When the smallest doubt is treated as support of the other side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Said with love, OP, but you’re being incredibly hypersensitive and incredibly online.

Pointing out that someone who was murdered by police has a criminal record is, at best, insensitive and might mean you’re a racist. Allegedly passing a counterfeit bill is not a crime punishable by extrajudicial death. It’s like rolling up to a funeral for someone who died of a heart attack and implying it’s their fault that they were always in the sun. Irrelevant and insensitive.

To this day I have never actually even seen any evidence that the bill passed by Floyd was in fact counterfeit. And based on the video from inside the store, Floyd shows no behavior that would suggest it's counterfeit. He takes his time, lingers, chats with others in the store.

One would think that if someone were knowingly passing a fake bill they would try to be as fast, quiet, unmemorable and unremarkable as possible.

It's bad enough to commit an extrajudicial killing over a counterfeit $20. But even worse to consider that perhaps it wasn't even a counterfeit $20 - or if it were, that Floyd wasn't aware that it was counterfeit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Said with love, OP, but you’re being incredibly hypersensitive and incredibly online.

Pointing out that someone who was murdered by police has a criminal record is, at best, insensitive and might mean you’re a racist. Allegedly passing a counterfeit bill is not a crime punishable by extrajudicial death. It’s like rolling up to a funeral for someone who died of a heart attack and implying it’s their fault that they were always in the sun. Irrelevant and insensitive.

To this day I have never actually even seen any evidence that the bill passed by Floyd was in fact counterfeit. And based on the video from inside the store, Floyd shows no behavior that would suggest it's counterfeit. He takes his time, lingers, chats with others in the store.

One would think that if someone were knowingly passing a fake bill they would try to be as fast, quiet, unmemorable and unremarkable as possible.

It's bad enough to commit an extrajudicial killing over a counterfeit $20. But even worse to consider that perhaps it wasn't even a counterfeit $20 - or if it were, that Floyd wasn't aware that it was counterfeit.

Now do "Hands up, Don't shoot".

Surely no one was yelled down for having doubts about that one while it was going down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Sure, Mr. Zealous and Righteous, Mr. My Point Is The Only Relevant Thing. Whatever you say. Aye aye, Capitano.

Take it up with the OP, or start a new thread about your pet obsessions, Comrade.

"Comrade?" Sounds like something an obsessive person would say.

Look at how the PP has projected some kind of delusional image of anyone who disagrees with them of being a communist by calling them "comrade." Proved the OP's point to a T.

Another funny thing about zealots is they have no sense of humor and can't recognize sarcasm. If the shoe fits...

DP.
It’s gaslighting
“But I was joking; can’t you take a joke?!”
Classic

It's not gaslighting. You probably call everything gaslighting, to the point that the term has lost all meaning.

Everyone knows most "progressives" in America aren't really about that commie life. They enjoy comfort and capitalist luxuries too much.

Okay I’m now officially lost

Near as I can tell, the PP went on some lengthy, stilted back and forth about how other posters lost the plot for talking about J6 or whatever else - before then degenerating into their own hypocritical right wing diatribe about commies.

So now you're caught up.

No, you're missing the point too. Comrade is a dumb label trotted out. Just like "troll" and "MAGA".

These posters can't see the behavior they hate in themselves and it's pretty funny.

You think authentic communists genuinely hang out on DCUM? Get real.

Authentic communists? Not likely. But authentic MAGAs and trolls? Absolutely.

OF COURSE!

You seriously don't think there haven't been dyed in the wool election-denying Trump supporters, J6 apologists and QAnon conspiracy theorists here? You must be new here.

You seriously don't think there are some shills and false actors here? You must be new here.

Either that or you know these things perfectly well but you're trying to gaslight with your eyerolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Sure, Mr. Zealous and Righteous, Mr. My Point Is The Only Relevant Thing. Whatever you say. Aye aye, Capitano.

Take it up with the OP, or start a new thread about your pet obsessions, Comrade.

"Comrade?" Sounds like something an obsessive person would say.

Look at how the PP has projected some kind of delusional image of anyone who disagrees with them of being a communist by calling them "comrade." Proved the OP's point to a T.

Another funny thing about zealots is they have no sense of humor and can't recognize sarcasm. If the shoe fits...

