21 ms·

Most younger people are quite skeptic of mainstream media so they don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them.With the elderly it’s the

Most younger people are quite skeptic of mainstream media so they don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them.With the elderly it’s the opposite. Further, most of the elderly lived at a time when the USSR was the clear and obvious enemy of “freedom”, so it’s not hard to fathom Russia being back into its usual shenanigans. Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) so they’re less willing to blindly support US foreign policy and feel less connected to European conflicts than previous generations. Finally Russia has, in my opinion, waged a fairly successful social media campaign to muddy the waters. Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. Same with the Azov Batallion which some people believe are the entire Ukrainian army. You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. Gen Z has thus mostly understood this conflict through the propaganda wars that play out in social media and thus have conflicting and/or “both-sides” takes.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
>Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) An irony, considering that Russian imperialism is the one that actually performs land grabs and ethnic cleansing without even trying to cover it up.
- huragok 4y ago
  Just as more than one thing can be bad, you can be against imperialism, stand with oppressed peoples and deeply question the official American story.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    Agreed that you don't have to accept the official American story. You can not be "anti-imperialist" and tolerate this war, however. This is a war of Russian imperialism. American imperialism is bad, I agree with that. But Russian imperialism is also bad. As was British imperialism. If you're an anti-imperialism, you must be against the Russian invasion.
    - macanchex 4y ago
      https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/ https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukra... The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see: on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here); on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements; and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
      - mcguire 4y ago
        This is, of course, the Russian take on the war. The Ukrainian version is significantly different. (And given the whole genocide thing, I know which I lean towards. I mean really, NATO, the West, and the Ukrainian government is responsible for Russian war crimes? https://www.reuters.com/resizer/i8u1Zr3pjvon_ZDTHHfs5b6IwlE=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LSULYN3DV5JMHPGUUYJOEHOCHU.jpg https://www.reuters.com/resizer/i8u1Zr3pjvon_ZDTHHfs5b6IwlE=...)
        macanchex 4y ago
        Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. On Bucha: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/if-the-pentagon-can-not-confirm-the-bucha-tales-who-can.html https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/if-the-pentagon-can-no...
        kcb 4y ago
        Truly horrendous link. Your appeal to authority is nonsense, it doesn't take long to find someone with even more commas to dispute it. > Anyone who is still pushing more weapons into Ukraine or tells Kiev to prolong the war is putting more Ukrainian lives at risk for zero potential gain. Surely life under Russia will be blissful with no Ukrainians harmed.
- ffwszgf 4y ago
  In some left-wing circles anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism are indistinguishable. People like Max Blumenthal are the perfect representatives of this ideology.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I don't know anything about max blumenthal so sure. But if you are american, those things pretty much should be the same. Anti-imperialism is not an abstract struggle, and for many around the world the US and its allies are a concrete enemy they've come by honestly. If you live in the US, solidarity with those people means using whatever power you have internally to oppose the US's imperial actions. The US is not the only imperialist force by any means. But particularly from inside one of these machines, it is hard to understand and act against other forms of imperialism without also assisting your own country's imperial projects. Countries are adept at turning their own subversive and radical movements outward against their political enemies. An awareness of the mechanics of imperialism does I think lead to a "clean up your own house first" praxis and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
    - fffff0pg4 4y ago
      What you say here makes sense but it is not at all what is being practiced by some of the "anti-imperialist" left. Max Blumenthal's definition of anti-imperialism begins and ends with America. In his worldview opposing the US and its interests uncritically is the duty of every leftist. If the US supports Ukraine you must oppose it. If the US accuses China of genocide you must support China. If fascists oppose the US government you must side with them too. You must support any and every so-called enemy of the US regardless of what they do or who they are (after all it's all lies from the mainstream media). I am not saying every political commentator should be obligated to report on the abuses of every global power lest they be called "hypocritical", but some leftists will actively defend atrocities as long as they are done in opposition to the US.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Yeah I see what you're saying. Again without conceding that I share this view of this person, since I haven't read his works. But while I don't think that position is correct, I do think it's probably valuable to have some people take that stance. It's similar to the social value in having non-political conservatism that will resist all change no matter what. We'll change anyway, but having to fight for it a little will slow down the changes, hopefully dodge some of the worst consequences, maybe prevent some changes that shouldn't actually happen. The US should be opposed. Not because we are inherently bad, but because our interests aren't everyone's interests. An always-support, always-oppose, or case-by-case stance will each have different failure modes. I think we want a mix, as unpalatable as that can be sometimes.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  The US was in Iraq and Afghanistan accidentally bombing schools, hospitals, and wedding parties for the entirety of Gen Z's lives.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  It's 2022. Fire up TikTok, start liking videos, and choose whatever narrative you want. Everything you don't like is crisis acting and media bias? Sure! Digital reality is becoming schizophrenic.
  - steveylang 4y ago
    It's like the opposite of '1984', and yet somehow the same.
    - whoopdedo 4y ago
      Read Fahrenheit 451 instead.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  At least Russia actually declares war when it places another country within its empire's sights. The USA just acts like it owns the entire american continent and the means to its imperialistic ends range from cultural exportation and massive economic leverage to literally teaching dictators how torture and repress dissidents. Look up School of the Americas for an example.
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    "Special military operation"
  - secondcoming 4y ago
    Has Russia formally declared War on Ukraine, or is it still a Special Military Operation?
    - jcadam 4y ago
      Are formal declarations of war even a thing any more?
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      It seems to me that openly invading a country is a rather unambiguous way to declare war. Compared to espionage, covert operations and such.
      - cuteboy19 4y ago
        They are not allowed to call it that in Russia. It's a "special operation".
      - Arrath 4y ago
        And the attempted assassinations of dissidents/defectors with nerve agents only available to one country seems a rather unambiguous way to declare it was a state-sanctioned hit, yet it was denied up and down. As is this invasion portrayed as a 'special military operation', what distinction that actually is from an invasion is up to the rules lawyers, apparently.
- mc32 4y ago
