Because people understand that their perspective might be incomplete or wrong, and/or the consequences of failure are reversible.
People also understand that "correctness" is often subjective and not boolean in nature, so insisting their opinion is in all ways the most correct would be silly.
You have the life experience to know what will and won't affect you, and you've found an equilibrium of control and impact that apparently makes you happy.
That's very you specific, not really related to your age, other than that it took you until your 30s to find that equilibrium.
There's nothing at all written down anywhere that ensures such an equilibrium for everyone, however. Especially for folks who represent a minority in their society, life is a lot more threatening and a lot less controllable for them, typically.
For some, that equilibrium may never come, and while that doesn't invalidate your experience, it certainly doesn't support the idea that "you'll calm down when you're older".
> You have the life experience to know what will and won't affect you, and you've found an equilibrium of control and impact that apparently makes you happy.
I think some people have too much empathy to ever reach that point.
I have a few friends that literally broke out in tears when Russia began the invasion of Ukraine. They don't know a single person in Ukraine. Nothing about the war truly has an effect on their day-to-day lives. They don't even have investments that got clobbered.
Yet they shed tears over innocent civilian lives being lost.
These people have been on the verge of nervous breakdown ever since COVID hit.
Seeing people on such an extreme end makes me feel like I might be slightly sociopathic because I read the news and just think "Well that sucks" and then move on with my day, knowing it makes no difference to me and my life.
What you're feeling is selfishness, not sociopathy, for what it's worth! I don't think a sociopath would wonder what you're wondering here, but I'm no expert.
I think of selfishness and I think of taking deliberate actions to serve ones self at the detriment of others. Things like hoarding limited resources or taking a second slice of cake before everyone has had their first.
I will never forgive you, John. You denied me cake.
Eh no, "speaking up" has varying outcomes in varying environments, this is not a universal constant.
I've chosen the job I have now specifically because I wanted to be able to do something about things I see that could be going wrong. Anyone can do this, but especially smart people.
Per the discussion, it only ends once sanctions are lifted, and that requires a willingness from "us" to make peace with Russia. If there is feelings of spitefulness for what they did the sanctions could continue even after Russia pulls out.
> and that requires a willingness from "us" to make peace with Russia
This is false. It requires a willingness from Russia to stop invading Ukraine. What you're writing here is appeasement, and it it's a very bad idea both generally and specifically with regards to global economic stability.
Yes, Russia can attempt appeasement by leaving Ukraine, but we have to accept that gesture for peace to be made. There is no reason why we have to lift sanctions just because they tried to appease us. We probably would for a number of reasons, but we don't have to make peace if we don't want to.
No, Russia would have to appease the West to see sanctions lifted. If the sanctions were lifted first to please Russia, what motivation would Russia have to leave Ukraine?
What is your opinion on whether or not Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine?
Because nobody here is talking about lifting the sanctions to please Russia, Russia would have to stop invading Ukraine, which is explicitly not "Appeasement"[0] considering they're the aggressor and the ones creating the conflict.
The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
> Because nobody here is talking about lifting the sanctions to please Russia
Right, as the ball is in Russia's court to appease the West to see them lifted, and so what political, material, or territorial concessions are being made by the West to avoid conflict? In reality, Russia is the one who must concede on Ukrainian territory for sanctions to be lifted.
> The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
This is a logical fallacy. One's feelings towards the matter have absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.
Not really my area of expertise. Any opinions I have would be pure tribalism, which is rather meaningless, and completely off-topic. I came into a discussion about the use of language, not geopolitical relations. What was wrong with the original subject that you feel the need to change it?
I think their definition of "Apeasement" they linked above can specifically only be used when talking about an "aggressive power" (cf. wikipedia)
Thus, to solve the problem of what would be "apeasement", you need to resolve the question or which of the parties involved (Russia, Ukraine, "the West", the US, etc.) should be considered "aggressive".
And that's why this question, which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinion, is not a change of subject
> which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinion
Appeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict. The conflict in Ukraine hasn't been avoided and remains ongoing, so Russia does not fit no matter how you slice it. Nor does the West, to be fair. Conflict hasn't been avoided full stop.
If, for argument's sake, conflict has been avoided, it is important to understand what concessions have been made to Russia, if Russia is the aggressor. It matters not who the aggressor is if nobody is performing appeasement in the first place. I am not aware of the West providing any concessions to keep Russia happy as it pertains to this. Instead, sanctions has been imposed against their wishes.
Russia pulling out and conceding Ukrainian territory back to Ukraine to keep the West happy is how sanctions will be lifted. The West is not the aggressor in the war, but could be considered an aggressor when it comes to sanctions. They were very much intended to be putative. If appeasement is relevant (which is debatable), that is where it fits given the subject of what it will take to see sanctions lifted.
One's feelings about whether or not Russia is justified is irrelevant and a change in subject. Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
> Appeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict.
You're simply using a different definition from them
> Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
As a matter of fact, languages I know (including English) are not built like that.
The closest "language" i know from this property is mathematics.
