TLDR; If you're not interested in reading something this long, I don't blame you, but I'm not going to try to shorten it. Either read it or don't, whatever brings you joy.
Recently, there was a post by /u/socks in which he conducted a "survey":
Survey: Do you support Putin's approaches in Ukraine? Yes or no?
@ 7:30 am EST, 8 April:
Yea = 22
Nay = 9
(Anyone not saying nay, is counted as a yea.)
A survey is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as:
an examination of opinions, behaviour, etc., made by asking people questions:
The concept behind surveys (in this meaning of the word) is to take people's answers, and from them clarify what opinion is held by the majority of the people who were asked the question.
Socks, however, apparently decided that such a construct limited his ability to make the point he desired, so he simply bypassed the "people need to answer the survey" part. "(Anyone not saying nay, is counted as a yea.)" Let me summarize the effect of a such a construct. Following this logic, Socks can ask, "Do you kill babies?", and if you don't answer the question because engaging in a conversation at this level is destructive to good discourse, he can count you as a "yes, you kill babies." Do you actually kill babies? He has zero confirmation that this is the case, but by claiming the right to define your lack of an answer according to his thesis, he claims the right to publish that you do so.
This technique is neither new nor original. This is the foundational technique of the struggle sessions during the Cultural Revolution in China. A person is seated in a chair before a crowd, and the interrogator proceeds to outline the "crimes" of which that person is guilty. What the person has to say about the "crimes" he/she is accused of is irrelevant. The interrogator defines the "truth" of the matter, and the person is convicted because he/she is defined as guilty by the interrogator. It's a popular method in totalitarian state systems. It's super effective because who wants to be the person to find themselves in that chair? It's terrifying. Your own history of your life and your ideas is stolen from you. What you actually say becomes meaningless because "you" are now defined not by anything you did or said, but by what the state accuses you of doing or saying. It's a technique of pure power and propaganda.
Socks is using this technique to define the opinions of a group of people on saidit regarding the Ukrainian conflict. I personally was defined as "supporting Putin's approaches in Ukraine" after refusing to answer the question. I suggested people look at the many words I have written on the subject. Reading what I have written (not looking for snippets that prove your case, but taking the sum total of the ideas I have expressed, which are extensive) does not yield support for Putin. But again, none of that matters. Socks is the creator of the question, the interpreter of the answer and the judge of appropriate response. Judge, jury, and executioner, as the saying goes. Note that I was just part of "a list" he had drawn up for precisely the purpose of this post. I had initially ignored the post entirely upon seeing it, but because I was on his "list", I was to be judged whether or not I responded. Does this begin to sound familiar from historical examples?
The last point to bring up in regards to this technique is Socks's justification for its use. In his response to my rejection of the above technique as destructive to reasoned discourse, Socks (in part) says, "There isn't any nuance in what Putin and his generals have arranged. This is not 'a complex issue'. It's a survey. Thank you for your response." As noted above, I didn't respond, but socks assigned me a response based on his sole discretion. Equally important is his statement that "This is not 'a complex issue'." He was quoting me, in response to me saying that this is a complex issue. Socks justifies his right to define my statements and opinions for me because "There isn't any nuance in what Putin and his generals have arranged." The history of this part of the world, with interactions between Ukraine and Russia going back centuries, is erased. That would all be considered "nuance". None of it counts. History started with Russia's decision to invade on February 24, and there is absolutely no reason for them to have done so. They just decided to do it. It was for fun, I guess. Socks has told us so, and that's the end of the conversation.
The entirety of this post (which as you can tell has gotten under my skin) brings back memories of George Bush in 2003. "You're either with us or you're against us." The purest of black and white. The middle ground is absolutely defined out of the conversation. Anything but slavish adoption of the narrative is judged treason.
As an aside, I worked many years ago in a business of which part involved painting. You want to know a color that is well-nigh impossible to color match? Black. Trying to match the "black" that is on any given item is almost impossible without people seeing where the touchup was done. Better just to strip and re-paint the entire piece. I find this a nice metaphor that even "black and white" isn't. It doesn't exist. The entire universe exists as a set of shades, and EVERYTHING is complex. Meaningful life without nuance - or any element at all of that life without nuance - is a unicorn.
