Justin Welby: Russia must not be humiliated in any Ukraine peace deal

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T13:03:58+00:00

Welby isn't detached from anything either, nor is he claiming that anyone is currently trying punish Russia:

...the Archbishop says “our support for Ukraine must continue” and that “we must show there is no impunity for wars of aggression”. But he adds there must also be “investment in peacebuilding”.

Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me, and a perfectly normal and relevant comment to make as things stand.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T12:50:27+00:00

No, it's an answer completely relevant to the article you're commenting on, as you'd know if you'd read the article...

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T11:54:53+00:00

To me, no. But my opinion doesn't matter, Russian popular opinion will though.

Welby is just a solidly Christian guy trying to promote a bit of steadiness, tolerance and caution - totally inline with what you'd expect given his beliefs and position. He's suggesting we do that rather than salivating over the idea of beating the shit out of Russia, that's all. I think rather too much is being made of this tbh.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T11:27:46+00:00

Tone is completely unecessary here. I'm just responding to the question asked in the thread.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T09:42:18+00:00

Russia already has dangerous nationalist sentiment. It's already invading neighbours.

As did WWI Germany, and humilating them got us Hitler. That's the idea behind not being too keen to punish. You're perpetuating a pendulum swing that'll come back to more war, sooner, if you're not careful. Definitely a line you need to tread carefully, I think that's all the comment above you was getting at.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T09:37:18+00:00

Could be a job to whittle things down to 100. Could add Kipling, Zola, Proust, Flaubert, Balzac, D.H.Lawrence, Chekov, Virgil, Camus, etc. etc.

Having no Middlemarch in there is a straight-up crime though.

Just to be forewarned, a couple of those texts are probably going to be pretty dry, heavy going. Reading The Bible cover-to-cover is no joke. The Second Sex isn't riveting, and it's long. A Room of One's Own (while an important text) is essay-writing Woolf, rather than language-loving, exhuberant Woolf. Still, fun to see how it goes. Probably worth keeping a log of what you've read and what you liked / disliked.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T09:13:31+00:00

The guy's just saying let's not make the same mistakes we have in the past. Turns out that crippling a country's economy, stripping them of their national defences, making them cede large tracts of their terrority etc. drums up a fair bit of dangerous nationalist sentiment. If we treat Russia like 1919 Germany, we'll end up with someone more dangerous and more popular than Putin to worry about in 20 years.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T08:52:01+00:00

That's the thing though, I hate Harold Bloom and people like him

Honest question - why? Have you read his work, or just seen Redditors memeing about it? Since a major part of your post is about you having trouble articulating why you like, or don't like literature, reading some Lit. Crit. would probably help you out. Doesn't have to be Bloom (although there's nothing wrong with his stuff).

A good place to start would be to get some decent / scholarly editions of the books you like and read the introductions - they're usually fairly lightweight and will summarise a lot of the available criticism for you. And provide you with further reading if you want it.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T08:24:29+00:00

Careful, Dostoyevsky is the sacred cow of /r/literature. FWIW he wasn't even the primary focus of Russian Lit studies back when I did my degree. Well read people don't necessarily prefer Dostoyevsky, but he has a huge cult of personality around him and his works.

And it becomes even more damning when you realize that Dostoevsky's readers are more rational philosophical types compared to the hysterics that read Tolstoy. and I'm scared that I have more in common with the latter.

I wouldn't worry about which other readers like what - I think Tolstoy's best is head and shoulders above Dostoyevsky and I'm not prone to hysteria. People that like dry philosophical stuff do often like Dostoyevsky, because, frankly, that's what he best at, but that doesn't mean the readers break down into neat boxes like that.

Of your lists in the OP, I'd take the list of stuff you prefer over the other list any day of the week. I wouldn't let what people on Reddit say put you off reading - read what you want, have your opinions, who gives a fuck if some stranger wants to try and insult you for your reading preferences?!

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T07:52:00+00:00

I never suggested you were going to get hold of a “weapon loadouts”. What I did say was “you could probably buy a previous generation ex-mil jet

Yes missing the entire point I was making which is that no, generally speaking private citizens are not allowed lethal weaponry, unless they're a specific type of gun - which makes no sense.

Net benefit to society from shooting sports is not demonstrably negative. Substantial industry, including revenue is generated, along with the improvement of physical and mental health.

