News in brief

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:30 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Really? Quite sure most people don't want to date an ex con if they can avoid it.

And how would they know that? Remember, no background checks.


Many people date through their friends, and thus have background checks that way. Many jobs are also from knowing a guy. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's a fairly good one.

And you can bet that if people could easily find out about criminal histories then ex cons would find it much harder to date. If you could provide a dating service that also provided background checks you'd make a killing...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:46 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Many people date through their friends, and thus have background checks that way. Many jobs are also from knowing a guy. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's a fairly good one.

And you can bet that if people could easily find out about criminal histories then ex cons would find it much harder to date. If you could provide a dating service that also provided background checks you'd make a killing...

And you think people make decisions the same way HR managers do? People don't date through friends at the same rate HR guys hire through friends.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:49 am UTC

Can't tell if...

A) You are reading deeper into it just as friendly teasing
B) You are looking for criticisms because I annoy you in general
C) You actually think the analogy doesn't have any merit

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: News in brief

Postby Liri » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:27 am UTC

There are a fair number of felons. SOMEone has to date them!

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: News in brief

Postby Mambrino » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:19 pm UTC

Well, I do think the analogy is silly. The power imbalance and frankly, the whole nature of the relationship between employer and employee is fundamentally different than between partners in a romantic relationship.

Especially when the discussion started with a news article about prof who thinks she has evidence that burnout is often caused by the environmental factors of the job.

Thing that the "problem is not with them, it's you" gets wrong is that the problem very well may be with them. Interviewers may be unreasonable, impressed by all the wrong things, prefer good-looking smooth talkers who act confident to people with actual capabilities, and almost every company will have an outright nepotist hiring policy. Demands of the job may be totally unreasonable and even outright unhealthy to you either physically or mentally or both. If you are not lucky, you might very well get co-workers who will be happy to be mean, stab you in your back, play stupid politics in coffee room and drive you to mental breakdown if they for some reason - for any reason - don't like you. This is what I've witnessed what happened to my family members. I have been a bit more lucky thus far, but I'm still scared to death.

However, it has correct sentiment in one regard. Even if you are right and wholly correct that they are unreasonable, that it is them who are in the wrong, that it's them who have a problem, guess what. It's still your problem because they are in the position to decide if you are hired or fired. So you have to play the game if you want be employed and you don't have a say about the rules.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby PeteP » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

I am pretty sure CU was applying that to the side of the company not the employees?

morriswalters
Posts: 6437
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:30 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Really? Quite sure most people don't want to date an ex con if they can avoid it.
And why are you sure of that? I'm quite sure that you may be right about college grads, however in a lot of American neighborhoods people who have spent time in jail are much more common. And it isn't a guilty secret. They have brothers and sisters friends and everything. They are known in their communities. And they have personas other than ex cons.
sardia wrote:Your analogy starts to breakdown since most spouses don't run background or immigration checks. Or are especially biased against felons.
I like his original analogy. It's superficial but descriptive in the essentials. The second half is a statement of the obvious. If a business has high turnover there is something about the job.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: News in brief

Postby Mambrino » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:I am pretty sure CU was applying that to the side of the company not the employees?


That... was not obvious to me, but the comment does make slightly more sense that way.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby PeteP » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:30 am UTC

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-voice-of-america-232442 Hmm I don't know anything about this so no comment from me.

Mutex
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Mutex » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:45 am UTC

He gets more like Berlusconi every day.

Chen
Posts: 4995
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: News in brief

Postby Chen » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

I've never heard of this public TV station. From the article it looks like it's America's foreign propaganda network. I mean is this something that gets played up here in Canada? Or are we close enough that extra propaganda isn't needed?

Soupspoon
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: News in brief

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:29 pm UTC

Never seen/heard Voice Of America, but I always got the idea that it was a bit BBC World Service-ish (extending to the BBC World channel that was once one of the few things on my Berlin apartment's cable TV that I could relate to without too much effort, some variety of CNN being my next best option). Except that it might have already been considered somewhat overtly propagandaish, as opposed to the sneakier behind-the-scenes thing that the BBC gets accused of succumbing to, by some.

But sounds that though it was propaganda, it was at least bipartisan propaganda, not so much the ruling-party (or, indeed, figurehead) mouthpiece that it seems is the fear that it might now become.

Chen
Posts: 4995
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: News in brief

Postby Chen » Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:But sounds that though it was propaganda, it was at least bipartisan propaganda, not so much the ruling-party (or, indeed, figurehead) mouthpiece that it seems is the fear that it might now become.


