So your response to the dictionary definition of macrology is to link me to a wiki page about macrosociology?Maybe start here (if you're serious, which I now doubt).
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The comedic irony is that you saying “reasonable analyses are macrological” makes your backing of the article you posted make sense. Because it is meaninglessly verbose and you do find it reasonable.
I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).
But.... Whenever I use micro-/macro-, I am using it in connection with the below, which dates from the 17th century.
With "macro-logic" merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversial
I'm amazed you've chosen this hill to die on (I think there are economists here who can tell you how and why the term is used in their field and if/where/when I've misapplied it).
For context, the above is consistent with my usage. Can cite many sources in many disciplines where this is also consistent but I really don't see the point. This is now just petty.
Last edited:
I am truly amazed that you’re quadrupling down against the English Dictionary here… and your take on the etymology is wrong.I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).
But.... Whenever I use micro-/macro-, I am using it in connection with the below, which dates from the 17th century.
With "macro-logic" is merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversial
Webster Dictionary
- Macrology noun
long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words
Etymology: [L. macrologia, Gr. ; long + lo`gos discourse: cf. F. macrologie.]
- Macrology
mak-rol′o-ji, n. much talk with little to say. [Gr. makros, long, logos, a word.]
I don't remember using "macrology", I think you introduced that term (which has an archaic etmylogical existence, far as I can tell). Your point, though, was that my use of "macrological" was wrong. Your evidence was a Collins entry on a different, but philologically related term. It was meant as a "gotcha", I think, and has since become ridiculous. Let's just say you win and the term "macrological" has no use at all in any social science or natural science or science at all. I bow to your dictionary prowess.
A neat example of how the term definitely doesn't mean anything or have any use whatsoever:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/inheriting-wind/
Halt the presses!
The irony of your post being the definition of the adjective “macrological” is not lost on me.
Surely MG is an AI designed to be as annoying and obtuse as possible.
The onus on diplomatic breakthrough is on the Russians. They invaded, they can stop it. Ukraine seems willing to offer neutrality and return to pre-invasion borders.
Anybody complaining that the West and Ukraine aren't doing more to get a peaceful solution should use that energy for Russia.
In the meantime, more Russian losses on the battlefield will likely bring Russia closer to a diplomatic solution.
Anybody complaining that the West and Ukraine aren't doing more to get a peaceful solution should use that energy for Russia.
In the meantime, more Russian losses on the battlefield will likely bring Russia closer to a diplomatic solution.
To be fair, the example I used at the bottom of that post is absolutely "macrological" in the sense you've familiarized me with. I don't have a clue wtf the author is saying.
Macro/Microeconomics for future reference. Has to be easier than other examples so far. It really is a very simple distinction.
Quoting the offending macrology so it doesn't get lost in whatever the last two pages were
Last edited:
People making this argument live outside of Russia. Not much you can do. If you live in the West, though, you can do something. And I don't think the West (particularly the US) cares much for peace (their interest is a long, drawn out, war).
And what do you propose the West to do to convince Putin for peace? What if Putin isn't at the moment interested in peace at all?
It's not like Ukraine is offering nothing of note to the Russians. The Russians so far just seem hellbent on getting any kind of battlefield success.
I think the negotiations have been promising, before they were torpedoed or else suspended. I think the emphasis should be on supporting them again as quickly as possible. What does victory look like for Putin? By now, it has to be more or less what Russia had at the beginning plus the possibility of a landbridge (Ukraine won't accept that, or it's doubtful), Ukrainian neutrality, and an end to the hostilities in the Donbas. I think he could sell some version of that as a win (if he's still going with the "special operation" instead of war rhetoric, he can say he achieved peace for the besieged residents of the separatist republics, or some version of that). For Ukraine victory will look pretty similar except no landbridge, continued hostilities/disputes surrounding Donbass, and no neutrality. That seems a deadend because it will go on forever until one side gives way.
I'd start talking about peace, for a start. Everyone knows we're sending weapons, it's all you hear about. Now start talking about how this conflict ends (you can still send weapons as you do it).
Maybe it's time that the Russians start speaking out about peace:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60987350
I'll have to cite, but I have read reports of the Russians talking about peace. They also reject the idea of genocide (which I agree with; there hasn't been any genocide yet, in the strict sense of the term, but there have been war crimes).
A good thread by a scholar who is anything but pro-Russian (his detailed analysis of the Bucha war crime is one of the best out there).
Also begs the question: how do you know the Russians aren't talking about peace? One of the problems of banning the other side's point of view is that you don't hear what they have to say unless you really go out of your way to find it (and read Pravda/ArabicinEnglish sources like I've had to do).
