to which this is a 'social construct' is very limited, though the ability of societies to beat people into behaving in ways that it finds desirable are nearly boundless.

But pointless violence and aggression haven't been seen as desirable traits for decades if not centuries - not by men, not by women, not by society at large. It has nothing to do with societal views of masculinity.

The only place I can think of where these ideas are openly promoted is pop culture / gangster culture / the rap scene, and impressionable and often disadvantaged youth is certainly susceptible to that messaging.

Speaking for my own country here, the link between the rap scene and youth violence is undeniable and obvious to anyone with eyes to see. As is the link between misogyny and mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Yet, no one speaks about that. It's easier to just blame 'Men', I suppose. They seem to take it in stride, while the various sacred cows can be left unquestioned.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not just looking at some spiteful reversal of Christianity's tendency to blame everything on women.

Syria is going through all the motions of a country that is doomed, and I expect it will fall apart completely in the long-term, probably after large-scale crimes against humanity are perpetrated against minority communities there - we already see the beginnings of that.

But that's none of Iran's concern. Its involvement in the Levant is purely linked to countering Israeli influence. There's no better outcome for Iran than if Turkyie (or perhaps somewhere down the line, Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia) were to voluntarily take over that task.

Iran is in the driver's seat, enjoying strong alliances and a massive power vacuum in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is all it needs to expand its power to that of regional hegemon.

Pretty much the only thing that can throw a wrench in the wheel is Israel (and the accompanying threat of a US invasion). If Israel is preoccupied with threats nearer to its borders, such as IS-like entities in Syria or an expanding Turkyie, Iran wins.

I think Iran is primarily concerned with keeping itself out of the crosshairs of the West. Israel has plenty of enemies already, and Iran's involvement is hardly required at this point in time. Iran can just sit and wait, project to the world that it is not the instigator of the Middle-East's many problems, etc.

It’s not simply relegated to buying things — though that may be its primary goal, the secondary psychological processes involved in achieving that goal, on philosophical outlook — on beliefs and values — is more insidious than often credited. — Mikie

And the things that are omitted, thus never taken seriously by the public at large, because if it was important, it would be on the news.

The scale of this problem is truly uncomfortable to think about.

If few want to control many, they have to control perception. And they certainly have us firmly by the perception.

I think discussions like these are largely a waste of time, and I explained why I believe that. I don't intend on expanding my participation much beyond that.

But who are these 'insidious women' you were talking about earlier?

Where to even start?

In threads such as these, the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' just become a fig leaf used to slap the most ridiculous generalizations onto people.

The only distinction that is made is apparently whether they agree with you politically.

What I am pointing out is that the power grab of the far right can be considered as solely a result of a backlash of some sort of patriarchy against equal rights, but may be more fruitfully considered as both the result of anxious masculinity and other more insidious feminine forms of control through which the self image of masculinity is becoming perilous. — Tobias

What do you expect me to make of this?

Surely when you say 'anxious masculinity' and 'insidious femininity' you are simply talking about anxious men and 'insidious' women (whatever that means), and how they voted for the other candidate?

How dare they. There must be something wrong with them.

You accuse me of psychologizing, but what is your argument if not one giant exercise in psychologizing?

Who has given Ukraine's autonomy away? Surely, if the Ukrainians were autonomous the only ones who could have done so is they themselves.

I'm not sure whether Russia is categorically against peacekeeping forces. I don't think they are. They're against a NATO peacekeeping force, for reasons which should be obvious. They do not want Minsk 3.

All parties to the conflict should have a say in the peacekeeping process, and ideally a potential peacekeeping force consists of combined force of all involved parties, or a party which all agree is neutral - possibly Turkiye.

Unless that is Trump finds some cajonas and forces Russia into a much weaker position.
Do you think he will go there? — Punshhh

He won't, because he can't. I recall seeing your mention in other posts that the Russians are militarily in a weak spot and can be pressured. I think the opposite is true.

Whether the Russians can be trusted is a completely different topic.

When two countries have been at war, there is no trust. It needs to be built step by step after a cease-fire is agreed. First by small, non-commital actions, then larger actions, etc.

This is a basic principle of peace negotiations.

Indeed. It's precisely because Western society failed to produce any meaningful male role models that enabled scam artists like Tate to prey on lost young men.

People flocked to idiots like Tate because what society offered them was even worse. Let that sink in.

One thing is certain, this problem cannot be solved by the same people who fell for the radical feminist spiel.

With threads like these, I honestly have to squint to find anything I find vaguely agreeable. It's like you all are living in a different world or something.

Problematizing 'masculinity' and men in general is no different than what certain cultures have done to women historically. It's just as archaic. Just as damaging.