DP.
It’s gaslighting
“But I was joking; can’t you take a joke?!”
Classic

It's not gaslighting. You probably call everything gaslighting, to the point that the term has lost all meaning.

Everyone knows most "progressives" in America aren't really about that commie life. They enjoy comfort and capitalist luxuries too much.

Okay I’m now officially lost

Do you need articles about how many houses in white neighborhoods the BLM comrades have bought?

I am the OP. I remember how any doubt, any question about BLM techniques were a no no, you would be labeled racist if you asked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you feel the same way when anyone voting for Trump was accused of being a "Nazi" or "fascist"? You don't have to be a full-on MAGA to disagree with a lot of things Democrats stand for. Here on DCUM, LWNJs will tear down anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line 100%. It's repulsive.

Yes I did. Especially the first time around when he hasn’t yet shown what a disaster he would be.
And not just voting - showing approval for some of his intentions (not even the methods) was frowned upon. A wait and see approach was also disapproved.
Fwiw I didn’t vote for trump but I was not as devastated as my highly progressive friends in 2016.
-OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It depends on what B is.

If it's something extreme and you are a B apologist then you open yourself up for criticism.

[Anonymous]

I will just say that I have lots of nuanced conversations behind closed doors that I would not have in public.

Public conversation is pretty toxic. There are some people who are still engaging in nuance in public, though - Yglesias and Josh Barro are two who come to mind. I'm sure there are many more, too, but they are the first I thought of. I enjoy Ben Dreyfus on Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Off topic...other than those in the Russian military, who are the Russians suffering?

People (villagers) living super close to the border are being bombed and attacked.
Lots of medications aren’t available anymore due to sanctions (despite the promise to not sanction essentials)
People protesting the war are thrown in jail
Those who have relatives in ukraine who can’t leave
Heck, even those who live abroad and it’s become a whole ordeal to visit their family

I do realize the Ukrainians are suffering x100. However it’s sad that no compassion is allowed unless it’s The Good Side.

For Russia, this was 100% a war of choice. Russia was under zero credible threat of invasion nor any other credible threat of harm. And Russia could end this war tomorrow, by withdrawing.

Ukraine on the other hand had zero choice in this. Russia intended to invade and did so with only the flimsiest of pretexts. And if Ukraine stops fighting, they will get destroyed.

So, it's not just about "suffering" nor is it about some artificial perception of "good side" or "bad side."

I don’t want to go into specifics too much as it will just lead to duplication of arguments in other threads, I just wanted to say that even such a small deviation from the “acceptable” point of view as feeling sorry for the innocent victims of the other side (yes I think people of Iran don’t really have influence over their government’s actions, for example) leads to accusations of all the bad things imaginable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will just say that I have lots of nuanced conversations behind closed doors that I would not have in public.

Public conversation is pretty toxic. There are some people who are still engaging in nuance in public, though - Yglesias and Josh Barro are two who come to mind. I'm sure there are many more, too, but they are the first I thought of. I enjoy Ben Dreyfus on Twitter.

But if you publicly state that you agree with these guys - is to going to cause ire?
I’ve recently discovered Mearsheimer and I know full well I can’t mention his name to just anyone, even though he is a bona fide scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It depends on what B is.

If it's something extreme and you are a B apologist then you open yourself up for criticism.

But what if B was at one time supported by A to discredit C?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Said with love, OP, but you’re being incredibly hypersensitive and incredibly online.

Pointing out that someone who was murdered by police has a criminal record is, at best, insensitive and might mean you’re a racist. Allegedly passing a counterfeit bill is not a crime punishable by extrajudicial death. It’s like rolling up to a funeral for someone who died of a heart attack and implying it’s their fault that they were always in the sun. Irrelevant and insensitive.

I am not talking about the $20 bill. He had much worse offense on record.
Not saying he “deserved” anything, just wasn’t a saint many made him out to be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It depends on what B is.

If it's something extreme and you are a B apologist then you open yourself up for criticism.

But what if B was at one time supported by A to discredit C?

Example?

Again, it depends on how extreme B is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Off topic...other than those in the Russian military, who are the Russians suffering?

People (villagers) living super close to the border are being bombed and attacked.
Lots of medications aren’t available anymore due to sanctions (despite the promise to not sanction essentials)
People protesting the war are thrown in jail
Those who have relatives in ukraine who can’t leave
Heck, even those who live abroad and it’s become a whole ordeal to visit their family

I do realize the Ukrainians are suffering x100. However it’s sad that no compassion is allowed unless it’s The Good Side.