What is it that you thought? Your comment is unclear. That you, deep down, knew your appeal to emotion would fail? Being from the West, my uneducated, tribalist-driven opinion says that Russia is not justified. But, again, not my area of expertise and not a subject I have much interest in. I do, however, enjoy the subject of language which is why I am participating in this conversation about the use of language. Let's stick with that.
Bringing this back to the topic at hand, how do you see the West appeasing Russia leading to sanctions being lifted?
I don't care about Ukraine nor who started it. It's none of our business. What I do care about is the supply chain going back to normal. Let's make peace with Russia.
Eh, it doesn’t feel like work for me. I really enjoy my partner, she enjoys me, and I don’t think we have to do very much “work” to maintain that.
If I started writing literal daily notes to my wife, she’d be very concerned something was wrong. Then she’d ask why I’m wasting my time writing a note when I could have done… literally annoying else more productive lol
To me this sounds similar to the old saying "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life"
I've found this to simply mean that you enjoy the work you put in. Gamers can spend hours getting good at a game. Few would call it practice, they'd call it play. However, whatever you call it you need it to get good.
Whatever that thing is that you put into a relationship, it's needed.
> Eh, it doesn’t feel like work for me. I really enjoy my partner, she enjoys me, and I don’t think we have to do very much “work” to maintain that.
For some people it isn't until it is. There are many things that can break a great relationship. Routine, lack of common projects, financial difficulties, personal struggle of one or both.
+1 here because my marriage is amazing but we do get stuck in routines, we have no common interests really except very small things, both have struggled with personal loss/grief and are currently experiencing financial difficulty.
It has been 16 years and somehow head to pillow every night still brings a smile to my face for this amazing woman being the love of my life.
Not everyone gets so lucky. Some people have to settle for a partner they can love but is not really their ideal match.
This is where it takes work. You have to accept the fact every day this is your partner, you have to wrestle with thoughts of perhaps coming across an actual ideal partner some day. You have to learn to love your partner, and do things to make them happy, not necessarily things you want to do.
Because the alternative is to just be single and die alone surrounded by no one, childless in some nursing home where nurses increasingly don’t give a fuck about you the closer you are to death.
Some people will argue being single isn’t so bad. But for a person whose goal it is to be married and share life with someone it can be a fate worse than death. And the longer it takes to get married the more of your life you are living without sharing experiences with anyone that matters to you.
> Not everyone gets so lucky. Some people have to settle for a partner they can love but is not really their ideal match.
> This is where it takes work. You have to accept the fact every day this is your partner, you have to wrestle with thoughts of perhaps coming across an actual ideal partner some day. You have to learn to love your partner, and do things to make them happy, not necessarily things you want to do
If this is actually your personal experience, could you share more of it?
I've always ended up dating women who absolutely love me but who I am somewhat ambivalent to after a few weeks. Most of life already feels like work to me, was hoping a romantic relationship wouldn't. But I've thought often of throwing in the towel and settling for the next sane one even if I'm bored. Because wife + kids sounds long term better than fun uncle who ultimately dies alone.
My advice is date a lot of women, to get an idea of what you like. Then after that, the next best one you find that comes closest to what you like, marry that one and settle down. Forget about finding anyone better, they may be out there, but you don’t have the time and your lives may not be compatible.
for starters i think it helps to accept that the ideal partner doesn't exist. everyone has flaws on one way or another. the problem is that when you meet that seemingly ideal person some day, that person only looks ideal because you haven't seen their bad sides yet. i think it really helps to keep that in mind. better to deal with the devil you know, than starting over with an unknown.
for your problem, i would want to look closely what it is that makes you feel ambivalent after a few weeks. try giving it more time to see if you still feel like that. get to know each other better, plan your potential future life together to get an understanding what each of you want from a relationship. love alone is not enough.
I think my ambivalence comes from a lack of excitement while just casually socializing. I have plenty of best friends who are hilarious and fascinating, that by comparison I can feel quite empty with a woman who is otherwise quite a catch. I'm trying to give the current one more time because maybe it's a function of how familiar we are with eachother and the experiences we've shared. Romantic relationships as an adult can feel so contrived!
from my experience it definitely makes a difference how well we knew each other, whether it was easy to just hang out. when you don't know each other, there is a lot of insecurity as to how to interact, and what the other will allow or expect or find uncomfortable. i guess most people in that situation will be cautious as to not appear to try to move to quickly, and that may lead to the experience you had.
what i found helpful is to not focus on romantic dates but join group activities where there is no pressure to interact directly. your friends and her friends or even some other group that you both join for some activity. there is still plenty of opportunity to get to know each other that way, because you will see how each of you act around other people.
It is nice, I guess you are fortunate to have a relationship that basically maintains itself. For most people, proper communication and keeping a commitment to open up emotionally when you need to is work.
These are separate things, I suppose. One can live a very challenging life, including the usual (or unusual...) kids trouble, and still find comfort in the relationship with their spouse.
Where in the world is Carmen Sandi’s ego?