It feeds off the primal insecurities many people harbor for the opposite sex (those being an understandable result of unrequited desires) - it's just the pendulum swinging to the other side of the spectrum.

Seldom do I see more dehumanizing, less compassionate takes on what healthy societal relations between men and women would look like.

You may want to watch that entire interview.

Looks like our guy is starting to get to work:

Syrian security forces accused of killing hundreds of civilians

Remember when the western news outlets were trying to white-wash the image of whatever jihadi lowlife has taken over control of the country with our help?

The most likely candidate is still Ukraine, but possibly a non-state pro-Ukraine actor. — Benkei

If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Did you watch the interview with Oleksandr Chalyi, where he literally states he believes the Russians were serious and ready for a negotiated settlement during the Istanbul agreements?

The negotiations took place in the first months of the invasion. And yes, if an agreement had been signed, in all likelihood we would not be where we are today.

But I urge you to look up information on these accounts yourself. Jeffrey Sachs gives clear accounts, which he bases on information he received directly from the mediators and diplomats involved.

If you want first-hand accounts by the Ukrainian negotiators, try this interview by Oleksandr Chalyi, or interviews by David Arakhamia.

Or try interviews by Oleksiy Arestovych - Zelensky's former spokesperson and possible Ukrainian political candidate.

The information is out there, just not in the mainstream media.

You can find various neutral accounts of what transpired during the March/April 2022 Istanbul negotiations, including first-hand accounts of the Ukrainian negotiators themselves.

They speak for themselves.

Trump doesn't quite get it, because he cannot quite say publicly why Zelensky is insisting on fighting on: the US and UK urged him to fight on in March/April 2022, when a reasonable deal was about to signed concerning the neutral status of Ukraine.

Do you accept then that NATO, by your own logic, declared war on Russia when it bombed Nord Stream?

Honestly, it was quite obvious that Zelensky was set up.

Either he was going to accept the deal, say thanks and bugger off, or, if he got uppity, they'd pull this scene to have an excuse to cut him off.

But where does this idea come from that Trump wants to 'ally Russia'?

That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, none of this matters.

There will be peace in Ukraine, and Europe won't be going to war with Russia, no matter how hard some disgruntled intellectuals might find it to swallow their words.

If you're eager for more blood, go volunteer for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion while you still can.

Or Europe would really get it's act together. And they might, even if you don't want them to do that. — ssu

I would prefer Europe to get its act together without getting lured into a cataclysmic war with Russia, thank you very much.

Unelected Queen Ursula and the Trans-Atlantic clique are the morons who got us here in the first place. They know their political lives will be cut short if they have to make a 180 on Ukraine. That's why they're so eager for more crisis.

Why would you point to a technicality to consider Europe and Russia to be at war, when clearly in practical terms we are not at war?

Foregoing practical realities in favor of a 'legal' technicality over a matter of this gravity is something that I'm sure most international law scholars would scoff at. It's so contrived that it almost seems you want us to be at war with Russia. Do you have any idea what the consequences of that would be? You'll be the first to volunteer for the trenches, I presume?

Besides, do you then believe NATO declared war on Russia when they bombed Nord Stream?

How is that beyond the scope of what is expected? Did you expect the Russians to sit there quietly while we arm Ukraine to the teeth and encourage them to tread their red lines, attempt to enact regime change, inflict a strategic defeat, weaken it permanently, break it apart, etc. ?

It's the type of war rhetoric that's repeated ad nauseam by the Trans-Atlantic clique that permeates the top of European politics. Propaganda, in other words.

I don't think so.

You named cyber attacks and election meddling earlier as an indication that we are, but that's nothing we haven't done before, and little more than a tit-for-tat for our involvement in the Ukraine war.

Consider that the Poles have definitively said they will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. They're arguably the nation that stands to lose most as a result of a mismanagement of the Ukraine conflict. They don't want to put boots on the ground because they know that all it will do is move Europe closer to war.

Well, it puts Europe on war footing with Russia, for one. Right when Europe is at the weakest point it has ever been since the end of WW2, in the process of being abandoned by its principal strategic ally, and Russia having the most practically experienced military in the world and strong alliance partners.

Meanwhile, the US is obviously reconsidering its stance towards Europe, which could very well mean that its interests are becoming diametrically opposed to those of Europe. (In the sense that if they cannot control Europe, they will seek to weaken it or even break it up).

Ukraine becoming a giant blackhole for money and military hardware, war between a weak Europe and a strong Russia that could potentially go nuclear? Add Uncle Sam's capricious meddling into the mix, and who knows where that might end.