  It's because kids are effed by the media. They have been fed a whole bunch of lies and propaganda one way or another in order to get them to support or denounce some cause or other so they don't know what to believe. So they throw their hands up and give up and "let them sort it out" The media and establishment want it both ways. in the '80s imperialism was BAD. Now, rebranded as globalism, this imperialism is good, but that one over there by them is BAD! and so on it goes. Can't blame them after the Iraq war and everyone getting on a bandwagon of lies including the left, right and center with the exception of Libertarians.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > Can't blame them after the Iraq war and everyone getting on a bandwagon of lies including the left, right and center with the exception of Libertarians. This is only true if your conception of 'the left' is just American liberals. Plenty of people and groups on the left were against the invasions from the get-go.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Sure and we also had a handful of people on the right who were against it too. I'm talking about groups that matter --those that make up more than 5% of a pop. Main point stands though. the media want to have it multiple ways, like John Kerry, one day it's for something, then, the next, it's against the same thing, and a third day it's back on.
      - reducesuffering 4y ago
        Ok, for groups that matter, a majority (61%) of US House Democrats formally opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Even a majority of US Congress Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    > so they don't know what to believe. So they throw their hands up and give up and "let them sort it out" This is a result of a common propaganda attack by a party that wants to cover up the truth: seed multiple competing story lines through varying outlets to create a sense of confusion. That way, when the truth is reported, people will react to it like it's just 1 more among the many competing stories. Russia in particular has been running this play both domestically and abroad. It's a formidable approach, and defense against it is difficult.
- tonguez 4y ago
  ">Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) An irony, considering that Russian imperialism is the one that actually performs land grabs and ethnic cleansing without even trying to cover it up." you should learn about this thing called the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then the Vietnam war, etc.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
  How is it ironic? It’s like, “Gen Z hates assault… An irony, considering that murder is even more violent.”
tenpies 4y ago
If I may, my impression is also that the younger generations don't "get" war. Why would I, ever shoot someone just like me because his/her/xyr government has forced them to point a rifle at me? They've been raised in a post-modernist neo-marxist environment that very clearly marks the Western order as evil. To them, there is no "good vs evil", because they are evil and the West has no redeeming factors. Why would you fight to defend that? Why fight to spread that? Add a keen awareness of the Elites (however you define them) as the sole beneficiaries or war. The conscript or recruit on the ground pays the price so some WEF-agenda shareholder gets to see a bigger dividend this quarter? Hard pass fam. Add in a general anxiety about everything: from talking to a stranger to the impeding collapse of life on Earth due to climate change within X years (where X is always a handful of years away), and war doesn't make sense. There are Bigger Issues than some lines on the map drawn by Evil White Men. Now obviously this is all a generalization, and all of it goes out the window the minute someone shoots at you, but it's going to be interesting to watch what tactics have to be used to get an unwilling generation in the metaphorical front lines.
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> post-modernist neo-marxist What does that mean? It seems like a contradiction in terms. How could you have someone who rejects modernist ideology but promotes a modernist ideology?
  - makomk 4y ago
    It is. The ideology that's referring to which is popular amongst politically active young people is frankly a mess. In particular there's a gaping hole in their post-modernism where they just completely fail to apply any of its tools to their own ideological beliefs or power structures, instead using it to prop up their vaguely Marxist and not so vaguely anti-Western ideology.
  - WaxProlix 4y ago
    It's a common cliché from rightwing circles (initially I think the combination of the two was produced by Jordan Peterson). Not to be too mean, but you'll see a lot of the Ben Shapiro fan crowd snagging on to it because it sounds smart despite being mostly meaningless. It's a placeholder for terms like 'degeneracy' and 'cultural bolshevism' and other such social forces that might undermine the status quo. There's a bit more nuance if you want to try to take the term at face value. DDG renders this, which seems reasonable https://areomagazine.com/2022/04/11/is-postmodernism-neo-marxist/ https://areomagazine.com/2022/04/11/is-postmodernism-neo-mar...
conductr 4y ago
> don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them I've had a hard time with this one as for weeks it was "Russia is not advancing, yada yada" meanwhile the graphic they showed while saying this clearly showed a map with more occupied territory than the same map the day before and another city under siege which has deteriorated my trust where I was a skeptic before, I did at least think war reporting would be rather accurate. I really got the feeling they were trying to calm us down and getting those talking points from some unified source (the govt?) and worries me that this conflict does in fact have potential to get massively out of hand
- ghayes 4y ago
  Maps of territory are a terrible way to show the state of the war. This article provides some color and might help underscore why the narrative could be correct even if the maps look otherwise: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/07/russia-war-ukraine-maps/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/07/russia-war-ukraine-maps...
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Maps of territory are a terrible way of showing ANY political conflict. It's the same as the maps of county-by-county US election results that show a sea of red that equate to a population smaller than LA county. People are the important unit in political conflicts and Russia is very much struggling to take any meaningfully populated area (See: Chernobyl, a place where sane humans refuse to go, being one of the first trophies)
    - mcguire 4y ago
      See https://purplestatesofamerica.org/ https://purplestatesofamerica.org/ (Click on "Population".) And here's an interesting take: https://medium.com/matter/the-trouble-with-the-purple-election-map-31e6cb9f1827 https://medium.com/matter/the-trouble-with-the-purple-electi...
    - conductr 4y ago
      I fully agree but it's my go to when my level of time investment is very low. First few weeks I was checking in maybe 5 minutes a day for the headlines, saw no real ground footage and only the maps and cities under siege. The next couple weeks I checked in less frequently but began seeing more imagery of the destruction/human toll. As of now, I haven't looked at any news on the topic this week at all.
prepend 4y ago
> You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” It’s interesting that I’ve noticed many posts of “Ukrainian refugees were accepted, Syrian refugees weren’t; therefore, racism” since the outbreak. I wish Instagram, Facebook, Twitter would release more research on ad spend by company and not activity. It’s pretty cheap to buy these kind of ads and market toward people who signal boost such causes. So I’m assuming that Russia is doing that.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >So I’m assuming that Russia is doing that I've learned there's a certain portion of the population that believes the Russians are behind almost everything.
  - prepend 4y ago