Well the president apparently used to appoint the whole board anyways. Just that I guess it had to have some people from the opposing party in it. Still better than a single person appointed by the president, I guess.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:But sounds that though it was propaganda, it was at least bipartisan propaganda, not so much the ruling-party (or, indeed, figurehead) mouthpiece that it seems is the fear that it might now become.


Well the president apparently used to appoint the whole board anyways. Just that I guess it had to have some people from the opposing party in it. Still better than a single person appointed by the president, I guess.

The board was really inefficient, so they thought a single CEO would be better. But then Trump won the election. All of a sudden, giving Trump singular control over America's propaganda arm is a big deal. In addition, Voice of America use to only be broadcast overseas only. But they recently changed it to allow broadcasts into the US. So big propaganda company, with Trump deciding the CEO. Kinda scary, but not really since he already has the Alt-right and fox news behind him. I guess since it's stamped with the US government, and with a Republican at the helm, then government announcements are now very trustworthy.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I've never heard of this public TV station. From the article it looks like it's America's foreign propaganda network. I mean is this something that gets played up here in Canada? Or are we close enough that extra propaganda isn't needed?


I knew it existed in like, ww2. I had no idea it was still a thing today. I think it's safe to say that VoA really hasn't been something on the radar for US folks.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Chen wrote:I've never heard of this public TV station. From the article it looks like it's America's foreign propaganda network. I mean is this something that gets played up here in Canada? Or are we close enough that extra propaganda isn't needed?


I knew it existed in like, ww2. I had no idea it was still a thing today. I think it's safe to say that VoA really hasn't been something on the radar for US folks.

It's useful in authoritarian countries, and war torn countries. Cuba, eastern Europe, Africa, Middle east, Asia, etc etc. As you can tell, there's a lot of places people might like to hear a contrary or western viewpoint. Or just be entertained and informed.

Soupspoon
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: News in brief

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

If only we still had Hanoi Hannah, to counteract DC Donald... But that bird has just recently flown..

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5585
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: News in brief

Postby Diadem » Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:43 am UTC

sardia wrote:authoritarian countries, and war torn countries. Cuba, eastern Europe, Africa, Middle east, Asia, etc etc.

Ehm. Wow. There's so much wrong there.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... n-injuries
Turns out that, like football, the biggest contributor to head trauma is training. Not getting hit by one big thing. The Pentagon didn't like that the data was showing the mere practice of firing weapons was injuring troops.
The Pentagon has quietly sidelined a program that placed blast gauges on thousands of combat troops in Afghanistan.

NPR has learned the monitoring was discontinued because the gauges failed to reliably show whether service members had been close enough to an explosion to have sustained a concussion, or mild traumatic brain injury.

But the small wearable devices did produce a trove of data on blast exposure that could eventually have helped researchers understand the links between bomb blasts, concussions and brain diseases. And they produced evidence that many service members are exposed to worrisome levels of blast pressure simply by being near a heavy weapon when it's fired.

elasto
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby elasto » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:47 pm UTC

A similarly counter-intuitive result occurs when comparing boxing to MMA.

MMA seems more dangerous because punches are less cushioned (and kicks not cushioned at all), but the repeated hitting of a concussed brain through the multiple ten-counts boxers tend to get is more damaging than the knock-out blows of MMA which tend to end the fight there and then.

Soupspoon
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: News in brief

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:03 pm UTC


Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:17 pm UTC



*shrug* It's the obvious counter-move re Russian stockpiling. Hopefully it'll dissuade that. Maybe. Or maybe we get cold war 2.0.

elasto
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby elasto » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:07 pm UTC

Why is it the obvious counter-move? Only in machoworld.

Why isn't the smart move to encourage Russia to waste money on it if they want? It's not like twice as many nukes is twice the threat.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Why is it the obvious counter-move? Only in machoworld.

Why isn't the smart move to encourage Russia to waste money on it if they want? It's not like twice as many nukes is twice the threat.


Basic game theory.

More nukes is more threat. Yeah, not linearly, but the whole idea of disarmament involved both sides stepping down nukes together. Net win for everyone. If Russia's walking that back, that's a problem, and they are indeed positioning themselves to be a greater threat.

Literally nothing about this is related to being macho.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8305
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

The problem is that the more nukes you have, the greater the threat is to yourself as well. Every weapon you have has a miniscule chance of being stolen or accidentally equipped/used, so if you have enough nukes in enough places, random thieves will get their hands on one. And you'd be surprised at how little actual security is provided to the weapons themselves, a side effect of security through obscurity, and it stops being so obscure when it's in every county in the US.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: News in brief

Postby Zohar » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

Not to mention, deciding to build more nukes is not the obvious first step - how about trying some diplomacy, for instance? Of course, announcing you want to do it is different than actually doing it, but it does perpetuate the idea that leaders in the world think this is an acceptable thing to do.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Soupspoon
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: News in brief

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

(But it's a good job Warhawk Hillary didn't get elected, eh? Sorry, wrong thread for that thought... Ignore me.)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:55 pm UTC

Why on earth would you want them to believe that diplomacy is sufficient to avoid tit for tat?