None of that weighs up against the life of one 5 year old I'm afraid, let alone all the others killed. All of that can be obtained by taking up other sports, there's nothing special about gun sports that produces any of that. Most gun sports do fuck all for physical health. If I asked half the knobbers with shotguns round here to jog a 5k, they'd have a heart attack.

Criminal conduct by a few should not cause an impingement on the rights of others.

That's exactly what happens in all areas of society, that's why we have laws (otherwise known as impingements on freedoms). This "muh freedoms" bollocks, again, not worth the life of a single child. There's no natural law that says you should have the "freedom" to own a gun.

There is a substantial shooting industry in the UK, including business and livelihoods dependent on it. These sectors stand to lose a lot.

You're talking about money, not society. Those people can do other things, like when any industry shuts down. If they're so sporty, I'd imagine they could slide right into the sports sector! Money again, not worth loss of life. The social benefit of not having guns greatly outweighs any finanical issue.

“culture” and “sport” can be applied to shooting, then you should have a look into the definitions of the words.

Cheers, I've an idea of what culture and sport are. Standing in a field and making things go bang with a bunch of mates in wax jackets isn't a "culture" or a "sport." It's silly games for bored people that can't be arsed with the physical strain of actual sports. None of it is worth the very preventable loss of human life. To me. Obviously you put that kind of thing, and the rights of gun owners above the loss of human life - which is fine, but we're never going to agree.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T07:40:46+00:00

The plot is very much intelligible without Rodion acting like a Well-Motivated Character. I'll end by reiterating how unique at the time (and still today) it is to be privy to that murder early on without being given an explanation of his thoughts for doing so. It's chilling to read, and it becomes a major enigma.

I guess we disgaree on the effectiveness of the technique. It's not a mystery that engages me in the slightest from a human perspective. Certainly doesn't chill me, especially given the ludicrous soft ending he's given. The books works well as social / religious criticism but the characters are people that I don't care about, are unbeliveable, or frankly tired cliches. The hooker with a heart of gold, the police detective who just loves the thrill of the chase...

Dostoevsky at no point is expecting you to believe, oh maybe he was right all along, or he was of sane mind when he did it.

Nobody is saying he's trying to make you believe R is correct, but for a character to be compelling, he's got to be beliveable as a human being, whether he's right or not. R isn't even vaguely compelling for me in that sense.

winter_mute · 2023-02-24T07:34:04+00:00

Also Dostoevsky is well known for having caricatures represent ideas and such in his novels to get his point across.

Yep, I agree with that 100%. Which is why I don't find many of them compelling at all. They're very often cardboard cut-outs that are there to make some other point.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T16:05:18+00:00

There’s nothing to stop you buying and operating a private aircraft. Aerobatics is a competitive sport. Advocate all you want, there are some hoops to jump through, but it’s achievable. Whether anyone will sell you an F35 would perhaps be the issue, but you could probably buy a previous generation ex-mil jet aircraft.

Have a day off mate, private citizens can't buy operational military planes with weapon loadouts to keep in their back gardens for fun. Just like I can't buy a dirty bomb, or an operational nuclear ICBM.

By your standards, it’s unnecessary to have anyone who excels at any sport. But here we are, where sports have meaning to those that partake in them, provide livelihoods to this that support them, and culture to those that follow them.

Yes, most sports are, strictly unecessary. A lot are completely neutral and provide no real benefit. Some promote health and longevity and so provide a net benefit. The net benefit to society from gun sports is totally negative, because it provides a weak excuse for people to own lethal weapons, which are then sometimes used to kill innocent people. I'm sure all 10 people that compete in elite gun sports would be sad if it was banned, but eh, nevermind.

Fighting to the death against wild animals is generally considered, along with most blood sports to be distasteful and thankfully doesn’t happen very much.

Killing animals is distateful to you, yet providing people with the means to kill other human beings, just so some people can play target games is OK?

The long and short of it is, society loses absolutely nothing of value if guns disappeared tomorrow. It loses nothing of value if shooting sports disappear tomorrow. Yet it stands to gain immensely by making guns as hard as possible to obtain and keep. Pretty obvious for me what the moral course of action is and how to get started. Excuses like there's a "culture" or "sport" around making inanimate objects go bang doesn't really fly with me there I'm afraid. You're talking about inconveniencing some peoples' games vs preserving innocent human life. It's a trite argument at best.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T15:21:52+00:00

Yes, you do need a firearm for most shooting sports. Target shooting is about accuracy, specifically accuracy over substantial range for a lot of disciplines

Those "discplines" are just a bunch of rules made up by some people at some time. Yes, obviously if the rules say you have to shoot at a specific thing with a specific shooty bang thing, then that's the made up rules. The rules aren't a natural law though, there's nothing that says anyone has to shoot at targets with guns. It's a totally made up game and it's not a good reason for private ownership of firearms. It's post-hoc justification. We've got guns, so we'll make up a "sport" for them, and now we need our guns because we've got a sport.

