[rrr_oh_man]

> You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left".

The realities of war are not LGBTQ-friendly.

My male cousin has not been allowed to leave the country for almost 3 years. His wife is in Germany.

[aguaviva]

I'm sorry you got triggered, but that was absolutely in no way what I was getting at.

That line had nothing whatsoever to do with this "people"/"men" nonsense. I was referring simply to the quantifier.

[rrr_oh_man]

Thanks for the explanation.

What’s the difference between those two?

[aguaviva]

Subtracting the "people" vs "men" noise, I was trying to draw the distinction between the phrasings "they don't have enough people" and "they have no people left" (in both cases to meaning available to fight).

The former suggests a situation which is quite dire, and that is certainly accurate in regard to Ukraine's current situation. The latter (if taken at face value) is essentially totalistic, and objectively misleading. That doesn't mean that that was their intent, of course. But to my ears it comes across as an overly emotionalized and in any case muddled characterization of the situation.

Kind of like when, say, a startup is going through rough times and someone says "everyone's leaving" when really it was just their friend and a couple other people who have left.

There's a word for this expressive style, btw: "histrionics".

[rrr_oh_man]

Thank you for this in-depth clarification. Much appreciated.

I'd argue the situation is quite dire and the, arguably fatalistic, phrasing is not incorrect here.

Men are not allowed to exit the country, and I know personally quite a few cases where males, who were in no real fighting age or condition, were literally picked up on the street and sent to the front. With handcuffs and aggressive force. In my former hometown.

So, staying in your analogy, "everyone's leaving" is rather correct, with the modifier "...who has enough money or sheer luck". "But they're still there" feels like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

[aguaviva]

Well, we disagree about the language issue then. Which in any case means essentially nothing compared with what these people are going through.

In that sense I appreciate your clarification as well.

[rrr_oh_man]

Cheers! What a nice & civil disagreement :)

[pinkmuffinere]

You’re missing the forest for the trees. You claim “they have no men left”. This is false, and reduces trust in everything else you say. You might be right about your main point, but the argument you provide is not convincing.

As one datapoint I’d love to hear a convincing argument, and really don’t have a strong opinion on who will win. If you make a more trustworthy argument for why Ukraine will lose, I promise I’ll read it

Edit: truthfully, this is the most convincing argument I’ve seen so far https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/will-ukraine-win-t...

[rrr_oh_man]

Are you sure you've replied to the right person?

[pinkmuffinere]

Oh lol I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right, this isn’t the comment I was trying to reply to

Edit: wow, somehow I wasn’t even close, I’m like three generations off

[treyfitty]

What? Why are you shoehorning LGBTQ into this... the intent of “…no men left” is well understood, and the vast majority of soldiers in Ukraine are male. The colloquialism is the same as your username rrr_oh_man. Man, and men is used are used in the same vain.

And what does this have to do with your male cousin?

[rrr_oh_man]

Please re-read the thread, you might have misunderstood.

GP's comment was:

> You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left"

which I, mistakenly, as GP pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42349533, assumed to be a play on "there are also women on the front". Which there are, but in vastly fewer numbers.

[treyfitty]

No, I understood clearly.