    Perhaps. The reason I hav the suspicion is because it seems like Russia benefits the most in this situation from have a narrative against Ukrainian refugees and conflating Ukraine’s issues with Syria’s issues. Logically, there are so many differences between the two populations it wouldn’t make sense to actually make a racism claim (eg, Syrians were high percentage young male vs Ukrainian families; Syria over multiple years vs Ukrainians in weeks; 8M Syrians vs 1M Ukrainians; Syrians travel across multiple countries far away vs Ukrainians in neighboring countries; we’re only weeks in for Ukraine vs years for Syria; etc etc). The two situations are very different so comparing the two and then saying that the reason is racism seems pretty silly. So I think “what’s more likely, silliness or Russian bots?”
matthewdgreen 4y ago
>Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. Same with the Azov Batallion which some people believe are the entire Ukrainian army. Maybe I'm old but I haven't seen any of these things. Where do you find all of these?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  I haven’t personally watched any but I did see them thrown around in thread about India-Russian relations (videos of Indians being discriminated against by Ukrainians.)
- quantum_solanum 4y ago
  [1] > It is not uncommon for Ukrainians to refer to African-Americans as “[N-Word]”. Volunteers of color may be called 'a monkey' or may see children’s games with Blackface. Being aware of the history of dehumanization for people of African descent may help inform where this comes from; it does not justify it. It will be at your discretion to determine the intent. [2] > "Problems arise when young foreigners are prioritised over women and children of Ukrainian citizenship who are trying to get on the same trains." > "Maybe we will put all foreigners in some other place so they won’t be visible and there won’t be conflict with Ukrainians trying to flee in the same direction. This is something that has to be taken care of and we will be doing it." [3] > Ukrainian servicemen help evacuate civilians near Irpin, #Ukraine. Three civilians were killed as Russian mortar rounds landed, striking a route used by civilians fleeing southeast toward #Kyiv. trooper in the front sporting a Black Sun patch [4] source for the other comment ---- [1] https://www.peacecorps.gov/ukraine/preparing-to-volunteer/diversity-and-inclusion/ https://www.peacecorps.gov/ukraine/preparing-to-volunteer/di... [2] https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fukraine-ambassador-black-asian-refugees-racism-b2031847.html https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%... [3] https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1500491702880153604 https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/15004917028801536... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60552271 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60552271
  - pkaye 4y ago
secondcoming 4y ago
You're probably right, and it's strange to me that Russia's utter intolerance of anything LGBT is not a factor in people deciding who to support.
- Gollapalli 4y ago
  Has it occurred to you that there are many Americans who view sodomy as immoral?
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  It's a factor in Russia's favor for anti LGBT people. It isn't a factor for people who dismiss everything but class war as identity politics.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
But fox news is telling them that it's okay for Russia to genocide Ukraine?
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  Source for that?
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Tucker Carlson is the biggest talking head on Fox: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1497035201196617733 https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1497035201196617733 Carlson (on Fox to millions): "I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine." (later) "And why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which I am."
    - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
      thank you.
- yucky 4y ago
  FOX News and CNN have been in complete lockstep from day one, with the exception of Tucker Carlson. Sean Hannity & Anderson Cooper are ideological twins at this point. The last time CNN and FOX News have been this much in agreement, it was when we decided that an invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do in order to get rid of WMD.
yobbo 4y ago
It seems likely that "gen z" americans have few clues about what historic and present day russia is, and generally about the land mass between Poland and Korea. They are just now waking up from two years of debating whether not wearing masks was a hate crime. Maybe in their minds, the conditions on the opposite side of the world just seem too brutal to belong in the same reality. It looks and sounds too crazy to be real, so they can't decide if it's fake.
- pueblito 4y ago
  Or, maybe, they grew up talking to people from all over the world and have a far better understanding than boomers raised on television
  - fhood 4y ago
    Neither is correct. Gen Z, like all young generations, is idealistic, anti-status quo, and thinks their experiences and perspectives are completely unique and novel. As they get older they will transition, hopefully retaining some of their more progressive and forward thinking values, which will become imbedded in society and so the cycle will continue.
    - ksec 4y ago
      The problem is we are not seeing this "As they get older they will transition" that usually happens. What we are seeing, is that the transition out of the idealistic world view, is happening at a much later age. That is already happening with Gen Y or Millennials, and especially those in Tech. People who are over 40s still have these simplistic world view. I dont know what it is about Tech. But it is especially problematic in tech.
  - erdos4d 4y ago
    Former university lecturer here. In my experience, gen Z have ZERO understanding of history or geopolitics. I'm serious, they just don't know what happened before their lifetime and cannot hold a coherent conversation about historical events or the geopolitical realities which flow from them. So no, this is not true.
formerly_proven 4y ago
If the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taught me anything, it's that a) while overt Russian propaganda seems to largely fail in Europe, the more subtle suggestions are widespread b) most people have genuinely horribly bad defense takes c) there are somewhat more tankies than I expected
- cguess 4y ago
  The number of tankies has been impressive. I'm not sure how anyone can look at Russia and think "yea, they made some good points," and I study misinformation professionally. It's not even on the believable scale.
ravitation 4y ago
As a younger millennial on the left, I am routinely frustrated by "anti-imperialist" attitudes (especially among my generation, and younger). I think "anti-imperialist" is one of the least useful labels for a political worldview in contemporary politics. Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation. The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- johnny22 4y ago
  At least it should be easy to understand why though. If you've never seen it used for good in your own eyes, then it's easy to stick with that take.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  >Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media Can you provide examples? I have not seen this, and as dissolution of NATO or otherwise weakening NATO was a goal of the previous administration, I am confused at this claim.
  - ksec 4y ago
recuter 4y ago
> Most younger people are quite skeptic of mainstream media so they don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them.With the elderly it’s the opposite. That's a funny use of the word skeptical. I think you mean outright ignorant. That's how we get "Dear Mister President Vladimir Putin…" https://twitter.com/IAMannalynnemcc/status/1496877541772062727 https://twitter.com/IAMannalynnemcc/status/14968775417720627... They simply don't care beyond an opportunity to self-aggrandize. We're over a month in, Ukraine is old news already. Before you call me an old fogey, I am younger than the woman in this video clip with 32 million views. These are dark times.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