I mean, sure, diplomacy has a place, but it's mostly in getting to a point where you can cooperate. If they announce intention to defect, you should obviously mirror them. That IS diplomacy. It isn't all cupcakes and happiness.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: News in brief

Postby Zohar » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:10 pm UTC

The point isn't that threatening should never be done. It's that step one is rushing to Twitter and announcing "all aboard the nuke train".
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

What's wrong with that?

It's pretty obviously intended as a "if you go down the escalation path, we will too". Which, frankly, has always been implicit. This ain't a Trump invention.

The fact that Twitter is the medium does not seem terribly important.

elasto
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby elasto » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Basic game theory.

More nukes is more threat.

No it's not. Being able to destroy the world a thousand times over is no more threat than being able to destroy it 500 times over. That's so last century thinking.

Better cyberwarfare is more threat. Better intelligence is more threat. Better hypersonic self-guided conventional missiles is more threat.

Every dollar spent on extra nukes is a dollar not spent on bonafide military improvement.

Like I say, we should be encouraging Russia to spend more on nukes to improve their e-peen rating, not discouraging it (or, worse, engaging in it ourselves.)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:25 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Basic game theory.

More nukes is more threat.

No it's not. Being able to destroy the world a thousand times over is no more threat than being able to destroy the world 500 times over. That's so last century thinking.

Better cyberwarfare is more threat. Better intelligence is more threat. Better hypersonic self-guided conventional missiles is more threat.

Every dollar spent on extra nukes is a dollar not spent on bonafide military improvement.

Like I say, we should be encouraging Russia to spend more on nukes to improve their e-peen rating, not discouraging it (or, worse, engaging in it ourselves.)


There are not enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over. There are, perhaps, enough nukes to destroy humanity. Not all of it, mind, but modern civilization would certainly take a beating.

Additional nukes provide greater redundancy. Greater second strike capability. Ability to hit more targets. Yes, each additional target or redundant warhead increases expected lethality less than the one before it, but it still produces an increase.

"destroying the world a thousand times over" is pure cold war hyperbole.

And the anti-nuke folks aren't even consistent. If doubling the number of nukes did not increase the danger, then why celebrating halving the number? Surely no additional safety has been produced. They do not act as though they believe that the current stockpile will destroy the world a thousand times over.

So no, nobody actually believes that non factual nonsense.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7040
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: News in brief

Postby Zohar » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's pretty obviously intended as a "if you go down the escalation path, we will too". Which, frankly, has always been implicit. This ain't a Trump invention.

The fact that Twitter is the medium does not seem terribly important.

The whole point of diplomacy is not all ways to deliver messages are the same. So yes, the medium is important. And yes, choosing to explicitly declare a message as opposed to implying it delicately in private channels is also important. It's the difference between having to escalate a situation and being offered a dignified way out.
Tyndmyr wrote:And the anti-nuke folks aren't even consistent. If doubling the number of nukes did not increase the danger, then why celebrating halving the number? Surely no additional safety has been produced. They do not act as though they believe that the current stockpile will destroy the world a thousand times over.

Because it's a fucking start, and people are happy to see a trend change direction. Is that really not clear to you?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:What's wrong with that?

It's pretty obviously intended as a "if you go down the escalation path, we will too". Which, frankly, has always been implicit. This ain't a Trump invention.

The fact that Twitter is the medium does not seem terribly important.

Twitter is not the ideal medium to convey the nuance, abstractness, etc etc of cold war style diplomacy. Or any diplomacy for that matter. For one thing, Trump can't back down without losing face. If he had a minor diplomat make an "offhand" remark about extra nukes being built, then he could back down or double down as the situation demands. Now the US is, "Trump said it. How do we move forward?"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Twitter is not the ideal medium to convey the nuance, abstractness, etc etc of cold war style diplomacy. Or any diplomacy for that matter. For one thing, Trump can't back down without losing face. If he had a minor diplomat make an "offhand" remark about extra nukes being built, then he could back down or double down as the situation demands. Now the US is, "Trump said it. How do we move forward?"


Sending your message in a "can't back down" fashion has strong advantages.

