As a non-native speaker, I never had this organic understanding of English as natives do. Yeah, I studied it formally, but formal knowledge is incomplete. It was trial and error that allowed me to feel it better. Trying and erring I found my favourite English word:
"Problematic"
Why? You see, we are all humans. Intelligent beings capable of pattern recognition. And when you are talking, writing, etc. people absolutely will scan your speech for the familiar patterns. Then they are gonna make a judgement based on patterns they recognised. Keep that in mind
One pattern people will recognise is accent. Let's be honest, accent does have class connotations and some accents do not sound classy at all. In the UK it would be probably the Scottish accent that is associated with the working class, in the US probably the southern one
Now if you are a foreigner, people will scan your speech for patterns -> recognise a familiar one (accent) -> make a judgement accordingly. What can you do?
1. Ignore it (capitulation) 2. Get rid of it (frontal assault) 3. Add more patterns to confuse them (flanking manoeuvre)
People are scanning your speech for a number of patterns simultaneously. Getting rid of your accent would amount to a tiresome frontal assault: something all military theorists advised again. I would suggest doing a flanking manoeuvre and attack from another direction
Vocab
A language operates with registers: lower and higher one. And that's another recognisable pattern they'll be scanning for. We all instinctively feel that "prolly" would be of lower register, while "sophisticated" of higher. Now "problematic" sounds very sophisticated
Filling your speech with higher register words may be the easiest status signalling trick. Now which words should you choose? There are plenty:
"Sophisticated. Problematic. Heteronormative"
Choose problematic. Unlike the other two you can insert it randomly into every sentence
You see, you can't just walk around calling everything "sophisticated" or "heteronormative". It may work once or twice but then it looks awkward. These words have actual meaning, substance behind them. Which limits your ability to drop them here and there for status signalling
The great thing about "problematic" is that it has no substance at all
0% substance
100% sophistication
That's what makes it so universally applicable. You can insert it into every argument, every sentence, every phrase even. It fits perfectly everywhere
That doesn't mean however that "problematic" is neutral. Not at all, it means "bad". It is an upgraded version though. When you are calling sth problematic you are calling it "bad" with a dose of:
"Problematic" is the most powerful rhetorical weapon ever. Just call them problematic and you won. What are they gonna do? Denying you are "problematic" amounts to claiming you are "non-problematic". You see, it already sounds stupid
NB: Do not add any specific details of *why* they're problematic. If you add just a grain of substance into accusations, you are giving them an easy way out. They may change the topic of conversation to the specifics and escape your trap. You'll have nobody but yourself to blame
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Putin avoids assuming personal responsibility for unpopular decisions. So he delegates them to the governors, so that people blame them, not him. Lockdowns were super unpopular. So they were delegated to governors. Same with mass mobilization and other emergency measures
War is popular. Mass mobilisation, reduction of consumption etc. are not. Good Putin launched the war. Bad governor is forcing the disabled and fathers of 5 kids into the army. That’s exactly how people are thinking, I’m not joking. They don’t see any connection between these two
Sounds schizophrenic? No, it makes total sense. People love the war but as a show, not as a compulsory activity. Lying on sofa, drinking beer, watching out conquests on TV. Until September most Russians perceived it as a content to consume. Now they can’t anymore
It's funny cuz the nuclear status of Russia is perceived as some immanent property of reality. Grass is green, water is blue, Russia is nuclear. In reality though maintenance of Russian nuclear arsenal would be impossible without the massive and constant assistance of the West
So yeah, if you guys keep supplying Russia with everything necessary to maintain its nuclear arsenal (both warheads & delivery systems) it may indeed nuke you one day. If you are so scared of the nuclear war, may be you just stop selling them everything necessary to start it?
That's correct. Democracies seem to be weaker and autocracies stronger than reality. Censuring information works both ways: you look great but at the same time you limit/outlaw the feedback mechanisms. That's why autocracies are so seemingly powerful and so astonishingly fragile
The world is incomprehensible in all of its complexity, but you still can make real life decisions based on simple asymmetries. For example:
Countries like the US/UK can't collapse suddenly, despite all the alarmism
Countries like Russia/China can, and nobody will see it coming
One could even say that alarmism is a sign of strength rather than weakness. In the real world systems won't change or improve, unless they are scared. So while creating a permanently negative news feed, the alarmism nevertheless is a powerful (& necessary) tool of social change
At October 2, 1552 Kazan fall to Ivan the Terrible. The city was destroyed, its population massacred. Although guerrilla lasted for decades, systematic devastation of the country eventually broke the armed resistance. I believe the story of Kazan fall to be quite instructive
In 1549 Safa Giray Khan dies leaving his two year old son as an heir. His widow Suyun Bike becomes a regent. Ivan IV tried to use the moment. In 1549-1550 Russians besieged the city but were defeated
(You can find a contemporary Tatar account in Zafer name-i Vilayet-i Kazan)
1550-1551 expedition was more successful. Russian troops built a fortress Sviyazhsk* in about 30 km upstream from Kazan, blockading the main transport artery. That allowed to effectively cut the right ("hill") bank of Volga off the left ("meadow") one, cutting the country in two
@elonmusk style may look tricksterish. That's understandable. He is an innovator, ergo disruptor and disruption may be sometimes undistinguishable from tricksterism. Content-wise though the problem with Musk is that he's creating new stuff. That he is a non-violent entrepreneur🧵
@elonmusk Don't get me wrong. I think that innovators do not get nearly enough credit for what they doing. I even noticed a weird pattern: people tend to shittalk the most about that specific industry their city/state is especially dependent upon. Still, non-violent business has a problem
And the problem with the non-violent business is that it is non-violent. Which means it is *outsourcing* violence and thus security. Indeed, all of Elon Musk's proposals suddenly make sense if you assume they are written by a businessman who is outsourcing security of his empire
The Red Square was really crowded during the Putin's speech. Here is the context. All these buses had been bringing here бюджетники (government employees) to serve as the Putin's audience.
Here is a paradox. Westerners tend to hugely underestimate the level of passive compliance which a ruler in Kremlin enjoys (nearly total). At the same time, they tend to hugely overestimate the level of the *active* support he enjoys. Most of it is very, very passive
Yes, Putin has lots of supporters. And yet, almost no one of them would choose to spend their free time coming to the Red Square and listening to his speech. So he is forced to ship there government employees en masse, to serve as his audience