9 ms·

I know it may be off topic but i don't want people to discuss about the reliability of the data involved, no, i want people to reflect about the outcome: end of

• civilized 4y ago
  The few warmongers often have the support of the majority, e.g. in Russia right now, where polls consistently show 70% support or more for Putin's attack on Ukraine. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803 https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or... The common folk may find war too unpleasant to conduct themselves, but they rally behind someone who will do it for them.
  • andretti1977 4y ago
    The common folk may be led to think that the only alternative they have to live is war. And they are led to think that by those small overpowered fraction. It has been the case for a lot of modern wars (even those pushed by us or nato). It's not a matter of country.
  • therusskiy 4y ago
    It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda. Like you, for example, or majority of "west" for that matter, has completely believed that "70%" number that was released by Russian government.
    • civilized 4y ago
      Except they were not released by the Russian government.
      • therusskiy 4y ago
        They were released by Levada, it's now been some time that they are being influenced by Kremlin. None of my friends / relatives / acquintances supports this war (only my GF's mother). That is a piss-poor statistic, but the sad truth is that there simply cannot be any reliable sociology in a country where saying "no to war" leads to criminal prosecution. I think it's also crucial, that from people who "support this war", most support the image they see on TV, not the real-world atrocities. Most of people who support this war think they are fighting "battalions of NATO soldiers from Poland" and a small group of nazis who threaten Ukraininan soldiers with death if they don't go into battle. For majority it's impossible to fathom fighting with brotherly Ukrainians.
    • Kamq 4y ago
      > It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda. Sure, but in democracies (or any system where legitimacy depends on the "will of the people"), why the people believe something isn't usually considered relevant.
    • mradek 4y ago
      Sure but if a propagandized population is hellbent in what they believe, they are a danger. Just because they have been brainwashed doesn’t mean we should let our guard down out of pity. It should make us more alarmed because they would actually go and do something batshit crazy. It’s honestly very unsettling to think about.
    • schwartzworld 4y ago
      Considering the ridiculous politics here in America, I don't find the 70% statistic hard to believe. News is propaganda here, and people support terrible things all the time, so why should Russia be different?
    • godelski 4y ago
      > It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda. I think not enough people understand this point. So many believe that they are immune to propaganda because they laugh at some that they see. But they do not laugh at the propaganda that does influence them. There's different propaganda for different people. This is the same underlying arguments for the privacy avocation groups, but I don't want to derail the conversation at hand.
    • yks 4y ago
      "70%" number is effectively meaningless, it might be 30 or 90, but it is a fact that the war is supported by Russian society. They may not _like_ it but they _support_ it. If Putin says the war is over now, Russians would support that too.
  • CGamesPlay 4y ago
    It’s literally illegal to not be “in support” of the “special military operation” if you are in Russia. No poll could possibly be accurate.
  • throwaway290 4y ago
    As practice shows, it's one thing to support the attacks but quite another to be willing to go to the frontline...
    • yks 4y ago
      Current Russian practice shows that there is no difference, thousands of newly mobilized men have already died and their society doesn't care, mothers just blame Ukraine.
  • simplotek 4y ago
    > The few warmongers often have the support of the majority, e.g. in Russia right now, where polls consistently show 70% support or more for Putin's attack on Ukraine. We should take a step back and think about Russia's problem. Not only did Russia's dictatorship made it illegal and a punishable offense to express any negative feeling regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they manipulate all their media with pro-Putin and pro-war propaganda. Keep in mind that Russia's regime response to anti-mobilization protesta was to arrest protesters and force them to the war front. No wonder a big chunk of Russians, when faced with any war-related question, they make it their point to promptly give a canned response on how they are apolitical. Self-preservation in a totalitarian state kicks in almost as a Darwinian response. If you found yourself living in that sort of castrating society, what would you answer if state posters asked you what you thought of the ongoing war?
  • IAmGraydon 4y ago
    If Maslow’s hierarchy of needs had one more layer at its very base, it would be power. That is, the ability to project their will into the world. People who are made to feel powerless (like the Russian population) will align themselves with a source of power (Putin) to satisfy their need for power, even if by proxy. The need for power is so fundamentally important to humans that any source of this is valued above most moral conflicts that the source may cause. This is how a large population of “good” people can commit atrocities, as in WWII Germany, for example.
  • andrepd 4y ago
    Since there is no free press in Russia and if you publicly come out against the war you might be jailed and brutalised, I'm surprised the percentage isn't even larger.
  • pain2022 4y ago
    I'm so tired of seeing this 70% number. There is a lot of available evidence against it. Why is it so widely quoted by western media? The poll is from Nevada, same poll company that said 1% support Navalny as a politician. Navalny got 27% on Moscow mayor election in 2013. Tens of thousands of people were on demonstrations in his support in 2021, risking getting beaten up by police and jailed. Out of ~100 people I know, maybe a couple somewhat support war. In Moscow, none of civilian cars you see on the streets have Z/V/military symbols in support of the war. If war has 70% support, at least 1% would put it on display.
• ratsmack 4y ago
  War mongers also cross the entire political spectrum almost like they're born with a death wish. It's too bad they can't be excised from the system before they gain too much power.
  • hayst4ck 4y ago
    I think I am quite liberal and I could be considered a warmonger. If you have never met a truly delusional person in your life, it's easy to have pacifist ideals. As soon as you meet a truly delusional person and those delusions directly conflict with what you need or a right you think you have, you quickly learn that "war" is sometimes the only option. If there are situations that require war, then you must make sure you are capable of exerting force. I think the quote "If you want peace, prepare for war," is quite accurate. It is perceived weakness that opens you up to having war thrust upon you by someone who has estimated they have more power. In that sense, I think pacifism is a warmongering ideology because I view "despots that have too much power will exist" as an axiom upon which any political philosophy must be built. To a despot, pacifism is opportunity to subjugate. The foundation of despotism is built upon people who will not risk what they hold dear. Nuclear annihilation is bad, but I would rather live in a world under threat of nuclear annihilation rather than a world where only Putin or Xi could threaten the force of nuclear weapons to subjugate those they wish.
    • Nomentatus 4y ago
      I was a pacifist until I read Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England. Also entertaining. But long. Or perhaps, Tolkein convinced me that I was kidding myself if I thought I was a pacifist, in the first place. If you would break someone's arm to save a million lives, then you're not a pacifist. Which is a sorta kinda okay rough summary of the book's underlying argument.
      • argiopetech 4y ago
      • 4y ago
• loceng 4y ago
  If 8 billion people in the world, your 99.99% leads to 80 million people who would be willing to harm others - a lot of people - where certainly only a fraction of that is enough to create an army for a tyrant; and to which where the second amendment in the U.S. stems from, knowing that only an armed population can counter threats on freedom.
  • zenta 4y ago
    Nit: I don't know that it changes the point, but 0.01% of 8B is 800K.
    • loceng 4y ago
      Hmm.. wow, I sure fucked that up. Thanks for pointing out. I practically never do math in my head anymore - I either need to practice again to sharpen up a bit or only ever depend on calculators from now on. And true, 800k is plenty - you just have to recruit existing repeat criminals.
• pmoriarty 4y ago
  "maybe 99.99% of world population wouldn't harm another person" I think they would... especially in self-defense, in defense of someone they cared about, and plenty would do so for ideals like "freedom", "country" or "democracy"... and if they wouldn't most would be perfectly happy to let others do it for them. That's why the military and police exist, and why most people are perfectly happy to fund and support them. It's also why wars have so many participants and supporters. Politicians can further rile people up to commit violence against scapegoats and even preemptively against distant potential threats. It's not so difficult for them to get a lot of people to commit violence against a historical, cultural, political, religious, or ethnic enemy.
  • Loquebantur 4y ago
    This is a category error. Even if you subscribe to the idea of violence being justified in specific cases, there is no reason in the idea "kill everybody including yourself". People arguing in favor of doomsday-weapons fail to recognize, the supposedly addressed problem not having a solution in the domain of violence means you have to look elsewhere.
    • tekknik 4y ago
      Humans are built with a solution to violence, along with every other animal on the planet. Actively seeking violence and defending yourself are very different thinks and since this is instinctual, I find it very implausible you can convince all 7 billion of us to not fight each other. This is why you end up with violence as a deterrent.
• godelski 4y ago
  This concept has always baffled me too. There's the old saying (I think from cold war era): the difference between you (a foreigner) and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders. It is very clear to me that these existential threats are elites playing a game with our lives. The lives of everyone on this planet. The same elites that have nuclear bunkers and would survive the repercussions of their acts. The same elites who get us worked up with racism and scapegoatism. It doesn't matter if you're American, Indian, Chinese, or Russian; the honest to god truth is that the VAST majority of us want to just live in peace and don't give a shit about this geopolitical nonsense. It's strange to me that you can go back to Diogenes and find people discussing this same sentiment, about being citizens of the world. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. Fine in moderate usage but large doses make people go insane. I do recognize that there is a lot more complexity to all this. Like another commenter pointed out, even 0.01% of 8 billion is 800k. But this shows an existential threat to humanity. That even if the rate of psychopaths with power is extremely low, that the total number is still quite large. But it isn't just these elites that make us think small cultural differences are quite large, I see every day people come to these same conclusions. I don't understand how this happens when we really are all just people doing people things. Exposure? I'm not sure how to solve this tbh. I do think working towards a post scarce society is one of the biggest tools we can have. People tend to be much nicer and far less likely to act criminally when they don't have to worry about getting by. People aren't inherently evil, but justify small steps in that direction with good intentions. Post scarcity takes away some of this power that these people have, but it won't take away all of it. I know this is something we techies here are able to work towards, but I don't know what the other parts are, and I don't think it is going to be a fully technological solution (that would be absurd). But I do thin, like you're saying, that we need to discuss this. After all, even if it is unlikely to happen, the fate of the human race depends on this discussion. A 0.001% chance of nuclear war is still too high.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• hayst4ck 4y ago
  A police officer is a position of power. In many parts of the world, someone in this position of power will use that power to acquire resources via bribes or extortion. This person with authority of the state has a right to violence that you do not have. This person has determined they have a right to your money and a "justification" (The law of nature: I have more power) to take it. If you give the money there is no 'harm,' yet you have been harmed with the threat of violence. If you need that money to feed yourself or get medical care for your child, it might literally result in death. If you fight the police officer, others will come after you. If you gather your friends to fight the police officers, you have now subverted the government, created your own government (because you are now an agent of enforcement of your own set of "laws"), and now started a very small scale war (revolution) out of your desire to not be harmed. If you don't think people would self enrich at the cost of others, I have some very bad news for you. Just because a person hasn't been physically damaged, doesn't mean they haven't been harmed. If there was a button that gave you a million dollars but would kill a person you have never met, I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who would press it, and those that do press it, would probably be happy to press it many times. The way you use the word harm is what prevents you from making sense of the problem. Confusion is not the result of understanding. Sadness is.
  • systemvoltage 4y ago
    We grant government the monopoly of violence in return for protecting individual rights. That's the idea.
    • blaser-waffle 4y ago
      We don't grant a government the monopoly of violence -- they are the government because they hold the monopoly of violence. The monopoly of violence is disconnected from issues of legitimacy and authority. You don't have to agree with the government, and plenty of folks don't -- hence insurgencies and rebellions all over the world. But unless you can usurp that monopoly of violence from the existing government your feelings about their legitimacy and authority are moot. Lots of governments don't give a damn about your rights, and never will.