Okay, that is all by way of background to my goal here.
Since the context of this "survey" was Ukraine, it is worthwhile for me to state as clearly and succinctly as I can (my nature is way too many words; I realize this, but it's who I am) what I do believe regarding Ukraine. So here, if you choose to read it Socks, is my answer to your question. Guess what? It's not a yes or a no; a yes or no to a question which IS complex - like a war between two neighboring states of people who have deep historical links - indeed family lineages going back centuries - is anathema. To simplify a question like this is absolutely destructive and its only purpose is raw propaganda. That is the only purpose a "yes or no" construction can serve in a debate such as this. A real answer will require time and effort. This is the nature of reality, but it appears reality isn't interesting to you, only the power to label your opponents heretics in a debate.
With that as the background, my response to "Putin's approaches to Ukraine" depends on where I am located. By this I mean that in the hypothetical case that I lived in Russia, my response would be different than the response I have offered in my comments here in the west. Here in the west, I have argued against treating the Zelensky regime as "good guys" and the Putin regime as "bad guys". This is the argument that clearly so angers socks that I was put on to his "list" in the first place. How dare I suggest that "our guys" are not shining knights in white armor and that "their guys" are not the opposite?! This is a profoundly unacceptable argument, which must be crushed for its exposition of demonstrable moral evil (says socks). By making this argument, I am supporting the burning of women, children and assorted pets. Am I accurate in my statement of your argument, socks? That's what I hear coming from you. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Guess what. You don't understand what I am saying in the least, because if I were living in Russia today, I would be arguing within Russian society not to treat the Russians as "the good guys" and not to treat the "western zionist [blah, blah, blah] scum in Ukraine!" as the bad guys. See what I'm doing here? If I were in Russia, I would be arguing against the Russian propaganda pushing people in Russia to go die in Ukraine. Maybe Putin would have me arrested for that, depending on how influential a platform I appeared on.
As I said, depending on which side of the line I am on, my argument appears to the outside observer to be 180-degrees opposed to my same argument on the other side of the line. What's going on here?! This is fucked up. No?
The top comment by votes in this "survey" was also not a yes or a no. According to socks' logic, this must be defined as a "yea". What this person said is "I am anti-war." That was it. Interestingly, socks did not engage with this post. According to the logic of his own definition, however, "I am anti-war" is defined as a "yea" for support for Putin's approach in Ukraine. Now he will say this is an absurd reading of what he meant, but that's precisely the problem with defining "Yes/No" questions. Any answer that demonstrates any serious thought about the question does not fit within the boundaries of the judgment he has planned for his list of heretics.
My stance is precisely the same as this first commenter. I am anti-war. Full stop.
The fact that I am not willing to encourage people to go kill Russians (the emotional message lying behind socks's original post) is because I find war to be disgusting, simplistic, and stupid, WHOEVER engages in it. I live in the west. It is my responsibility as a profound believer in peace to stop people from going to war and killing other people. That's my purpose. That's it. The whole shebang.
I once heard a story about Vietnam during the war there. We had the north and we had the south (before the south collapsed and the north unified the country). People aligned with the north hated people in the south and called to kill them. People aligned with the south hated people in the north and called to kill them. Once again, a wonderful war between essentially brothers and sisters. Very similar situation to Ukraine, putting aside for a moment all the cultural distinctions between two very different cultures. But you know which group neither the partisans of the north nor those of the south had any use for at all? The committed Buddhist priests on both sides. Why? The message of the priests was two words: Stop Fighting.
War brings out the absolute worst in human nature. War is the expression of the lizard brain unfiltered. All the rationalizations involved (the primary one is always, "They started it!!!!") are simply excuses. They are excuses so that the people involved can justify their deep-seated hatred for something and to associate that "something" in them that they so hate with their perceived enemy. "If I kill that person over there, I'm just sure I'll feel better and the world will be a better place!" Has this EVER worked out in history? EVER?
