It’s not the story in general, it’s the “but always a man” that’s objectionable.

If it weren’t for that “but always a man”, there would be no issue. Celebrating “but always a man” is the issue driving objections here.

That’s one hell of a strawman to invent and ascribe to folks who have no whiff of implying minorities shouldn’t receive representation.

That’s the neat part, there are no good guys.

In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So “appeasement” worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more “gray area” so it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.

For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.

But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don’t have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.

Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn’t significant “gray area” to find in this scenario.

There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren’t useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually “caving” to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the “let the dictator win without resistance” strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.

I’d say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly “pro-war”, as they went in without provocation and the justification of “WMD” was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.

If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it’s weird to characterize self-defense as “pro-war” or “being a war hawk”. One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it’s wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as “pro-war”.

For example, I haven’t thrown a punch in decades, I don’t want to throw a punch and I’ll avoid doing so if there’s a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.

I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).

I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won’t fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there’s still a theme of making it clear that you’re ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward “but should we spend our money?” to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.

This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn’t claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.

Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually “pro-war”. In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being “pro-war”.

you’re pro-war, actually.

Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I’m sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I’m not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn’t want any punches thrown in the first place.

To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the ‘good’ folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.

Further, it’s not our blood to commit, it’s the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it’s their skin in the game, not our forces. It’s their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.

Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to ‘a couple of provinces’ is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).

Generally accurate, but need to address ways they get money whole avoiding realization of taxable capital gains (e.g. borrowing).

But yes, even if he is a paper trillionaire, you won’t find people willing to actually give him a trillion dollars for his stocks. It’s still some absurdly high number, but our math does not really model exactly what the “real” wealth would be.

The big concern is the rich dodging taxes on value increase. In theory you have the “shares as income” when acquired as a restricted stock, and then capital gains/loss to cover value change between acquisition and sale. However there’s room for loopholes when using the unrealized value of the stock as basis for a loan, to defer tax and potentially all the way to death and then doing other tracks around estate taxes.

The S&P 500 is “worth” 45 trillion dollars.

The M2 money supply is less than half of that. There does not exist as money dollars to spend as the nominal value of all the stock.

The stock value is extrapolated from the shares that do move, but those extrapolations fall apart in the “cash it all out” scenario.

That being said, it just means we have to be careful about how we proceed. For example, better tax capture of loans and estates, which is a big dodge for people with high stock wealth.

Well, the 9/11 wasn’t about the human body. Rubbing ass against the screen is outright unsanitary.