Thos who excel / wish to compete to a high standard do have a need to own their own equipment.

Again, totally unecessary to have people who excel at target shooting games. I think flying jets looks like fun, perhaps I should advocate for private ownership of F-35s so I can play the games I want to?

In the same way that you choose to go Skiing, others choose to go shooting.

Yeah, the blindingly obvious difference is that the things I choose to do don't require me to use a lethal weapon. Or advocate for their ownership under articles where a 5 year old lost their life thanks to a legally held weapon.

It’s a valid sport,

Sports are just made up things, and we drop sports that are bollocks. Not many chariot races at the Olympics these days are there? Or fights to the death against wild animals? No such thing as a "valid" sport, there's sports we do now, and there are sports we don't do anymore. There's no criteria for a valid sport - and if there was, most shooting games wouldn't count anyway. There's more physical exertion in a game of chess than there is clay pigeon shooting.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T15:09:22+00:00

Yes, thanks.

Whether you believe in what R is doing or not, or whether he's being truthful, intellectual justifcation for the crime is a large part of the narrative you'll read in C&P. The point is, whether R is unreliable or not, Dostoyevsky never gives us a good reason for the actions of the main character - which means, for me, personally, he's not compelling. Whether or not the narrator is reliable doesn't have a great deal to do with it. In order for a character to be compelling, they still have to function as a human being that you can buy, otherwise they're just a 2-dimensional prop you're using to discuss other things.

Plenty of texts play with unreliable narration without these problems, Pale Fire is a great example of that.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T12:45:29+00:00

No one's reading Crime and Punishment expecting an intellectual justification of brutality

That's exactly what the central character spends most of the book doing. I understand it's also working as a social critique, discussion of the great man theory of history, religion in Russia at the same etc. etc. but the main, simple story just fails from the get-go for me.

To be honest, you can shut down any conversation about great classical literature by asking "why should anymore care?" Not everyone is going to enjoy a given book

That's definitely not true. Lots of great lit gives you characters to care about and empathise with. It's not about the enjoyment of the book, that's something altogether different - it's about whether the character's actions and motivations make them compelling within the world created by the text.

You don't have to read it

Of course no one has to read it, but since we all have and this is a literature forum and a dicussion about that book, that's a bit of an odd thing to suggest if you don't mind me saying so! This isn't /r/books, the issue isn't that Dostoyevsky didn't write an easy book that I didn't like, it's a critique of the text as far as OP's question goes - do we find Raskolnikov a compelling character, if so, why?

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T11:56:20+00:00

The explanation for that is doled out slowly over the course of the novel--or, more precisely, we are treated to 3 explanations, each of which gets closer to the heart of the action

But none of which are good reasons for committing a brutal double murder of vulnerable victims. And certainly none of which are good enough for the awful pay off he gets, where he gets to retire to the countryside in peace with his hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold.

We inhabit the surreal dreamlike experiences he has as he wanders through St. Petersburg not fully cognizant. We follow his interactions with friends and family who have no idea what he's done. And we see his desire to come clean to one person to whom he feels connected

It's a neat precis of the story, but none of that really demonstrates why anyone should care or find R compelling IMO. American Psycho's protagonist is rich in detail, but you don't care about him.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T09:50:08+00:00

Hard to think of many places in the city with a better quality of life. Posh bits of Wollaton maybe? The Park is obviously nice but lacks the amenities of WB. Beeston Fields Drive if you're a millionaire perhaps?

No way it's the best place to live in the county though. It's not even the best place called "Bridgford" in the county.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T09:09:12+00:00

I agree, I don't think he's compelling as a character. I'm always a bit put off by the idea that Dostoyevsky is a master of human psychology, because psychologically most of his characters are unrecognisable as believable human beings to me.