In October 2004 the Stop the War Coalition issued a statement reaffirming “its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends.”
Likewise John Pilger in February of that year:
“Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?
Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang.”
This was happening around the same time that al-Zarqawi’s group were emerging as the biggest faction driving the insurgency, (in the actual sense that Putin projects the Azov battalion are in Ukraine). In the second half of 2004 aid workers and others were being kidnapped and beheaded on video.
I do remember that. There was outrage over it. Galloway also said something (he was in the group at the time) to that effect and was threatened with legal action/expulsion iirc. But it definitely wasn't widespread. Besides Pilger, Galloway, and maybe a few other fringe members of the left, this didn't spill over into conventional thinking. What did, though, were EDL marches (a tangent, but the right rose more during this period than the left). I find it weird either way to celebrate the death of soldiers as is done now by all sides in any given conflict. I get you're showing support for whatever side (beyond Ukraine/Russia) you think is right, but it's a foreign concept to me. That's why I said it would have been weird to see someone wanting Americans/British troops murdered en masse (or waving Iraqi flags), but times change. Maybe that will happen in the next war.
In which case you'd be supporting the shameful and gutless response of Modi's government - refusing to condemn Putin and merely issuing a meaningless call for peace - to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Russia is China's closest ally. If China were to invade India and started reducing Indian cities to rubble, I've no doubt that Modi would instantly be calling on the West for help
Why would he need to even call on the West for help? Surely the noble West would immediately ride to his defence in order to protect democracy.
That depends on how much democracy will be left in India after Modi's authoritarianism and Hindu Nationalism has done with it.
UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda
When they're white, they're Refugees who need shelter and we can post loads of feel good news articles about them being given a place to stay.
When they're black, they're just Asylum Seekers and they can feck off back to their own country.
BBC
When they're white, they're Refugees who need shelter and we can post loads of feel good news articles about them being given a place to stay.
When they're black, they're just Asylum Seekers and they can feck off back to their own country.
In our last major war with China, it was the west's (lack of) help that pushed us closer to the USSR.
Which explains why the west helped (democratic) India in 1971 against Pakistan, which wasn't just a military dictatorship, but was engaging in a mass terror campaign? You are astoundingly ignorant.
What's actually astoundingly ignorant is India's cosying up to Putin's Russia - an "ally" that will support China over India in any future conflict, an "ally" that lies through its teeth about everything (of which the invasion of Ukraine is just the latest example), and an "ally" that will happily sell military equipment to India that is greatly inferior to any equivalent from the West ... again as the Ukrainian war is showing.
But if India foolishly wishes to climb in bed with Russia, then good luck to you ... you'll need it.
Actually, I think it's rather the Russian involvement that causes this: all united against the bogeyman. Russia never lost its 'enemy' image post-Cold War, and while it grew softer in the 90s, Putin has been pretty 'good' at hardening that again in the 2000s - culminating in this invasion of Ukraine and what that did for Russia's image. If this had been Poland invading LIthuania (maybe a similar difference in military strength), the response across the EU and North America wouldn't have been the same.
The US could have tried to facilitate peace talks though, like Turkey is doing (and Israel tried). Although the US probably would have been a much less acceptable partner for Russia, given its clear siding with Ukraine.
I think if the war ended, we'd only know in a few years if Ukraine really did emerge victorious, even if Russia would give back all Ukrainian territory (outside Crimea I suppose). Cause if the EU, US, and Canada wouldn't invest enormously in rebuilding Ukraine and providing military safety, the Ukraine would be in a really poor state for a very long time, which would likely lead to political instability and the return of Russia before too long.
Not very important, but 'macrology' is really not a common word. For myself, I don't remember having ever seen it. I would say it's not the kind of word we should use on a forum with readers from all backgrounds and all levels of expertise on topics.
Yeah, I didn't use it, nor had I heard of it. I used "micrological/macrological", which are very common distinctions in all social sciences and some natural sciences.
Yes, because Russia exists outside NATO and is largely the reason NATO continued to exist when it had no mandate for existence post-1991. But I agree. Still, the US/EU have taken the Ukrainian flag as their own. It becomes nationalism by proxy imo. Also why I find the side-taking idea to be counterintuitive (among many other reasons). A condemnation of Russia becomes a proclamation of support for the US/EU/NATO; as, in some contexts, does support for Ukraine. I can do without that. I'll condemn Russia apriori for its invasion but I'm not going to repeat it continuously when it should be taken as given once already stated.