If you make a statement deniable, it clearly signals that you are prepared to deny it. Such a threat is pretty much garbage.

If your opponent believes you are not, in fact, prepared to defect, his correct play is to defect.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3726
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: News in brief

Postby Dauric » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Twitter is not the ideal medium to convey the nuance, abstractness, etc etc of cold war style diplomacy. Or any diplomacy for that matter. For one thing, Trump can't back down without losing face. If he had a minor diplomat make an "offhand" remark about extra nukes being built, then he could back down or double down as the situation demands. Now the US is, "Trump said it. How do we move forward?"


Sending your message in a "can't back down" fashion has strong advantages.

If you make a statement deniable, it clearly signals that you are prepared to deny it. Such a threat is pretty much garbage.

If your opponent believes you are not, in fact, prepared to defect, his correct play is to defect.


Only true if you have the necessary backing (in the case of PotUS the backing of congress and the military). While Trump shares the same party affiliation his ties to the rest of the republican party are... weak. Trump is not really favored of the wider Republican party in actual political circles (as opposed to the popular circles that elected him in the primaries). In order to escalate nuclear armament Trump will have to get backing from Congress with budget allocations, and since nuclear armaments are nominally under the Department of Energy, having a cabinet official in charge of that department who argued for disbanding that same department makes a mess that undermines even warhead modernization, much les arsenal buildup.

On top of that this just muddies the waters with Trump's statements of friendship and cooperation with Russia/Putin, in addition to the muddied waters of nuclear escalation while disbanding the department in charge of nuclear weapons. Trump's public stances don't make for a cohesive whole, and that leaves a lot of room for doubt and suspicions that he's either bluffing, or worse, (to abuse a poker analogy) when it comes to actually playing the cards in his hand they may not actually make up a scoring hand (if indeed his hand doesn't include cards from an Uno deck and a few Community Chest cards out of a Monopoly box).
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:47 pm UTC

You're telling me that a Republican president won't be able to persuade a Republican congress and senate to boost spending on defense?

Really?

You're quite sure that Republicans, facing off against Russians building more nukes, won't back a Republican president who prefers a strong counter force. I feel like dislike of Trump has made many of his detractors ignore blatantly obvious facts.

I know, it's convenient to describe the opposition as idiots(he can't tell what different cards are, hah!). It feels comforting. All those people who voted for him? Idiots too. Along with all the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote. Everyone's idiots. Everyone but you. Obviously, all of that success is just luck, or more idiots supporting one of their own. Why, such a tortured interpretation of intelligence would describe it as a liability instead of an advantage.

morriswalters
Posts: 6437
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:There are not enough nukes to destroy the world a thousand times over. There are, perhaps, enough nukes to destroy humanity. Not all of it, mind, but modern civilization would certainly take a beating.
No planet busters for sure. But able to kill every man women and child. Yeah we could have. Just the warheads in the US and the USSR totaled about 70,000 devices versus the more sane level that we see today. If sane is a word that applies.
Tyndmyr wrote:Sending your message in a "can't back down" fashion has strong advantages.
Trump is evidently channeling Nixon and using the Madman strategy. Either that or he suffers from impulse control issues. I vote for the second.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Twitter is not the ideal medium to convey the nuance, abstractness, etc etc of cold war style diplomacy. Or any diplomacy for that matter. For one thing, Trump can't back down without losing face. If he had a minor diplomat make an "offhand" remark about extra nukes being built, then he could back down or double down as the situation demands. Now the US is, "Trump said it. How do we move forward?"


Sending your message in a "can't back down" fashion has strong advantages.

If you make a statement deniable, it clearly signals that you are prepared to deny it. Such a threat is pretty much garbage.

If your opponent believes you are not, in fact, prepared to defect, his correct play is to defect.

You're assuming Trump won't back down. He has shown weakness before. Remember how he was grovelling to the women he insulted twice? Abortion and assaulting women, he's backed down when he got yelled at for that. It's not normal or OK to conduct diplomacy via Twitter. Just like how it's not OK to deny climate change is happening. Nobody is going to stop you from doing it, is still a bad idea with consequences.
Trump talks tough, but he's still concerned about making money for himself.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: News in brief

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

Maybe he'll back down, maybe he won't. But if you show you're planning on backing down from the beginning of the move, it's an obvious bluff. It may or may not actually be a bluff. But an unpersuasive bluff is a terrible move.

Not normal to conduct diplomacy via twitter, perhaps. And I'm not overly fond of the medium myself. But apparently it's a legitimate news thing, now. Every tv show doesn't hesitate to cite tweets. So, it works.

As for making money, I'm not sure how that applies here.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests