vimothy

yurp
there's an interesting interview with ns lyons in which he makes a similar point about the ukraine:

you will have to pull identity politics from the collective West’s cold, dead, irradiated hands before we give that up.
Just a few weeks into this war and it’s now clear that the gravity of our narcissistic culture war is so strong that even the risk of WWIII and potential nuclear annihilation can’t break its grip – everything is pulled back in and reframed by the narratives we are most obsessed with.

The narrative conflict around liberalism and nationalism is a good example. Liberal internationalists have leaped on the war as a means to claim narrative victory and smear nationalists, populists, realists, and anti-interventionist conservatives as not only definitively wrong about everything, but as inherently pro-Putin and dangerous to the world. But of course the Ukrainians fighting and dying to save their country are nationalists.

Almost uniformly, they speak passionately about fighting to defend their land, their homes, and their families – not the EU. Such as this young former IT specialist, who explained to the New York Times that he's decided to take up arms because as a Ukrainian the Russian invasion threatens "everything I love," and that he "doesn't have any choice, this is my home." That is classic national conservatism – love of one’s home, and the desire to preserve and protect it – in one line. Meanwhile they are fighting off Putin’s supranational imperialist dream of gobbling them up into a multi-state Russian empire.

But such realities are steamrolled by the narrative tidal wave as everything gets reframed as needed, until we are at the point where Nancy Pelosi – a liberal supranationalist – is shouting “Slava Ukraini!” on the US Senate floor without any sense of irony.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Yeah I think its more of an emotionally charged consensus than a rationally evaluated consensus, and maybe I've overestimating how much remote spectators are willing to tolerate atrocities undertaken by Ukrainian forces. In any case, I agree this isn't a consensus that should stick around.
Personally I suspect some of the stories about Russian human rights violations may have been fabricated by Pro-Ukrainian information warriors, and again this strikes me as natural under wartime conditions. If I was compelled to aid on this front, its a tactic that would be on my radar, if even as a last resort. If a news-bite or headline or tweet makes you hate Russian soldiers more, even without (or perhaps by virtue of not) requiring verification, then in my mind it can qualify as an effective information warfare tactic.

But to be clear and give ample disclaimers, which apparently I really need to do on Dissensus, it seems clear to me that Russian soldiers have actually committed many of the atrocities (EG executions of families) that they have been accused of. At least from the footage I've seen, which admittedly I haven't myself verified.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Yeah I mean I understand, and really shouldn't pretend like its always clear where I'm standing, or that I'm even taking a discernible stance at all. It just feels like I'm trying to convince people that I don't actually support arguments that I am antithetically mobilizing.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
But this sort of dialectical approach can tend to lift one off the ground, i.e. make their ultimate stance difficult to discern, even to themselves. I can speak to this directly.

On the other hand, this is arguably the point of dialectics, to advance one's own stance.
 

DLaurent

Well-known member
Had a conversation on another forum where someone was telling me the 77th Brigade are already in Ukraine. Didn't last long.

Apparently an associated intelligence unit has also directed the Partygate scandal.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Yeah I mean I understand, and really shouldn't pretend like its always clear where I'm standing, or that I'm even taking a discernible stance at all. It just feels like I'm trying to convince people that I don't actually support arguments that I am antithetically mobilizing.
Which is tricky, because in my mind the best way to antithetically mobilize an argument is to temporarily convince yourself of it. Thats largely what all my talk of second-order pragmatism was about: figuring out a higher-order method for what to convince yourself of, and in what sequence.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Which is tricky, because in my mind the best way to antithetically mobilize an argument is to temporarily convince yourself of it. Thats largely what all my talk of second-order pragmatism was about: figuring out a higher-order method for what to convince yourself of, and in what sequence.
Some may consider this capability sociopathic, but arguably all philosophic excellence is pathological.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Which is tricky, because in my mind the best way to antithetically mobilize an argument is to temporarily convince yourself of it. Thats largely what all my talk of second-order pragmatism was about: figuring out a higher-order method for what to convince yourself of, and in what sequence.
This can also be considered the internalization of the deliberative process of democracy, or a dialectical schizosis. Second-order pragmatism is an attempt at structuring this schizosis to not only optimize its efficacy, but to also help prevent insanity.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
And it's also a good, diplomatic ability to have when engineering DAO governance structures.

I know this is unrelated to the topic, and that I'm not really talking to anyone. I'd just like to record these thoughts contiguously somewhere, so I can query them later - a motivation which has impelled the majority of my posts here.
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
I think I've written more or less the same thing on here before, the US and Europe have come in heavily on one side of this conflict, and one key contour of this especially if it goes on for years will be the extent to which western leaders can keep up that support in the face of public (and therefore electoral) pressure. Therefore the usual perception management, communications approaches are going to be used by all sides, western governments, Ukrainian government, Russia, to try to maintain or eat away at that public support.

This obviously isn't the first time that the US and Europe have taken one side or another in a conflict between other parties, even if you exclude the slightly different examples of Afghanistan and Iraq. The most recent major one was daesh of course. And that was not exactly something hard to get public support for. But it's absolutely true that loss of public support has ended up becoming electorally important in quite a number of cases and that has constrained the decisions of western heads of state, eg Syria in 2013, Afghanistan in 2010, 2016 and 2021, Somalia in the 90s, Iraq in 2010ish.
 

vimothy

yurp
you should just assume that, realistically, you're being manipulated, bc if you're not it means the ppl involved dont care what you think, which is obviously not true
 

Leo

Well-known member
Eg BBC news leads with Zelenskyy's "heart...full of hate for Russia"

I don't understand what this means, can you explain? The Russian people? I didn't think he was being depicted that way, the hate is more Putin and his military officials.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I don't understand what this means, can you explain? The Russian people? I didn't think he was being depicted that way, the hate is more Putin and his military officials.
The presenter quoted him using those words and later called him a "charming man" after their interview
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Approving bad things as long as they're against bad people is how we end up hacking each other to bits with machetes and feeling good about it
 
Top