> Finally Russia has, in my opinion, waged a fairly successful social media campaign to muddy the waters. Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. Same with the Azov Batallion which some people believe are the entire Ukrainian army. You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. On the other side of things, on Reddit, nothing unfavorable about Ukraine is getting attention. You don't see any posts about Russia gaining territory, or Zelensky censoring media outlets favorable to opposition parties. And nowhere on reddit or in the media do I see a discussion of the pros and cons of a Ukrainian surrender. It's really hard to see how Ukraine will successfully fend off a country 10x its size. (If someone has an answer as to why that might be realistic, I'm open to hear it).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- einarfd 4y ago
  > And nowhere on reddit or in the media do I see a discussion of the pros and cons of a Ukrainian surrender. It's really hard to see how Ukraine will successfully fend off a country 10x its size. (If someone has an answer as to why that might be realistic, I'm open to hear it). It's really hard to see that Ukraine by itself could defeat Russia and it definitely seems far fetched, even if the Russian army has shown itself more inept than expected. But that isn't what is happening either, and a Ukraine bankrolled and armed by the west. That is something else, and that combination might definitely be abel to defeat Russia. So the question is more, is the west or parts of it willing to spend enough and accept escalating tensions with nuclear armed Russia by doing that? If you look at what Zelensky is doing at the drumbeat of asks for more weapons is obvious that Ukraine is fully aware of this.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >It's really hard to see that Ukraine by itself could defeat Russia There are many paths but they are all long term "replace the Taliban with the Taliban" type ones that people don't wanna talk about.
deeg 4y ago
I don't think this is a modern phenomenon. Certainly it was the younger generation that was against the war in Vietnam. It would be interesting to see polls from the Korean War and World War I. My guess is that we'd see a similar split between young and older generations.
rayiner 4y ago
> Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) so they’re less willing to blindly support US foreign policy and feel less connected to European conflicts than previous generations. I don't think it's accurate to say they're "broadly anti-American" because they're "more diverse." The increased diversity in the younger generation is due to Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their kids.[1] First and second generation immigrants are equally or more patriotic than native born Americans, and are significantly less likely to say they are “ashamed” of any aspect of America: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-recognize-american-greatness-immigrants https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-polic.... All else being equal, immigration-driven population change is driving down "anti-American" sentiment. Indeed, the only political group where a majority say they’re “ashamed to be American,” progressives, is also amongst the whitest: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles https://hiddentribes.us/profiles. I think what you see amongst immigrants is a less ideological view of foreign policy. They have often seen first hand that American has done a lot of harmful things abroad. At the same time, they compartmentalize that because they don't view foreign policy in terms of "good and evil." They may also feel less ownership of America's role and status as world "lawgiver." I also think immigrants are more cynical than Americans. I'd describe my dad and myself as "pro America," but neither of us care about Ukraine. (And frankly I see no connection between being pro-American and supporting Ukraine.) As immigrants from Bangladesh we don't have idealistic notions about sovereignty and human rights. “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (It drives my Daughter of the American Revolution wife nuts when we say "some countries' fate is to be a buffer state.") And of course "immigrants" are not homogenous but rather from a wide range of different countries that have various idiosyncratic positions on foreign policy. Some of the most rabidly patriotic people I know are kids of Vietnamese immigrants. Meanwhile in India and Bangladesh, there is a historical affinity with Russia from the Soviet times. [1] The Black population share was 11% in 1960 and 12% in 2010, and is projected to rise to 13% in 2050. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/11/117.jpg https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/11/117.jpg. The white population share will decrease from 85% to 47%, with almost all of the delta due to Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asians.
dankboys 4y ago
> You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. This one really annoys me. Yes, people care more about people who look like them, and certainly those who are closer and where war is less common. Same reason predominantly Muslim diasporas in the west care about Palestine a lot
- rayiner 4y ago
  > Same reason predominantly Muslim diasporas in the west care about Palestine a lot I don't think that's true. It's true the Muslims I know care about Palestine. But, for example, nobody cares about Uyghurs, who are Muslim. I don't know any Bangladeshis that care about the Rohingya, even though they're at least closely related to Bangladeshis (and "look" the same and speak a closely related language). My impression, being part of this "diaspora," is that the common support for Palestine is more about shared animosity against Israel. This animosity is partly just anti-Jewish, but also partly anti-Anglo-meddling, insofar as Britain was instrumental in enabling Jewish repatriation of Israel, and the United States continues to support Israel.
  - azth 4y ago
    Absolutely false. We Muslims care about our brothers and sisters wherever they are, and regardless of their ethnicity or race. There are tons of material and videos online about prayers and donations and campaigns made in support of them. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941duulDzOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941duulDzOs
  - dankboys 4y ago
    Maybe it's different there, but in the UK which has a significant Muslim population, concern for Palestine, Yemen and Syria (and even the Uyghurs to a lesser extent) is common. The Rohingyas also had support in the UK, which again has a lot of Bangladeshis.
- quantum_solanum 4y ago
  > where war is less common. This particular refrain is one that's worth examining from the lens you're dismissing. Under what frame is "war less common" in Europe (or even "East Europe")? An extremely narrow one at best, IMO. A large proportion of pro-Ukrainian propaganda also outright contradicts this notion by referencing historical acts of Russian aggression.
FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
> Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) [...] and feel less connected to European conflicts than previous generations. [...] Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. [...] You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. I've noticed this too, and I need to make a point: In the long run, this will be a serious security threat to Europe. In this, Europe took almost completely the wrong lessons regarding America's role in NATO. Yes a stronger NATO is good. Yes, stronger ties to America are necessary to counter Russia. But now is not the time to abandon strategic autonomy. Just the opposite. Macron is right, just as DeGaulle before him was right. Yes, Europe should ally with the United States, but it also must begin to stand on its own two feet. Why? Because the next American generations don't give a shit about Europe. In a very deep way, Europeans have not absorbed the social earthquakes that have hit the United States. In younger American minds, Europe doesn't matter. Ukraine doesn't matter. Europe should maintain its alliances, but it also needs to plan for a future in which it depends only on itself for its defense. It needs to do this seriously and as though its life depends on it.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  >In this, Europe took almost completely the wrong lessons regarding America's role in NATO. I think you misinterpret what Europe is doing, because it's mostly doing exactly what you propose. Hell, even Germany seriously plans to overhaul it's dismal army.
lcedp 4y ago
You've listed: > Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) as a factor contributing to not supporting US and ending up supporting Russia, one of the most imperialistic nations out there. The irony :(

