This is more of a you problem than a me problem. Perhaps you should try not to reduce arguments to less than 200 characters, but I suspect it's uncontrollable due to longterm Twitter usage given your particular patois.
As long as I am summarizing your thesis accurately, I see no problem at all.
As it happens, I haven't intentionally read anything on Twitter for well over a decade. But if it is helpful for you to simply assume that, should anyone care to question your deep, penetrating analysis of recent human history and its impact on current events today; and even worse, fail to appreciate your enthusiasm for run-on paragraphs full of ungrounded abstractions and broken analogies, peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess); and all in the service of watering down, and therewith attempting to "explain" actual, real and incredibly blatant neocolonial aggression happening today -- why gosh, it must be because they're an analphabetic, Twitter-addled idiot, that's all -- then I suppose that this is a "valid" strategy for you.
>[...] peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess) [...]
I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so. This accusation of using Latin for rhetorical purposes is an admission of this. You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?" No, you just made a sophistic jibe, twice.
There's no substance to the rest of your rant, so I'll kindly request for you to read and use Paul Graham's How to Disagree[1].
You could've asked yourself "Do I understand the significance of Carthago delenda est in this context? Could I ask for clarification?"
And if you prefer to believe that if people don't buy into your hand-wavy, faux-erudite arguments, then it must be because they're simply too dumb to understand the intended import of Carthago delenda est -- then that may provide you with an additional layer of comfort.
I honestly don't think you understand the thesis or have the historical understanding to do so.
The precious irony here is that this very sentence is an overt instance of the second class on Paul's list of argument styles to avoid, in the very article you cite (and attempt to chide others for not having read) -- the venerable ad hominem attack. (The other sentence quoted above was essentially a variant of this attack, if in a slightly roundabout fashion).
>I understand that historical references can definitely add depth to a conversation, but if they aren’t framed well or contextualized, they come off as pretentious. I don't think you did a good job contextualizing your references, so it comes off to me as pseudo-intellectual and apologetic for the Russians. Comparing an active warzone to historical trivia also seems inappropriate for reasons I don't quite understand. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, can you clarify what you meant by Carthago delenda est?
Sure, I'd be happy to clarify! In the ancient Mediterranean, Rome and Carthage were the two dominant powers. The phrase Carthago delenda est, meaning "Carthage must be destroyed," was used by Roman statesman Cato the Elder to stress the need for Carthage’s complete elimination in the leadup to the Third (and final) Punic War, even though Carthage wasn’t an active threat at that point. Rome imposed strict limits on Carthage’s military actions, and despite Carthage adhering to these treaties, Rome still found a pretext to accuse them of aggression after a conflict with a neighboring kingdom. Ultimately, Rome used this as justification to invade, destroy the city, and remove Carthage as a competitor entirely.
In invoking this reference, I’m suggesting that geopolitical dynamics often follow a similar logic—where powerful nations might frame another power as a threat, even if that threat is not imminent, in order to justify aggressive actions. I’m not apologizing for Russian actions, but pointing out that the motivations behind international conflicts often follow the same patterns throughout history: framing one power as an existential threat to justify intervention or destruction, whether or not the threat is real.
When we start framing the people of entire nations as irredeemable enemies even in our own private thoughts, it becomes easier to rationalize extreme actions that we would otherwise question (such as flippantly fracturing the global FOSS community). My point isn’t to excuse Russia’s actions but to highlight how these narratives can be manipulated, often leading to outcomes that are far more destructive than if people kept things in perspective.
Cute, except you're both deflecting and hallucinating of course, as no one ever had an issue with that catchphrase you keep dropping, or its import. The issue here was and still is this bizarre axiom - your famous 17 words:
The West wants to permanently de-fang and colonize Russia for obvious reasons -- geopolitical hegemony and market intrusion.
That you've chosen to adopt, and on the basis of sweet, pure faith it seems.