For Russia, this was 100% a war of choice. Russia was under zero credible threat of invasion nor any other credible threat of harm. And Russia could end this war tomorrow, by withdrawing.

Ukraine on the other hand had zero choice in this. Russia intended to invade and did so with only the flimsiest of pretexts. And if Ukraine stops fighting, they will get destroyed.

So, it's not just about "suffering" nor is it about some artificial perception of "good side" or "bad side."

I don’t want to go into specifics too much as it will just lead to duplication of arguments in other threads, I just wanted to say that even such a small deviation from the “acceptable” point of view as feeling sorry for the innocent victims of the other side (yes I think people of Iran don’t really have influence over their government’s actions, for example) leads to accusations of all the bad things imaginable.

I really wouldn’t put a lot of stock into how people react online. There are way too many bad actors looking to disrupt, to make you feel agitated and alienated.

Although for the record, I have a lot more sympathy for the average Iranian civilian citizen than I do for the average Russian civilian citizen probably because I’ve seen so many videos of Russians bragging and boasting and glorying in the war in Ukraine. On the one hand they don’t have a free media, on the other hand, rightly or wrongly I credit Russians with being a fairly intelligent people who can see through bullcrap.

But really. Just stop worrying what people are saying to you online. Wayyyy too many people have an agenda and that agenda increasingly seems like they just want people aggravated and anxious, suspicious of their fellow Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Off topic...other than those in the Russian military, who are the Russians suffering?

People (villagers) living super close to the border are being bombed and attacked.
Lots of medications aren’t available anymore due to sanctions (despite the promise to not sanction essentials)
People protesting the war are thrown in jail
Those who have relatives in ukraine who can’t leave
Heck, even those who live abroad and it’s become a whole ordeal to visit their family

I do realize the Ukrainians are suffering x100. However it’s sad that no compassion is allowed unless it’s The Good Side.

For Russia, this was 100% a war of choice. Russia was under zero credible threat of invasion nor any other credible threat of harm. And Russia could end this war tomorrow, by withdrawing.

Ukraine on the other hand had zero choice in this. Russia intended to invade and did so with only the flimsiest of pretexts. And if Ukraine stops fighting, they will get destroyed.

So, it's not just about "suffering" nor is it about some artificial perception of "good side" or "bad side."

I don’t want to go into specifics too much as it will just lead to duplication of arguments in other threads, I just wanted to say that even such a small deviation from the “acceptable” point of view as feeling sorry for the innocent victims of the other side (yes I think people of Iran don’t really have influence over their government’s actions, for example) leads to accusations of all the bad things imaginable.

I really wouldn’t put a lot of stock into how people react online. There are way too many bad actors looking to disrupt, to make you feel agitated and alienated.

Although for the record, I have a lot more sympathy for the average Iranian civilian citizen than I do for the average Russian civilian citizen probably because I’ve seen so many videos of Russians bragging and boasting and glorying in the war in Ukraine. On the one hand they don’t have a free media, on the other hand, rightly or wrongly I credit Russians with being a fairly intelligent people who can see through bullcrap.

But really. Just stop worrying what people are saying to you online. Wayyyy too many people have an agenda and that agenda increasingly seems like they just want people aggravated and anxious, suspicious of their fellow Americans.

It’s not online I am worried about. I just don’t have conversations about any of this (Ukraine, Israel, covid, democratic policies vs Republican policies) IRL.
Even my super small inner circle is now not talking about Israel because there are people who are not capable of any nuanced conversations.

As for the Russians, I feel sad and sorry for the specific categories I listed. I haven’t seen much about them in the press, but what I read was enough. I am sure there are useful idiots who support the war. I am pretty sure there are plenty of Iranians who support their government.
I feel sorry for those that are caught in the middle, too powerless to do anything. In Russia, Palestine, Iran, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

I will need to find it but there were polls from the last few years that indicated that larger percentages of self-described evangelicals agreed with the political tenets of right wing authoritarianism (e.g. Trump won the 2020 election) MORE than they agreed with basic obvious statements about the evangelical faith (e.g. Jesus performed miracles and similar) just astounding.