KptMarchewa 4y ago

>Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) An irony, considering that Russian imperialism is the one that actually performs land grabs and ethnic cleansing without even trying to cover it up.

huragok 4y ago
Just as more than one thing can be bad, you can be against imperialism, stand with oppressed peoples and deeply question the official American story.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Agreed that you don't have to accept the official American story. You can not be "anti-imperialist" and tolerate this war, however. This is a war of Russian imperialism. American imperialism is bad, I agree with that. But Russian imperialism is also bad. As was British imperialism. If you're an anti-imperialism, you must be against the Russian invasion.
  - macanchex 4y ago
    https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/ https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukra... The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see: on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here); on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements; and operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
    - mcguire 4y ago
      This is, of course, the Russian take on the war. The Ukrainian version is significantly different. (And given the whole genocide thing, I know which I lean towards. I mean really, NATO, the West, and the Ukrainian government is responsible for Russian war crimes? https://www.reuters.com/resizer/i8u1Zr3pjvon_ZDTHHfs5b6IwlE=/960x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LSULYN3DV5JMHPGUUYJOEHOCHU.jpg https://www.reuters.com/resizer/i8u1Zr3pjvon_ZDTHHfs5b6IwlE=...)
      - macanchex 4y ago
        Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. On Bucha: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/if-the-pentagon-can-not-confirm-the-bucha-tales-who-can.html https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/if-the-pentagon-can-no...
        kcb 4y ago
        Truly horrendous link. Your appeal to authority is nonsense, it doesn't take long to find someone with even more commas to dispute it. > Anyone who is still pushing more weapons into Ukraine or tells Kiev to prolong the war is putting more Ukrainian lives at risk for zero potential gain. Surely life under Russia will be blissful with no Ukrainians harmed.
ffwszgf 4y ago
In some left-wing circles anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism are indistinguishable. People like Max Blumenthal are the perfect representatives of this ideology.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I don't know anything about max blumenthal so sure. But if you are american, those things pretty much should be the same. Anti-imperialism is not an abstract struggle, and for many around the world the US and its allies are a concrete enemy they've come by honestly. If you live in the US, solidarity with those people means using whatever power you have internally to oppose the US's imperial actions. The US is not the only imperialist force by any means. But particularly from inside one of these machines, it is hard to understand and act against other forms of imperialism without also assisting your own country's imperial projects. Countries are adept at turning their own subversive and radical movements outward against their political enemies. An awareness of the mechanics of imperialism does I think lead to a "clean up your own house first" praxis and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
  - fffff0pg4 4y ago
    What you say here makes sense but it is not at all what is being practiced by some of the "anti-imperialist" left. Max Blumenthal's definition of anti-imperialism begins and ends with America. In his worldview opposing the US and its interests uncritically is the duty of every leftist. If the US supports Ukraine you must oppose it. If the US accuses China of genocide you must support China. If fascists oppose the US government you must side with them too. You must support any and every so-called enemy of the US regardless of what they do or who they are (after all it's all lies from the mainstream media). I am not saying every political commentator should be obligated to report on the abuses of every global power lest they be called "hypocritical", but some leftists will actively defend atrocities as long as they are done in opposition to the US.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Yeah I see what you're saying. Again without conceding that I share this view of this person, since I haven't read his works. But while I don't think that position is correct, I do think it's probably valuable to have some people take that stance. It's similar to the social value in having non-political conservatism that will resist all change no matter what. We'll change anyway, but having to fight for it a little will slow down the changes, hopefully dodge some of the worst consequences, maybe prevent some changes that shouldn't actually happen. The US should be opposed. Not because we are inherently bad, but because our interests aren't everyone's interests. An always-support, always-oppose, or case-by-case stance will each have different failure modes. I think we want a mix, as unpalatable as that can be sometimes.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
The US was in Iraq and Afghanistan accidentally bombing schools, hospitals, and wedding parties for the entirety of Gen Z's lives.
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
It's 2022. Fire up TikTok, start liking videos, and choose whatever narrative you want. Everything you don't like is crisis acting and media bias? Sure! Digital reality is becoming schizophrenic.
- steveylang 4y ago
  It's like the opposite of '1984', and yet somehow the same.
  - whoopdedo 4y ago
    Read Fahrenheit 451 instead.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
At least Russia actually declares war when it places another country within its empire's sights. The USA just acts like it owns the entire american continent and the means to its imperialistic ends range from cultural exportation and massive economic leverage to literally teaching dictators how torture and repress dissidents. Look up School of the Americas for an example.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  "Special military operation"
- secondcoming 4y ago
  Has Russia formally declared War on Ukraine, or is it still a Special Military Operation?
  - jcadam 4y ago
    Are formal declarations of war even a thing any more?
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    It seems to me that openly invading a country is a rather unambiguous way to declare war. Compared to espionage, covert operations and such.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      They are not allowed to call it that in Russia. It's a "special operation".
    - Arrath 4y ago
      And the attempted assassinations of dissidents/defectors with nerve agents only available to one country seems a rather unambiguous way to declare it was a state-sanctioned hit, yet it was denied up and down. As is this invasion portrayed as a 'special military operation', what distinction that actually is from an invasion is up to the rules lawyers, apparently.
mc32 4y ago
It's because kids are effed by the media. They have been fed a whole bunch of lies and propaganda one way or another in order to get them to support or denounce some cause or other so they don't know what to believe. So they throw their hands up and give up and "let them sort it out" The media and establishment want it both ways. in the '80s imperialism was BAD. Now, rebranded as globalism, this imperialism is good, but that one over there by them is BAD! and so on it goes. Can't blame them after the Iraq war and everyone getting on a bandwagon of lies including the left, right and center with the exception of Libertarians.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Can't blame them after the Iraq war and everyone getting on a bandwagon of lies including the left, right and center with the exception of Libertarians. This is only true if your conception of 'the left' is just American liberals. Plenty of people and groups on the left were against the invasions from the get-go.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Sure and we also had a handful of people on the right who were against it too. I'm talking about groups that matter --those that make up more than 5% of a pop. Main point stands though. the media want to have it multiple ways, like John Kerry, one day it's for something, then, the next, it's against the same thing, and a third day it's back on.
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      Ok, for groups that matter, a majority (61%) of US House Democrats formally opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Even a majority of US Congress Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  > so they don't know what to believe. So they throw their hands up and give up and "let them sort it out" This is a result of a common propaganda attack by a party that wants to cover up the truth: seed multiple competing story lines through varying outlets to create a sense of confusion. That way, when the truth is reported, people will react to it like it's just 1 more among the many competing stories. Russia in particular has been running this play both domestically and abroad. It's a formidable approach, and defense against it is difficult.
tonguez 4y ago
">Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) An irony, considering that Russian imperialism is the one that actually performs land grabs and ethnic cleansing without even trying to cover it up." you should learn about this thing called the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then the Vietnam war, etc.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
How is it ironic? It’s like, “Gen Z hates assault… An irony, considering that murder is even more violent.”

