Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

Ultimately we are all products of evolution. While some aspects of our nature are instinctive (no external sensorial input is needed to exhibit certain hebaviour), others we learn from observing the surrounding (external sensorial input). If you say all behavior is ultimatelly biological, well, of course you are right, but you are not considering what could have been observed learned behavior on the way.

> The question is simple.

It most certainly is not.

> Would it be beautiful for you to see people banning US athletes? At this point, I think it would, for many people. Why don't we see it anywhere? That's the question.

This does reach the crux of the matter. Why don't we see Cubans boycotting American athletes and gaining major international support? Why aren't Syrians raising hell at every athletic competition, protesting that Americans and Turks are allowed to compete? Everyone's free to join in and boycott, so why don't they? Answer: Because on the whole it's not important enough to them to warrant the investment of effort and time. Because America's behaviors aren't that far out of the international norm of today (sad to say). That "suddenly" hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for quite some time.

And that's how we measure moral shifts. One day the shittier things America does today will be protest worthy, but our morality has not moved that far yet, and we still have much bigger fish to fry.

So to answer your question: I feel strongly about one case but not the other because they are not equivalent. And worrying about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

And that's the beef I have over whataboutism: It makes storms in teacups. That's what it's designed for, and why it's rightly called a logical fallacy.

What Russia is doing is analogous to what USA did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't allow a neighboring country, especially one that was a former ally, to join an enemy military alliance and pose an existential threat to some of your citizens, by, say, pointing nuclear missiles at you -- neither now nor in 15 years. Any country would react to being surrounded and cornered, including today's USA. That at least has some relation to self-defense and preservation: you don't want to take the chances that a "purely defensive alliance" which already bombed destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya will now stop bombing and destroying.

So what you said honestly seems backwards to me on every level, including logical, ethical, and reality.

Logical: You say we should not "worry about all the little problems before starting to solve the big ones." So are you trying to say that going halfway around the world, bombing, invading, occupying and destroying multiple countries, and resulting in over a million deaths, is a much smaller problem, than invading one country to prevent it from joining a hostile alliance? The number of countries is larger. The death toll is also larger. The destruction is larger. But you have it backwards somehow. If you applied your principle, it would mean we would actually have to prioritize preventing USA from doing this anymore, not Russia. I am saying we should do both.

Ethical: How is going halfway around the world to attack countries that pose literally ZERO threat to your country, less worthy of moral condemnation, than getting militarily involved around your own localized borders in order to stop that same "globetrotter" from flipping your neighbor against you? One has an actual connection to self defense, and the other literally does not. But you have it backwards, again.

Reality: billions of people recognize that NATO's expansion led to this, USA's own experts predicted it, and even the Ukrainians themselves did NOT want to be part of NATO, when George W Bush vowed to bring them into NATO kicking and screaming anyway. Every sound bite you are you told to repeat, including "open door policy", "purely defensive" and "unprovoked and unjustified", is backwards.

Ukraine says NO to NATO: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n...

Bush vows to press for Ukraine in NATO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo...

Decades of warnings predicting NATO expansion leading to this exact war: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...

50 prominent US policy experts said this back in 1999: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...

Billions of people hold NATO responsible for Ukraine war more than Russia: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib...

Even the pope says it repeatedly and doubles down on it: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat...

Nigel Farage warned about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg

Tulsi Gabbard and many politicians say it could have been avoided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4

Progressives try to push for peace: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/25/democrats-jo...

The very peacemakers who were brokering peace in the first week of the war say USA and UK blocked the peace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yma0LxyVVs

I could go on... but my point is it's backwards. This is plain and simple a way for USA to push through a surrounding of Russia at Ukraine's expense ... if they can get it done, great. If not, well Ukraine paid the price, they "wanted to fight" after all.

Still not competitive at the top level.

Even being behaviorism real-life experiments.

Aaaaand now we've taken a hard-right into propaganda territory, so I'll get off here.

I would suggest consulting Timothy Snyder, Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University, specializing in the modern history of Central and Eastern Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_D._Snyder

His lectures are available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJczLlwp-d8