To top it off, we don't even know what will happen to Ukraine when the Americans leave. Who knows who will be pulling the strings a year from now? It could be FSB agents for all we know.


I fully agree that Europe should start moving towards a situation where its security vis-á-vis Russia is safeguarded, but Europe is way too weak currently to start pretending like that is already a reality.

Europe is too geopolitically ignorant at this point in time to get itself into that type of trouble.

European boots on the ground at this stage of the war is courting disaster.

Without the Americans, the Europeans will have to reinvent the wheel in virtually every domain and reboot their entire military industry. Meanwhile, Ukraine will be a crumbling, porous husk.

I don't disagree with the general direction you're thinking in, but to try and do so while also preserving Ukraine is not feasible.

Ukraine would likely not survive long enough for the Europeans to get their things in order, and it would put Europe on a war footing with Russia. The Russians have their allies backing them, while the Europeans will probably lose their principal strategic ally.

Personally, I think the fact that the Russians are willing to settle for a deal under the current circumstances is a clear indicator that they have no interests in needlessly antagonizing Europe.

If they wanted a larger part or even all of Ukraine, now would be the time to press their advantage.

When you say 'supporting Ukraine unwaveringly', you mean to prolong the war?

If so, I think you grossly underestimate how dire the situation will become in Ukraine if the Americans pull the plug. The country has been hollowed out in every way, and there's no way of telling what will happen to it after the Americans leave, or who will be in charge.

"Things aren't perfect, and it's all men's fault!"

Oh please.

What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income. — DifferentiatingEgg

This was indeed a very crafty trick they pulled on us. Double the labor force, halve the price of labor.

But the people in power are men, and so it is men's fault.

I suspect there is Kompromat on Trump [...] — Punshhh

Nonsense. You're just being presented with the same Janus-faced nature the US has always shown, but people keep forgetting about.

Trump is being used as a patsy to carry through some harsh but necessary foreign policy decisions. An exit from Ukraine is one of them, just like Trump facilitated the ugly but much-needed exit from Afghanistan.

I see a lot of Americans putting all the blame on Trump, and then on Putin who must have blackmailed him, trying to exculpate their country from this utterly blatant act of Machiavallianism.

The next president will be able to claim "it was all Trump" and "things are back to normal again", after which the next lamb will be led to the slaughter.

When will it get through to you that what you're seeing now is the true face of the United States?

I think this mineral deal is no longer about the war, but a way for Ukraine to barter for continued US involvement in the post-war rebuilding.

It's hard to predict what will happen to Ukraine if the US pulls the plug, even after a peace is signed, but it probably won't be pretty.

I do not question that you may be more convinced in one case than the other, but I’ll repeat that the criteria you are repeating seem rather arbitrary. — neomac

Good.

My criteria don't seem arbitrary to me at all.

So what is it you expect from me? Convince you somehow? To try and 'win the argument'?

If you're not even willing to believe I'm being honest about my credentials, then what possible point would there be to carry on conversation?

Out of courtesy I did read your entire post, but I will not be getting into a repetition of moves where we write entire essays about what has already been said.

I'll only answer those questions where I think my position may require clarification.

Could you provide criteria that would make such difference so much morally grey in one case over the other? — neomac

In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- +/-70 years of thorough documentation
- Mountains of reports by human rights organisations, including those within Israel itself
- Mountains of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions
- Near-unanimous global condemnation
- Condemnation within Israel itself
- Admissions by Israeli politicians
- Having studied the conflict in-depth as part of my academic education, and having visited the region as part of a research tour.

Concerning genocidal intentions and war crimes, can you articulate a bit more your moral views on that? — neomac

War crimes are an unfortunate reality of war. They happen in every war, and criminals ought to be punished.

Things take on a different guise when war crimes are carried out intentionally on a large scale, at a governmental level.

I don't believe Russia has genocidal intentions in Ukraine. Ukrainians are returning to Russian-occupied territories every day.

Well written.

Funnily enough, for some reason I mistakenly read the title and assumed you were arguing that Nietzsche was misogynist. I had that "Oh brother, here we go..." moment and as I was reading I was thinking to myself, "How can any of this possibly be interpreted as misogynist?", until eventually I understood I had misread the title. :sweat:

Some of these excerpts of Nietzsche show he was a visionary in many ways. Aren't we now living in the culmination of what he warned us of?

Many "modern" societies reject femininity, especially in women, and implicitly and explicitly tell women to be more like men. Men are subjected to a similar treatment but the other way around.

One can only wonder what strange pathos spawned this soft-boiled 'modernity', but I do know that Nietzsche would be turning in his grave.