tenpies 4y ago

If I may, my impression is also that the younger generations don't "get" war. Why would I, ever shoot someone just like me because his/her/xyr government has forced them to point a rifle at me? They've been raised in a post-modernist neo-marxist environment that very clearly marks the Western order as evil. To them, there is no "good vs evil", because they are evil and the West has no redeeming factors. Why would you fight to defend that? Why fight to spread that? Add a keen awareness of the Elites (however you define them) as the sole beneficiaries or war. The conscript or recruit on the ground pays the price so some WEF-agenda shareholder gets to see a bigger dividend this quarter? Hard pass fam. Add in a general anxiety about everything: from talking to a stranger to the impeding collapse of life on Earth due to climate change within X years (where X is always a handful of years away), and war doesn't make sense. There are Bigger Issues than some lines on the map drawn by Evil White Men. Now obviously this is all a generalization, and all of it goes out the window the minute someone shoots at you, but it's going to be interesting to watch what tactics have to be used to get an unwilling generation in the metaphorical front lines.

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> post-modernist neo-marxist What does that mean? It seems like a contradiction in terms. How could you have someone who rejects modernist ideology but promotes a modernist ideology?
- makomk 4y ago
  It is. The ideology that's referring to which is popular amongst politically active young people is frankly a mess. In particular there's a gaping hole in their post-modernism where they just completely fail to apply any of its tools to their own ideological beliefs or power structures, instead using it to prop up their vaguely Marxist and not so vaguely anti-Western ideology.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  It's a common cliché from rightwing circles (initially I think the combination of the two was produced by Jordan Peterson). Not to be too mean, but you'll see a lot of the Ben Shapiro fan crowd snagging on to it because it sounds smart despite being mostly meaningless. It's a placeholder for terms like 'degeneracy' and 'cultural bolshevism' and other such social forces that might undermine the status quo. There's a bit more nuance if you want to try to take the term at face value. DDG renders this, which seems reasonable https://areomagazine.com/2022/04/11/is-postmodernism-neo-marxist/ https://areomagazine.com/2022/04/11/is-postmodernism-neo-mar...

conductr 4y ago

> don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them I've had a hard time with this one as for weeks it was "Russia is not advancing, yada yada" meanwhile the graphic they showed while saying this clearly showed a map with more occupied territory than the same map the day before and another city under siege which has deteriorated my trust where I was a skeptic before, I did at least think war reporting would be rather accurate. I really got the feeling they were trying to calm us down and getting those talking points from some unified source (the govt?) and worries me that this conflict does in fact have potential to get massively out of hand

ghayes 4y ago
Maps of territory are a terrible way to show the state of the war. This article provides some color and might help underscore why the narrative could be correct even if the maps look otherwise: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/07/russia-war-ukraine-maps/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/07/russia-war-ukraine-maps...
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Maps of territory are a terrible way of showing ANY political conflict. It's the same as the maps of county-by-county US election results that show a sea of red that equate to a population smaller than LA county. People are the important unit in political conflicts and Russia is very much struggling to take any meaningfully populated area (See: Chernobyl, a place where sane humans refuse to go, being one of the first trophies)
  - mcguire 4y ago
    See https://purplestatesofamerica.org/ https://purplestatesofamerica.org/ (Click on "Population".) And here's an interesting take: https://medium.com/matter/the-trouble-with-the-purple-election-map-31e6cb9f1827 https://medium.com/matter/the-trouble-with-the-purple-electi...
  - conductr 4y ago
    I fully agree but it's my go to when my level of time investment is very low. First few weeks I was checking in maybe 5 minutes a day for the headlines, saw no real ground footage and only the maps and cities under siege. The next couple weeks I checked in less frequently but began seeing more imagery of the destruction/human toll. As of now, I haven't looked at any news on the topic this week at all.

prepend 4y ago

> You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” It’s interesting that I’ve noticed many posts of “Ukrainian refugees were accepted, Syrian refugees weren’t; therefore, racism” since the outbreak. I wish Instagram, Facebook, Twitter would release more research on ad spend by company and not activity. It’s pretty cheap to buy these kind of ads and market toward people who signal boost such causes. So I’m assuming that Russia is doing that.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>So I’m assuming that Russia is doing that I've learned there's a certain portion of the population that believes the Russians are behind almost everything.
- prepend 4y ago
  Perhaps. The reason I hav the suspicion is because it seems like Russia benefits the most in this situation from have a narrative against Ukrainian refugees and conflating Ukraine’s issues with Syria’s issues. Logically, there are so many differences between the two populations it wouldn’t make sense to actually make a racism claim (eg, Syrians were high percentage young male vs Ukrainian families; Syria over multiple years vs Ukrainians in weeks; 8M Syrians vs 1M Ukrainians; Syrians travel across multiple countries far away vs Ukrainians in neighboring countries; we’re only weeks in for Ukraine vs years for Syria; etc etc). The two situations are very different so comparing the two and then saying that the reason is racism seems pretty silly. So I think “what’s more likely, silliness or Russian bots?”

matthewdgreen 4y ago

>Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. Same with the Azov Batallion which some people believe are the entire Ukrainian army. Maybe I'm old but I haven't seen any of these things. Where do you find all of these?

