8 ms·

It's obviously better if people always look at things with a sceptical eye but it isn't weird to me people want to support the Ukrainians. Pair the narrative o

by mhh__ 4y ago

It's obviously better if people always look at things with a sceptical eye but it isn't weird to me people want to support the Ukrainians. Pair the narrative of the smaller country being invaded by the belligerent dictator next door with (in my case) a country where Russia is already unpopular due to various assassinations, sabre-rattling, and so on, its not hard to understand the current balance of In the UK the mainstream (serious) news has been fairly reliant on reporting based on estimated troop movements illustrated by video so there hasn't been too much potential for egregious nonsense. In my obviously biased view the thing that worries me is actually people (knowingly, twitter promotes a fairly distorted presentation of ones true feelings) swallowing Russian propaganda hook line and sinker out of a fairly boring contrarianism. It is easy to imagine the debates in the neutral (or less than neutral) countries of past historical conflicts - you can make your own mind up about how those debates would go, but this conflict (paired with such easy access to differing opinion) seems to be a great source of material. Contrarianism is often a very important thing to have in society, make no mistake, but many would benefit (and perhaps internally do, who knows) from being contrarian against their own beliefs, even just for a little time a day - this goes for both sides of this conflict although I won't pussyfoot by saying that both sides are in some way the same.

mcintyre1994 4y ago
> In the UK the mainstream (serious) news has been fairly reliant on reporting based on estimated troop movements illustrated by video so there hasn't been too much potential for egregious nonsense. I'd agree with this. The BBC's Ukrainecast podcast seems to be very conservative here as an example. I don't listen all the time, but when I do it reports things as new days behind OSINT sources. And they're always very clear about what they can and can't independently verify, and specifically call out when Ukrainians are stopping journalists getting places to verify their claims.
rustybelt 4y ago
Unless the entire narrative you laid out is the result of a propaganda campaign. I don't think it is in this case, but the presence of this quantity of bots pushing a certain perspective does make me question my assumptions and worry how I'm being influenced in cases that are not nearly as black and white as Ukraine vs Russia.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  If you see Ukraine vs Russia as black and white, it means you are already manipulated. The conflict didn't start on 24th of February this year. Even if the press pretends it's all clear, there's a long history of events full of nuances going back hundreds of years that can paint the current events in one or other colour.
  - hendersoon 4y ago
    Can you go into any detail on historical events which a reasonable person might feel justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
    - p1peridine 4y ago
      Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior - Imperial Strategic Culture and Putin’s Operational Code (2022) by Professor Graeme P. Herd. https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Russian-Strategic-Behavior-Imperial-Strategic-Culture-and/Herd/p/book/9780367205225 https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Russian-Strategic-Be... This book is useful for understanding (not justifying).
  - rustybelt 4y ago
    Trust me, I see your point. I was trying to be diplomatic considering the dominant perspective.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
    Yes, the story is long. Yes, there are many Russians in Ukraine, especially in the East. Yes, there were some alt-right people in Ukraine, too. No, none of these justifies starting a full-scale war, killing thousands of people.
    - canadiantim 4y ago
      I think the point he was making is it's tough to pinpoint who start the war, considering ukraine has been a pretty intense proxy battlefield for almost a decade and beyond
mistrial9 4y ago
I think there is a false-dichotomy presented here.. a choice is not "believe big govt (mine) versus big govt (theirs)" to be contrarian. There is another avenue and that is to listen to your own sense of right and wrong, up to and including questioning the authority of your own govt, of "their" govt, giving voice to the voiceless like minority social elements, the elderly, the agrarian, the less-educated locals with cultural affinity, religious voices.. etc. The media products of mass mobilized military societies have some similarity with each other, when viewed this way, despite being "at war".
joecot 4y ago
Americans have been so indoctrinated to the idea that every issue must have two sides who should be equally considered, that when we have issues where one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong, they don't know how to comprehend it. Our media has made everything a debate game because it gets viewers, and it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is. There is no equally valid argument against man-made climate change, evolution, gay rights, the right for people of color to exist without harassment, or Ukraine defending itself.
- wyager 4y ago
  > one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong If your model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon, 99% chance you are a mark, incapable of identifying propaganda. > it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is 99.9% of issues in the population of issues we ever think about do not have a clear right answer, because if they did we would just discharge the issue immediately, and it would not stick around. Everything that remains exists in a tradeoff space, and if you think there's a clear right answer, it's probably because your understanding of the tradeoff space is naïve and low-dimensional.
  - igorkraw 4y ago
    Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad. Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simplicity of black and white forces us to show flag instead of hiding in "neutrality". Nihilism, strong moral relativism and contrarianism without a constructive goal are lazy pseudo intellectual positions that do not serve any constructive purpose (be it insight or improvement of the material world) and serve only as deflections and comfort arguments. And for those that disagree with me: I'd love to hear where and why I'm wrong about thinking "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician" and "there are degrees of corruption, and the west is less corrupt than Russia". Because I've got evidence for these beliefs (the industrial output of Russia and Putin's palace being only two data points). What's yours?
wyager 4y ago
You haven't actually mentioned the reason that American politicians are so personally pro-ukraine, which is that it's a money laundering engines for political failsons to receive political bribes on behalf of their parents. The Hunter Biden/Burisma situation is not even remotely unique.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by mhh__ 4y ago