As I said, we tried to avoid the war happening at all. Once it started, it’s been rather clear that Russia wants nothing to do with peace. I mean, how many world leaders have now asked them for it only to come away with nothing?
Do you think there is zero chance that the US wanted Russia to invade (or that it surmised there was a fair chance Russia would invade, and in part, due to its own activities in the region)? There came a point where the US was wishing for Russia to make a strategic blunder, imo, and it did. Now it will try to exact a toll in the form of a protracted insurrgency, which Clinton among others have been arguing for since the outbreak (it is the orthodox view).
Robert Kagan said:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-04-06/russia-ukraine-war-price-hegemony
Kagan's overall premise is a bit idealistic for a self-proclaimed realist, and I don't agree with parts of it, but most serious thinkers on the issue of foreign policy make provision for a world where Russia is acting/reacting in relation to the actions of other states (US/NATO presence in the region being one factor; westward facing ambitions of post-Soviet states irregardless of NATO/US being another).
I don't know... and really, neither do you. What we do know is that the US made multiple attempts at de-escalation, attempts which were rejected by Russia. We also know that multiple countries have gone and met with Putin to seek peace, and have been rebuffed. Finally, we know that Ukraine and Russia have met for peace talks themselves, and still nothing. It just seems to me that looking to the US to create peace out of this is barking up the wrong tree.
Yeah that's fair enough.
Nah, I think a country siding with its long-term ally is less astounding than someone talking about world politics without knowing one single thing.
Sorry, I did mean 'micro/macrological'. Can't remember having seen that before.
Interestingly enough, micrologic / micrological is another term for microscopic.
Yeah, the microscopic view of events or data is what it implies (and the logic of such). You see these twin frames used everywhere from art to science.
That's really all it is. The individual versus the collective/totality; trying to situate the individual (person/event/object) within its broader, macro, (or historical), context. Used to using these terms without much thought, but point wasn't to be (purposefully) incomprehensible.
Well yes, I know what the macro- and micro- prefixes are for, and have seem them used in various contexts (including those economy examples); just not with the suffixes -logy or -logical.
Anyway, not super important.
I think we need a new thread for discussions on the meaning of the word macrological (and the overuse of parentheses to add comment or context that should otherwise have been written into the sentence).
Having Russia as "long term ally" is like having cancer as a long term health benefit.
When push comes to shove with China, India will wake up to discover that their "ally" supports their enemy
You might be (on to something).
(in more parenthetical news/opinion:
Not worth quoting the whole piece, this time
)https://truthout.org/articles/a-hun...t-for-action-on-ukraine-is-driving-us-astray/
Last edited:
This framing doesn't capture the bigger picture. The problem with highlighting the NATO encroachment is that it ignores the fact that Putin's actions and policies incentivized countries to move away from Russia towards the west and seek NATO for protection. Putin's actions reflect a neo-mercantilist worldview, an authoritarian perspective of political economy, and a personal imperialistic desire to restore glory of the Russian Empire.
A much more effective strategy at neutralizing any NATO expansion since 1999 would have been to diversify Russia's economy away from resource exportation, modernize and build Russia's soft power and establish closer, economic ties with all former Soviet states beyond just basing it on natural resources. That strategy would have removed the incentive for former states to join NATO or turn westward.
The reactive "but NATO" framing doesn't really acknowledge how ineffective this strategy is if it's just being driven by a response to NATO. Just look at the result of this invasion. It isn't a good advertisement for any nation to want to establish closers ties with Russia as opposed to the west and his actions have actively pushed Finland and Sweden closer to NATO.
Putin's own actions actively pushed other states closer to NATO. So it's so much NATO "encroachment" as it is Putin's actions creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In a vague platitude sense sure, but in a tangible sense, I don't see what the US or UK could say in regards to concrete actions. Without the Ukraine and Russia reach a point where they want to negotiate, the US can't really do much. They can't make any real concrete recommendations right now. Would they tell Ukraine to accept what Russia wants? And Russia clearly won't listen to any recommendations on negotiations either.
Also, as much as the US could offer to facilitate talks or push for them, I doubt Russia would accept a neutral role for them, as they'd question the US's neutrality. Maybe they would accept negotiating directly with the US, but Ukraine wouldn't accept letting the US speak (and decide!) for them, and the US wouldn't want to give the impression that Ukraine is just a pawn in their game (regardless of whether it actually is or isn't).
So I think it's just not really an option. (I meant to say that in my previous post but didn't express it properly.)
Piss off, nimic. There can never be enough parentheses in my poorly construed and lazily written posts.
I did think it kinda needed some, but then I was too lazy to get back and add them.FTFY