edgyquant 4y ago
I haven’t personally watched any but I did see them thrown around in thread about India-Russian relations (videos of Indians being discriminated against by Ukrainians.)
quantum_solanum 4y ago
[1] > It is not uncommon for Ukrainians to refer to African-Americans as “[N-Word]”. Volunteers of color may be called 'a monkey' or may see children’s games with Blackface. Being aware of the history of dehumanization for people of African descent may help inform where this comes from; it does not justify it. It will be at your discretion to determine the intent. [2] > "Problems arise when young foreigners are prioritised over women and children of Ukrainian citizenship who are trying to get on the same trains." > "Maybe we will put all foreigners in some other place so they won’t be visible and there won’t be conflict with Ukrainians trying to flee in the same direction. This is something that has to be taken care of and we will be doing it." [3] > Ukrainian servicemen help evacuate civilians near Irpin, #Ukraine. Three civilians were killed as Russian mortar rounds landed, striking a route used by civilians fleeing southeast toward #Kyiv. trooper in the front sporting a Black Sun patch [4] source for the other comment ---- [1] https://www.peacecorps.gov/ukraine/preparing-to-volunteer/diversity-and-inclusion/ https://www.peacecorps.gov/ukraine/preparing-to-volunteer/di... [2] https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fukraine-ambassador-black-asian-refugees-racism-b2031847.html https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%... [3] https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1500491702880153604 https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/15004917028801536... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60552271 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60552271
- pkaye 4y ago

secondcoming 4y ago

You're probably right, and it's strange to me that Russia's utter intolerance of anything LGBT is not a factor in people deciding who to support.

Gollapalli 4y ago
Has it occurred to you that there are many Americans who view sodomy as immoral?
pseudalopex 4y ago
It's a factor in Russia's favor for anti LGBT people. It isn't a factor for people who dismiss everything but class war as identity politics.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

But fox news is telling them that it's okay for Russia to genocide Ukraine?

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
Source for that?
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Tucker Carlson is the biggest talking head on Fox: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1497035201196617733 https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1497035201196617733 Carlson (on Fox to millions): "I think we should probably take the side of Russia, if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine." (later) "And why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which I am."
  - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
    thank you.
yucky 4y ago
FOX News and CNN have been in complete lockstep from day one, with the exception of Tucker Carlson. Sean Hannity & Anderson Cooper are ideological twins at this point. The last time CNN and FOX News have been this much in agreement, it was when we decided that an invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do in order to get rid of WMD.

yobbo 4y ago

It seems likely that "gen z" americans have few clues about what historic and present day russia is, and generally about the land mass between Poland and Korea. They are just now waking up from two years of debating whether not wearing masks was a hate crime. Maybe in their minds, the conditions on the opposite side of the world just seem too brutal to belong in the same reality. It looks and sounds too crazy to be real, so they can't decide if it's fake.

pueblito 4y ago
Or, maybe, they grew up talking to people from all over the world and have a far better understanding than boomers raised on television
- fhood 4y ago
  Neither is correct. Gen Z, like all young generations, is idealistic, anti-status quo, and thinks their experiences and perspectives are completely unique and novel. As they get older they will transition, hopefully retaining some of their more progressive and forward thinking values, which will become imbedded in society and so the cycle will continue.
  - ksec 4y ago
    The problem is we are not seeing this "As they get older they will transition" that usually happens. What we are seeing, is that the transition out of the idealistic world view, is happening at a much later age. That is already happening with Gen Y or Millennials, and especially those in Tech. People who are over 40s still have these simplistic world view. I dont know what it is about Tech. But it is especially problematic in tech.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  Former university lecturer here. In my experience, gen Z have ZERO understanding of history or geopolitics. I'm serious, they just don't know what happened before their lifetime and cannot hold a coherent conversation about historical events or the geopolitical realities which flow from them. So no, this is not true.

formerly_proven 4y ago

If the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taught me anything, it's that a) while overt Russian propaganda seems to largely fail in Europe, the more subtle suggestions are widespread b) most people have genuinely horribly bad defense takes c) there are somewhat more tankies than I expected

cguess 4y ago
The number of tankies has been impressive. I'm not sure how anyone can look at Russia and think "yea, they made some good points," and I study misinformation professionally. It's not even on the believable scale.

ravitation 4y ago

As a younger millennial on the left, I am routinely frustrated by "anti-imperialist" attitudes (especially among my generation, and younger). I think "anti-imperialist" is one of the least useful labels for a political worldview in contemporary politics. Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media, as an instrument of American imperialism, despite the fact that Russia has a history of aggression against post-Soviet states (e.g. Georgia) in the 21st century. With the outbreak of the war (outside of east Ukraine), some have walked back the more extreme aspects of those statements (as NATO's potential usefulness has been illustrated), but American imperialism via NATO is still discussed in the same breath as Russian imperialism via a military invasion and territorial annexation. The truth is we have very little choice in our great powers or global hegemonies, and I will always take the NATO brand of "imperialism" (e.g. where countries literally ask for American military bases to ward against actual aggression) over the Russian brand. Should we be skeptical of NATO? Of course, as we should with all power structures, especially when they engage in actual violence; but to not have a nuanced discussion about what actual imperialism looks like in the 21st century, and to simply be blanket "anti-imperialist," is juvenile, and I'd argue probably detrimental to those that actually feel its real world effects.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnny22 4y ago
At least it should be easy to understand why though. If you've never seen it used for good in your own eyes, then it's easy to stick with that take.
mrguyorama 4y ago
>Prior to the invasion, there was rampant criticism of NATO, and calls for its dissolution, on left-wing media Can you provide examples? I have not seen this, and as dissolution of NATO or otherwise weakening NATO was a goal of the previous administration, I am confused at this claim.
- ksec 4y ago

recuter 4y ago

> Most younger people are quite skeptic of mainstream media so they don’t trust the narrative CNN and Fox News are trying to sell them.With the elderly it’s the opposite. That's a funny use of the word skeptical. I think you mean outright ignorant. That's how we get "Dear Mister President Vladimir Putin…" https://twitter.com/IAMannalynnemcc/status/1496877541772062727 https://twitter.com/IAMannalynnemcc/status/14968775417720627... They simply don't care beyond an opportunity to self-aggrandize. We're over a month in, Ukraine is old news already. Before you call me an old fogey, I am younger than the woman in this video clip with 32 million views. These are dark times.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