mcintyre1994 4y ago

> In the UK the mainstream (serious) news has been fairly reliant on reporting based on estimated troop movements illustrated by video so there hasn't been too much potential for egregious nonsense. I'd agree with this. The BBC's Ukrainecast podcast seems to be very conservative here as an example. I don't listen all the time, but when I do it reports things as new days behind OSINT sources. And they're always very clear about what they can and can't independently verify, and specifically call out when Ukrainians are stopping journalists getting places to verify their claims.

rustybelt 4y ago

Unless the entire narrative you laid out is the result of a propaganda campaign. I don't think it is in this case, but the presence of this quantity of bots pushing a certain perspective does make me question my assumptions and worry how I'm being influenced in cases that are not nearly as black and white as Ukraine vs Russia.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
If you see Ukraine vs Russia as black and white, it means you are already manipulated. The conflict didn't start on 24th of February this year. Even if the press pretends it's all clear, there's a long history of events full of nuances going back hundreds of years that can paint the current events in one or other colour.
- hendersoon 4y ago
  Can you go into any detail on historical events which a reasonable person might feel justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
  - p1peridine 4y ago
    Understanding Russian Strategic Behavior - Imperial Strategic Culture and Putin’s Operational Code (2022) by Professor Graeme P. Herd. https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Russian-Strategic-Behavior-Imperial-Strategic-Culture-and/Herd/p/book/9780367205225 https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Russian-Strategic-Be... This book is useful for understanding (not justifying).
- rustybelt 4y ago
  Trust me, I see your point. I was trying to be diplomatic considering the dominant perspective.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  Yes, the story is long. Yes, there are many Russians in Ukraine, especially in the East. Yes, there were some alt-right people in Ukraine, too. No, none of these justifies starting a full-scale war, killing thousands of people.
  - canadiantim 4y ago
    I think the point he was making is it's tough to pinpoint who start the war, considering ukraine has been a pretty intense proxy battlefield for almost a decade and beyond

mistrial9 4y ago

I think there is a false-dichotomy presented here.. a choice is not "believe big govt (mine) versus big govt (theirs)" to be contrarian. There is another avenue and that is to listen to your own sense of right and wrong, up to and including questioning the authority of your own govt, of "their" govt, giving voice to the voiceless like minority social elements, the elderly, the agrarian, the less-educated locals with cultural affinity, religious voices.. etc. The media products of mass mobilized military societies have some similarity with each other, when viewed this way, despite being "at war".

joecot 4y ago

Americans have been so indoctrinated to the idea that every issue must have two sides who should be equally considered, that when we have issues where one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong, they don't know how to comprehend it. Our media has made everything a debate game because it gets viewers, and it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is. There is no equally valid argument against man-made climate change, evolution, gay rights, the right for people of color to exist without harassment, or Ukraine defending itself.

wyager 4y ago
> one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong If your model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon, 99% chance you are a mark, incapable of identifying propaganda. > it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is 99.9% of issues in the population of issues we ever think about do not have a clear right answer, because if they did we would just discharge the issue immediately, and it would not stick around. Everything that remains exists in a tradeoff space, and if you think there's a clear right answer, it's probably because your understanding of the tradeoff space is naïve and low-dimensional.
- igorkraw 4y ago
  Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad. Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simplicity of black and white forces us to show flag instead of hiding in "neutrality". Nihilism, strong moral relativism and contrarianism without a constructive goal are lazy pseudo intellectual positions that do not serve any constructive purpose (be it insight or improvement of the material world) and serve only as deflections and comfort arguments. And for those that disagree with me: I'd love to hear where and why I'm wrong about thinking "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician" and "there are degrees of corruption, and the west is less corrupt than Russia". Because I've got evidence for these beliefs (the industrial output of Russia and Putin's palace being only two data points). What's yours?

wyager 4y ago

You haven't actually mentioned the reason that American politicians are so personally pro-ukraine, which is that it's a money laundering engines for political failsons to receive political bribes on behalf of their parents. The Hunter Biden/Burisma situation is not even remotely unique.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]