I think either you misinterpreted my comment or I misinterpreted yours.
This wasn’t intended as a “you should have felt sorry for me if I’d done a unilateralist thing without thinking”.
I’m genuinely confused how you could have gotten that interpretation from my comment.
It was intended as a way of giving more information about the probability of unilateralist action than people would otherwise have had, which seems well within the spirit of the day.
So to be clearer, Petrov here shouldnaively be read as a well-intentioned unilateralist. He happened to be right, and reasonable people can disagree about whether he was wrong but lucky or right all along. Regardless, I think it’s not very much in the spirit of the day to talk about or act out all the harms of being a well-intentioned unilateralist, though if you wish to do so, more power to you.
I also think it’s noteworthy that in the situation being celebrated the ability to resist social pressure was pointing in the opposite direction to the way it goes here, which seems like a problem with the current structure.
I agree, and have complained about this before. I’m also complaining about it now, in case that was not previously clear.
I interpreted your comment as saying that I was “lambasting the foibles of being a well intentioned unilateralist”, and that I should not be doing so. If that was not the intent I’m glad.
I think either you misinterpreted my comment or I misinterpreted yours.
I’m genuinely confused how you could have gotten that interpretation from my comment.
So to be clearer, Petrov here should naively be read as a well-intentioned unilateralist. He happened to be right, and reasonable people can disagree about whether he was wrong but lucky or right all along. Regardless, I think it’s not very much in the spirit of the day to talk about or act out all the harms of being a well-intentioned unilateralist, though if you wish to do so, more power to you.
I agree, and have complained about this before. I’m also complaining about it now, in case that was not previously clear.
I interpreted your comment as saying that I was “lambasting the foibles of being a well intentioned unilateralist”, and that I should not be doing so. If that was not the intent I’m glad.
I interpreted you as proposing doing an unilateralist action to demonstrate to others the harm of unilateralist actions. Apologies if I misread.