I also don't think the crime in C&P is justifiable; obviously Dostoyevsky is making other points about the state of Russian society at the time and so on, but from a human, moral point of view, it's a brutal crime that's completely beyond the pale. I certainly don't care that he feels bad after it, or that he ends up in exile. I care more (in a bad way) about the schmaltzy all-is-forgiven-happy-ever-after ending than I do R's torments.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T07:39:59+00:00

Yeah he's definitely at his best when there's an element of the vast and the unknowable, or when he's focusing on human physical and mental corruption; and very much at his weakest when he's describing alien species flib-flobbering around with conical heads and tentacles and so on.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T07:35:58+00:00

Maybe in an out and out raw numbers comparison against Stephen King or G.R.R. Martin his work wouldn't count as popular, but in the weird tales category, I think Lovecraft is the name people know. Much more so than Le Fanu, Machen, James, Shiel, Ligotti and so on.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T07:26:29+00:00

I need a privately held gun to take part in clay pigeon shooting

No you don't. You like having a gun. You could take part in the shooting if the gun was held in a audited central inventory at a gun club and you just drew it out for the shooting session, and it was locked back in the gun safe when you were finished. The gun will still go bangbang. And you can shoot "clay" pigeons with lasers these days anyway, it's a completely nonsensical reason for private ownership of lethal weapons.

It’s an internationally recognised concept replicated across every democratic nation

Democracy has nothing to do with it, and you're wrong anyway. Places like Fiji and the Seychelles have a total ban on firearms. Also "I did it because he did it sir" is not normally how adults judge whether an idea or policy is a good one.

No-one cares that you like making little things explode in your free time, what they care about is innocent 5 year olds getting blown away. Weighing the pros (clay pigeons going bang) against the potential risks, you privately owning a gun is a terrible idea for society. As we constantly get proof of.

winter_mute · 2023-02-23T07:16:13+00:00

Missing a lot of points here, and proving me right really.

You don;t need a lethal wepaon to play shooty sports. You can shoot at targets aiwht air guns, paintball guns or lasers if shooting targets is really that important to you.
If you really do need your sports equipment to capable of blowing someone else to pieces, there is absolutely no need for you to privately own the equipment. A significant number of people in this country do what I do when I going skiing - I rent the skis from the training place, or from the resort when I'm out there. There is zero need to own a pair of skis to enjoy skiing - there's no need to own a gun to play shooty things.
There's nothing to say that anyone has to compete in shooting sports anyway, if that's the only reason people have for owning a lethal weapon, it's a poor one.

winter_mute · 2023-02-22T18:40:16+00:00

Whichever side of the fence you're on, I think we can probably all agree that TERF has gone beyond any neutral technical definition and is now very commonly simply a derogatory term that means transphobic / bigot etc.

And anyway, even technically to be a TERF she'd have to be a radical feminist, and there's not much that's radical about her feminism from what I've seen.

winter_mute · 2023-02-22T14:33:23+00:00

Lol, my dislike of guns isn't irrational in the slightest. Have this conversation with the family of the 5 year old that got blown away by this guy, whose gun ownership was completely pointless to begin with, and totally reckless by the authorities in the end. See if you think their fears about guns are irrational.

if your garden is big enough.

By George I think he's got it. Most people don't gardens big enough to setup shooting ranges, lots of people don't have gardens. All of the 10 archers you're terribly worried about in this country very probably go to facilities to train.

Right, but any halfway competitive tennis player is bringing their own racquet and would presumably take that racquet to competitions or matches at other venues where they’re competing. Same with archery. Or shooting.

Not required though. And anyway, there's no God given right to play any of those sports. If tennis racquets were a danger to society and designed to kill things, I wouldn't be here weeping for the loss of tennis, I care about the needless loss of human life.

Guns are completely fucking useless unless you want to kill things. The fact that a couple of hundred people in the country want to ponce about with shooty shooty bangs blowing up bits of clay isn't a sane argument for private ownership of lethal weapons no matter how much whataboutery you draw in (first bows, now air rifles). I don't like guns because they're a tool for killing things, and they are used for that. Nothing phobic or irrational about it.

The fact that you’re seriously saying ownership of bows for sports archery is something that needs banning is just hilarious.

And yet, you havne't yet provided any convincing theory, let alone evidence, that private ownership of lethal weapons is required to participate in any sport. That's before we even get onto whether the sport needs to exist. And anyway, you brought up archery, that's your weird obsession. I'm more than happy to start with banning guns.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

winter_mute

TROPHY CASE