What does "nontrivial" mean? I've been trying to get answers. I brought up Canadian case because Noah & others moved from beyond specific (wildly unlikely) scenario to principle about standing with treaty allies.https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1469728958975463427 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @ImranKhanfromN1 and
The Canadian case seems fine to me, it's a valid question if you're trying to probe the limits of someone's rhetorical commitment to pacifism.
4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @ImranKhanfromN1 and
Are we discussing pacifism or whether USA policy (and debates about policy) should be grounded in real threats as against wildly hypothetical scenarios?
3 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @Noahpinion and
Perhaps this is proxy for Taiwan, Ukraine?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @fardarter @Noahpinion and
Right, but why not debate those rather than invent scenarios?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @fardarter and
Because we don't have a treaty with either of those, so it's not as extreme a challenge to professed absolute pacifism?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion @fardarter and
Also: is the problem with Liz Bruenig that she's an absolute pacifist or that she's a (covert) tankie? Because those are two very different positions.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Having clear commitments when dealing with good faith scenarios is necessary. When confronted with absurd threat inflation, mockery & trolling is the best response.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.