> Finally Russia has, in my opinion, waged a fairly successful social media campaign to muddy the waters. Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. Same with the Azov Batallion which some people believe are the entire Ukrainian army. You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. On the other side of things, on Reddit, nothing unfavorable about Ukraine is getting attention. You don't see any posts about Russia gaining territory, or Zelensky censoring media outlets favorable to opposition parties. And nowhere on reddit or in the media do I see a discussion of the pros and cons of a Ukrainian surrender. It's really hard to see how Ukraine will successfully fend off a country 10x its size. (If someone has an answer as to why that might be realistic, I'm open to hear it).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
einarfd 4y ago
> And nowhere on reddit or in the media do I see a discussion of the pros and cons of a Ukrainian surrender. It's really hard to see how Ukraine will successfully fend off a country 10x its size. (If someone has an answer as to why that might be realistic, I'm open to hear it). It's really hard to see that Ukraine by itself could defeat Russia and it definitely seems far fetched, even if the Russian army has shown itself more inept than expected. But that isn't what is happening either, and a Ukraine bankrolled and armed by the west. That is something else, and that combination might definitely be abel to defeat Russia. So the question is more, is the west or parts of it willing to spend enough and accept escalating tensions with nuclear armed Russia by doing that? If you look at what Zelensky is doing at the drumbeat of asks for more weapons is obvious that Ukraine is fully aware of this.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >It's really hard to see that Ukraine by itself could defeat Russia There are many paths but they are all long term "replace the Taliban with the Taliban" type ones that people don't wanna talk about.

deeg 4y ago

I don't think this is a modern phenomenon. Certainly it was the younger generation that was against the war in Vietnam. It would be interesting to see polls from the Korean War and World War I. My guess is that we'd see a similar split between young and older generations.

rayiner 4y ago

> Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) so they’re less willing to blindly support US foreign policy and feel less connected to European conflicts than previous generations. I don't think it's accurate to say they're "broadly anti-American" because they're "more diverse." The increased diversity in the younger generation is due to Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their kids.[1] First and second generation immigrants are equally or more patriotic than native born Americans, and are significantly less likely to say they are “ashamed” of any aspect of America: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-recognize-american-greatness-immigrants https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-polic.... All else being equal, immigration-driven population change is driving down "anti-American" sentiment. Indeed, the only political group where a majority say they’re “ashamed to be American,” progressives, is also amongst the whitest: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles https://hiddentribes.us/profiles. I think what you see amongst immigrants is a less ideological view of foreign policy. They have often seen first hand that American has done a lot of harmful things abroad. At the same time, they compartmentalize that because they don't view foreign policy in terms of "good and evil." They may also feel less ownership of America's role and status as world "lawgiver." I also think immigrants are more cynical than Americans. I'd describe my dad and myself as "pro America," but neither of us care about Ukraine. (And frankly I see no connection between being pro-American and supporting Ukraine.) As immigrants from Bangladesh we don't have idealistic notions about sovereignty and human rights. “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (It drives my Daughter of the American Revolution wife nuts when we say "some countries' fate is to be a buffer state.") And of course "immigrants" are not homogenous but rather from a wide range of different countries that have various idiosyncratic positions on foreign policy. Some of the most rabidly patriotic people I know are kids of Vietnamese immigrants. Meanwhile in India and Bangladesh, there is a historical affinity with Russia from the Soviet times. [1] The Black population share was 11% in 1960 and 12% in 2010, and is projected to rise to 13% in 2050. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/11/117.jpg https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/11/117.jpg. The white population share will decrease from 85% to 47%, with almost all of the delta due to Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asians.

dankboys 4y ago

> You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. This one really annoys me. Yes, people care more about people who look like them, and certainly those who are closer and where war is less common. Same reason predominantly Muslim diasporas in the west care about Palestine a lot

rayiner 4y ago
> Same reason predominantly Muslim diasporas in the west care about Palestine a lot I don't think that's true. It's true the Muslims I know care about Palestine. But, for example, nobody cares about Uyghurs, who are Muslim. I don't know any Bangladeshis that care about the Rohingya, even though they're at least closely related to Bangladeshis (and "look" the same and speak a closely related language). My impression, being part of this "diaspora," is that the common support for Palestine is more about shared animosity against Israel. This animosity is partly just anti-Jewish, but also partly anti-Anglo-meddling, insofar as Britain was instrumental in enabling Jewish repatriation of Israel, and the United States continues to support Israel.
- azth 4y ago
  Absolutely false. We Muslims care about our brothers and sisters wherever they are, and regardless of their ethnicity or race. There are tons of material and videos online about prayers and donations and campaigns made in support of them. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941duulDzOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941duulDzOs
- dankboys 4y ago
  Maybe it's different there, but in the UK which has a significant Muslim population, concern for Palestine, Yemen and Syria (and even the Uyghurs to a lesser extent) is common. The Rohingyas also had support in the UK, which again has a lot of Bangladeshis.
quantum_solanum 4y ago
> where war is less common. This particular refrain is one that's worth examining from the lens you're dismissing. Under what frame is "war less common" in Europe (or even "East Europe")? An extremely narrow one at best, IMO. A large proportion of pro-Ukrainian propaganda also outright contradicts this notion by referencing historical acts of Russian aggression.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

> Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) [...] and feel less connected to European conflicts than previous generations. [...] Those videos of Ukrainians discriminating against people or color were signal boosted everywhere on Twitter. [...] You also have people bringing up Yemen, Syria, Palestine, etc to emphasize the “white-supremacist” support of Ukraine receiving overwhelming attention. I've noticed this too, and I need to make a point: In the long run, this will be a serious security threat to Europe. In this, Europe took almost completely the wrong lessons regarding America's role in NATO. Yes a stronger NATO is good. Yes, stronger ties to America are necessary to counter Russia. But now is not the time to abandon strategic autonomy. Just the opposite. Macron is right, just as DeGaulle before him was right. Yes, Europe should ally with the United States, but it also must begin to stand on its own two feet. Why? Because the next American generations don't give a shit about Europe. In a very deep way, Europeans have not absorbed the social earthquakes that have hit the United States. In younger American minds, Europe doesn't matter. Ukraine doesn't matter. Europe should maintain its alliances, but it also needs to plan for a future in which it depends only on itself for its defense. It needs to do this seriously and as though its life depends on it.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
>In this, Europe took almost completely the wrong lessons regarding America's role in NATO. I think you misinterpret what Europe is doing, because it's mostly doing exactly what you propose. Hell, even Germany seriously plans to overhaul it's dismal army.

lcedp 4y ago

You've listed: > Gen Z is also more diverse and broadly anti-American (or “anti-imperialist”) as a factor contributing to not supporting US and ending up supporting Russia, one of the most imperialistic nations out there. The irony :(