apparently not for some people!

now who's playing semantics. If your explanation can't generate any expectations about other cases it becomes nice and unfalsifiable. but it sounds like you're more interested in being glib so that figures

yeah to me the best stuff combines both. there's no atheoretical history anyway

I like it

I mean if you discard prediction and generalization what's left, post-hoc explanation? that doesn't seem satisfying to me, but maybe this is a disciplinary divide after all

it's funny that this old debate still gets you going after all this time. one way to judge if an argument is productive is whether it correctly predicts new facts, and in that sense ganz' argument has been much more productive than the people who take offense at liberal semantics, including tooze

whatever he knows or doesn't know, his analysis has not been helpful in this regard, unlike ganz

in that case it's just motivated reasoning by tooze, which would make sense

that's quite a collection

it is extremely funny that rules constraining Putin’s ambitions also constrained a rising China, deterred the US from boarding his oil tankers and kidnapping his clients, and gave Russia the predictability it needed as a middling power. oh well
bsky.app/profile/andr...

lucan is great. good luck with the applications

ty