I am surrounded as I go about my day with the message "Support Ukraine!" Today I posted a quote by the foreign minister of Ukraine: "The more weapons we get and the sooner they arrive in Ukraine, the more human lives will be saved." Do you hear Satan there? This is the voice of the Prince of Lies speaking. You will not get a more clear-cut example of his favorite lie than this. The foreign minister doesn't want weapons to save lives. He wants weapons to kill Russians. The Russians meanwhile make the same argument on the other side. They are "saving lives in the Donbass," so they need more weapons. Satan doesn't take sides. He never has, and he never will. As long as there are more dead bodies, he doesn't care which side they come from. Anything to get more weapons into more hands is his great pleasure. So to the extent "Support Ukraine!" means send weapons and men to Ukraine to kill and die, I absolutely and totally reject the message. Absolutely.
I 100% support sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine in all forms: food, clothing, and shelter. 100%. I also support sending humanitarian aid to Yemen. I support sending it to Syria. I support sending it to Afghanistan. I support sending it to Libya. I support sending it to Iraq. All these places are suffering tremendously under the ever-present lizard brain delusion of war. People there are living the greatest deprivation and suffering because the ruling class and their supporters outside those countries cannot open their eyes to the simple truth that "War = Death, Suffering and Hell". It's not that complicated.
So to state a summary of my position on Ukraine, I'm absolutely in support of sending humanitarian aid, as much as we can to all areas we can reach, on whichever side of the line of control people lie. I'm absolutely against sending a single weapon or fighting man into a slaughter. Sending more weapons and more men = more slaughter. That's it. No "justice". No "solution". No "winning". It is simply more slaughter, and to the extent that we support this, we are supporting slaughter. I repeat, as the hypothetical "me" living in Russia, my message changes not in the slightest. I am against sending any weapons or fighting men; I am for sending in humanitarian aid.
That's it, Socks. That is an actual answer to my approach to Ukraine.
I now hear you saying, "Why didn't you just say "no" on the survey then?"
Because your survey is not interested in the answer I just gave. You are interested in "punishing Putin" and "getting rid of the problem in Russia." Yours is the logic of war. For me to answer "no" on your survey was a de-facto vote in favor of military response in Ukraine, to which I am absolutely opposed. You want that, and I do not.
The way out of ALL wars is for the involved parties to talk to each other. Both sides need to step back and decide to end it. War is hell. There are atrocities on both sides, ALWAYS. The way to solve that is NOT to feed the machine. It is NOT to send MORE killing energy into the arena, on either side. I hear zero encouragement for dialog in the message from the west. Zero.
The choice is clear and ever-present. You can advocate for more war, death and suffering, or you can advocate for dialog, resolution and re-building. Which do you choose? How many dead bodies of Russians, Ukrainians and naive people drawn in from outside the area is enough? To those of you pushing war in the west: have we punished Russia enough yet? For Russia: have we punished the "zio-nazis" in Ukraine enough yet? Is there enough death and destruction yet, or do we need more to satisfy our lizard-brain bloodlust?
For the broader community from the west supporting military escalation in Ukraine, I am profoundly mystified that they do not see the parallel - clear as a bell in my eyes - between this action and the FOUR previous wars the west has already been heavily engaged in during the past twenty years alone - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. The pattern is precisely identical. "[The bad guy = Bin Laden = Saddam = Gaddafi = Assad = Putin] is the devil incarnate! By killing him, we will create a more peaceful and just world!" Don't even get me going on Yemen...
How's that working out for us? Let's look at those previous four examples. Are the people living in those areas better or worse off for our military adventures in their countries? Why in the name of God do you expect a different outcome in Ukraine? It's the same fucking story all over again. Do you not see the exact identical playbook? It's right in front of your face. Just open your eyes.
I repeat, one of the definitions of "Satan" is the Prince of Lies. You are listening to the same lie he has had such great success with for the entirety of human existence in the universe. WAR DOESN'T DO WHAT THEY SAY IT DOES. It never has, and it never will.
I'm with the Vietnamese Buddhists:
Stop Fighting.
[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - (2 children)
[–]StillLessons[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]Tiwaking 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)