this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
1812 points (95.9% liked)
Political Memes
5426 readers
2323 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As long as they're genuine and civil about their opinions, I encourage a space for that discussion. If it's disingenuous trolling or crude propaganda then it becomes a problem.
The general public framing of the war and Russian "denazification" messaging has basically broke criticism of the situation in the mainstream. It's even to the point where you can support Ukrainian people and clearly identify Russia as the aggressor, but if you rationalize how this war didn't come out of nowhere people's alarm bells go up, and immediately you are scrutinized whether you're a Russian troll or not. (There is no measure of sincerity online.)
The shocking thing for me is how quickly people revel in violence the second there's a moral justification for it. Like you see closeups of injured Russians getting grenades dropped on them and see their bodies exploding, and it's almost treated as a moral duty to view this as entertainment, consuming it on the same social media feeds you would memes and friend's family photos.
I am, sadly, guilty of the last part, but to my defence I followed the beginning of this war almost religiously and the brutality the russian soldiers was beyond horrific.
They had absolutely zero regard for human life in any form or way.
I've also heard countless recordings of phone calls between soldiers and families back in Russia and while not all are equally bad, many were sould wrenching to listen to.
I can't excuse cheering for the loss of life, even when brainwashed, but I did and felt comfort knowing that there was one invader leas to wreck havock upon the Ukranian population.
I would reckon many were in the same boat as myself.
The issue is outside of any "true" morality, if you were in Russia chances are you'd be doing the exact same for the other side, since moral justifications for violence can be constructed and consented to on behalf of the public through many methods. Retribution violence is propagandized heavily in the US, in media and civic life. Some people gleefully imagine themselves inflicting violence with their firearm of choice if only provided with the right circumstance. So all this becomes a matter of dividing people by who is morally granted to inflict the violence they've been conditioned to view as justified, perpetuating the cycle. Viewing history as a river of blood and ignoring the banks of the river where people live their lives.
I followed this war for first 2 months only, i am neither on Russian or Ukrainian side.
I am in country which doesn't belong to American or Russian side. Except "the world" (NATO+2 other boot kissers) every other nation citizen knows that this war started due to bullying faced by a nation constantly being surrounded by weapons of "the world" nations. It didn't come out of no where, ukarine became the victim. Other than "the world" countries nobody believes Ukraine stance to continue is any form of stand against evil, everybody knows what Americans and NATO did to middle eastern people, they carpet bombed entire villages couple days after 9/11 and everybody enjoyed that horror show while drinking beers in pubs and eating crisps, and we were supposed to believe all those murdered by carpet bombing were terrorists; all non-"the world" countries know what is happening. Before internet bullies jump on me, I am also not from middle east.
Initially it was clear in first 2 weeks that Russian soldiers were very well behaved and didn't touch any civilian, Russian troops were bullied and harassed by local civilians, stones were thrown at them on video and no retaliation was caught on any camera whatsoever. One can argue whether those Russian soldiers should be there or not, but they were there already, can't change it. Memes were being made that Russian soldiers are weak girls who can't do anything, their non-aggressive stance was seen as weakness
Later came American and NATO donated ordinance, which turned invasion into bloody unnecessary war.
Now as a third party national with no interest in who wins the "trophy", I find it shameful that Internet warriors are saying things like Ukraine is winning or Russia is winning. Internet is full of bull.. Ukraine which was once very beautiful country with wonderful free of cost education for all/foreigners is an absolute ruin, they are winning nothing, no matters what the outcome is.
No matters how much I respect bravery of Ukrainians, It clearly is a war being fought for American ego, and victim is every Ukraine resident, no matters how much nationalist pride they try to show online or offline for anyone's "bravery", Ukraine has advanced backwards towards history; whatever the result Ukraine has lost big time, the longer war goes, the more they lose.
Please stop this non-sense war, nobody is giving you weapons because they believe you are fighting for freedom, if you believed in freedom, you would join NAM movement like the non-"the world" countries.
Im glad to reading this,
TY
That's what tankies do almost by definition. You're talking about the rare breed of communists who aren't tankies.
It's not rare. There are just a lot of loud, terminally online people on Lemmy.
At this point, there is very little room for a discussion that hasn't already been settled though. Anyone who doesn't see Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the complete aggressor is already a fool (who if they haven't understood by now, will they ever?) or a troll.
I don't think the issue for criticism is whether they're a victim of Russia's aggression, they were clearly invaded. The issue is why they, as a victim in this context, benefit from the full weight of western support, whereas other victims are basically ignored, or even explained away as something expected and "unfortunate." If you sincerely support Ukrainian people you have to realize they are not being supported by the west simply because they are good deserving people, else we'd have sent weapons to many other groups in even more dire situations, the names of which aren't even in our public conscious. If you truly support victimized people you have to go far beyond the messaging from western governments, and it will extend far beyond borders and national/religious identities. Just look at the way Kurds were symbolized in the war against ISIS, and what eventually happened there. People had the Kurdish flag on their social media profiles, they were the moderate independent democratic state in the midst of extremists, then they were no longer a useful political tool in this context.
The reason propaganda has been so successful in this war, is that any criticism of the western powers is taken as criticism of people in Ukraine and akin to support of Russia. Even though, as we we've seen time and time again, these institutions change their tune and we can expect western Ukrainian regions to at some point becomes yesterday's news, just like Crimea was in 2014.
its pretty clear though the reasons for ukraine support in the west isnt purely because ukraine is our best mate, its because of the implications if they were to fall, pretty sure even ukraine is well aware of this. its simply an outcome that needs to be avoided at all costs other wise europe is going to be in for a hell of a decade
I think it's pretty obvious but I also see a lot of social media and discussions in the news media that basically focuses on displaying that you personally support Ukraine, westerners adopt slogans to identify themselves online as part of the good side as a sort of moral branding. It's not that this in inherently bad but it doesn't acknowledge why they support Ukraine, and not for example, subjugated populations everywhere around the world. It's like your identity with regards to the war in Ukraine is seen as a symbol, however the only reason why it's so important in the present day context is because of the broader implications that you mention. These broader implications are not linked to or require the presence of Ukrainian flags on a percentage of people's social media profiles for instance, or frequency of "Slava Ukraine" comments online. So I think the line here is blurred between strategic and geopolitical implications, and people's own moral support of the war, with the latter being viewed as inherently related to the former when it's actually decoupled from it.
The heart of your inquiry is why does Ukraine get such aid and support while others don't? To me the answer goes beyond the, "well there's got to be something in it for us" cynical perspective and boils simply down to just how clear-cut the righteous side is from the wrong side.
In Syria, there was the FSA, sure. But this was muddied with the risk of supporting more radical factions. Additionally their factions were more or less headless, too. The world knows Zelenskyy and what he stands for, precisely.
So if you can give me a scenario where (a) The line between right and wrong are this clear and (b) The conflict is to the massive scale that is Russia's invasion of Ukraine, then I'm all ears.
In that respect there is discussion to be had, I suppose. But does this change anything? Even you agree Russia is still 100% in the wrong, that we should support Ukraine. What irks you is alleged inconsistency which I think is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.
It is logical to identify as "whataboutism" criticism of "Western Powers" for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what's being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it's logical to deem it so because it's the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the "West") there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don't really agree with "whataboutism" because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it's a valid point, without having to explain why it's not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying "whataboutism" is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such "arguments" by association do not make sense in that context, it's logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such "arguments" doesn't really hold that position on logic.
You don't need to label it as "whataboutism" to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it's just that using the word "whataboutism" is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.