Ms B's Miscellanea

I know a lot of you are young. This might be the first time you remember seeing a war break out. So I want to just give you a useful concept for thinking about this and talking about it over the next few weeks, in case you aren't already familiar with it. That concept realpolitik.

It's a German word that means "practical politics" (pronounced "ree-AHL pol-uh-TEEK"). What it means might be intuitively obvious, but I think it's really helpful to have it in your back pocket as a concrete, widely-understood bit of terminology, because it can help you avoid confusion when you are talking about the crisis in Ukraine, or listening to other people talk about the crisis in Ukraine.

Realpolitik is a political and diplomatic concept that distinguishes actions taken by nations for ethical reasons from actions taken by nations for practical reasons. That distinction - the existence of that distinction that is invoked by bringing up realpolitik - is really important in an online atmosphere where the two are often conflated out of bad faith, virtue signaling, or hysteria.

What I mean by that is: it is not a contradiction to say "the invasion of Ukraine is wrong" and "the invasion of Ukraine makes sense." One is an ethical analysis of the situation; the other is realpolitik.

And you're going to see a lot of people having both kinds of conversations in the coming days. And it's important to remember that both are worth having. It is, of course, very important to emphasize the horror and unfairness of this unjust and inhumane invasion. It is, also, very important to be able to set that aside, and discuss the pragmatic causes and results of that invasion.

It is normal and sane to be upset and emotional right now. But before you get upset at something you read for sounding bloodless - or, worse, heartless - I want you to be able to ask yourself: is this a conversation about morality, or is this a conversation about realpolitik?

When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to  1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up) 2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.

The fresco 'Leda e il cigno' (Leda and the swan) discovered in the archeological area in Pompeii. 79 AD

https://rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/donate/

this is fucking disgusting???

1. the ‘artist’ didn’t even create the 3D model, he bought it online for around $50, slapped a gold texture on it, and sold it to the oscars for god knows how much

2. how fucking dare they think this is a sufficient and good way to honour chadwick???

3. only half of the profits made from this goes to a cancer research charity

4. NFTs are the worst, anyway

IMAGINE SEEING A POST ABOUT A PERSON’S DEATH BEING CAPITALISED ON, AND THE FIRST THING YOU THINK IS ‘OH NO OP DOESNT AGREE WITH MY IDEOLOGY’ AND NOT ‘SHIT THIS IS HORRIBLE’

HOW FUCKING DISRESPECTFUL COULD YOU BE??? YOURE JUST AS BAD AS THE PEOPLE THIS POST IS ABOUT