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

[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.

Iranians are also intelligent people who can see through bullcrap.

We believe everyone thinks like us, has the same basic values, cares about the things we care about. They don't. Extreme islamists are very, very clear that they don't value life the way we do. And of course not. We are a largely secular society with low and declining adherence to religion. Life is all most Americans think they have, so they cherish it. Not everyone does.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Iranians are also intelligent people who can see through bullcrap.

We believe everyone thinks like us, has the same basic values, cares about the things we care about. They don't. Extreme islamists are very, very clear that they don't value life the way we do. And of course not. We are a largely secular society with low and declining adherence to religion. Life is all most Americans think they have, so they cherish it. Not everyone does.

We have many extremists who don’t value life in this country. They’re called mass shooters. We just had one the other day.

We just don’t call our mass shooters terrorists . We probably have more terrorism here than Iran.

I wouldn’t move to Iran if you paid me but to say extremism is more rampant there is broadstroking. We have lots of extremists here. They may not be religious extremists but they are extremists .

[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.

You are biased. Many Russians who loudly expressed their dissent were aggressively and often violently shut down. Many many disagree with the war but they keep their opinions to themselves in fear of retaliation. That's why you only see the videos of gleeful monsters. My Russian friends are part of a volunteer group that helps Ukrainians who were dislocated to Russia to get to Europe. You will not know about these people helping and volunteering, they don't advertise their participation for safety reasons.

Ukrainians are the victims in that war, no debate here. Yet, although it's easier to paint the whole Russian nation as a soulless violent mass, the reality is much more nuanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know who Mersheimer is - will look him up.

My spouse engages in a lot of this stuff publicly. He is on the public intellectual side of things and also really does not care what other people think. I don't really have any reason in my life to stand with Yglesias or anything - I will give a like on Twitter to one of them, and yeah sometimes I do worry that someone is going to dig up my like history and make a thing of it. But I have no reason to say in public what I am thinking about most of this stuff. My field - where I have a minor public profile - is not related to what's happening in Israel, and all the very very very complicated thoughts I am having about all of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know who Mersheimer is - will look him up.

My spouse engages in a lot of this stuff publicly. He is on the public intellectual side of things and also really does not care what other people think. I don't really have any reason in my life to stand with Yglesias or anything - I will give a like on Twitter to one of them, and yeah sometimes I do worry that someone is going to dig up my like history and make a thing of it. But I have no reason to say in public what I am thinking about most of this stuff. My field - where I have a minor public profile - is not related to what's happening in Israel, and all the very very very complicated thoughts I am having about all of it.

Thank you for writing all this. I think you are right - the most dangerous repercussions I can face will probably come from, like, the local moms if I post anything.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You are biased. Many Russians who loudly expressed their dissent were aggressively and often violently shut down. Many many disagree with the war but they keep their opinions to themselves in fear of retaliation. That's why you only see the videos of gleeful monsters. My Russian friends are part of a volunteer group that helps Ukrainians who were dislocated to Russia to get to Europe. You will not know about these people helping and volunteering, they don't advertise their participation for safety reasons.

Ukrainians are the victims in that war, no debate here. Yet, although it's easier to paint the whole Russian nation as a soulless violent mass, the reality is much more nuanced.

Your reply to my post is a great example of why nuance is dead on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people are upset they are catching heat for expressing opinions that are clearly the product of ignorance, and often malicious ignorance.

If you are going to open your mouth and claim space in the public sphere, try to inform yourself first. No shame in asking questions or not being 100% informed, but stop pretending your half-baked uninformed opinion is worthy of some special deference or respect.

Yeah right. "Just asking questions" are words used to ridicule and silence these days. It's literally a shaming phrase.

There is also the BS about not having the obligation to "enact the labor" of informing someone of why you think they are misguided.

Unquestioned loyalty and obeisance are the only acceptable actions.

Fair point, to a limit.

Some of these things have been settled a long time ago and don’t even warrant discussion anymore. For example, if you don’t want to inform yourself why poor people are also more likely to be fat now, don’t make a stupid song about it and pretend you’re some enlightened independent.

NP. The phrase “settled science” is used to shut down discussion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in kids is looking now like it’s going to be one of the biggest medical scandals in recent years but for many years careers of health care providers brave enough to question the strength of the actual evidence were ruined with the use of “settled science.” And, of course, once the proponents could not keep their finger in the “settled science” dike any further, because the increasing weight of evidence started to make their mantra increasingly untenable, they went to insults and no-holds-barred harassment to try to keep the scientific discussion stopped.

The reality is that the body of evidence supposedly supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children was and still is appallingly weak. That weakness is finally getting deep scrutiny in the US and abroad, but it’s happening about a decade after it should have happened and after many kids were hurt unnecessarily. And in the meantime, states have passed legislative bans, which is the wrong way to handle medical care (see abortion as another example). But we are stuck with legislative bans because proponents of what is essentially a religious belief shut down all research and discussion of scientific evidence within the scientific and medical community. That provided an opening for legislative bans whereas if medicine and science had been willing to police themselves and had been willing to admit the science was not remotely settled, I don’t think we’d be in this position of overly broad bans that shouldn’t be the business of state legislatures.

So while in theory I agree that some things should not warrant discussion, that concept alone is weaponized more often than not.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You are biased. Many Russians who loudly expressed their dissent were aggressively and often violently shut down. Many many disagree with the war but they keep their opinions to themselves in fear of retaliation. That's why you only see the videos of gleeful monsters. My Russian friends are part of a volunteer group that helps Ukrainians who were dislocated to Russia to get to Europe. You will not know about these people helping and volunteering, they don't advertise their participation for safety reasons.

Ukrainians are the victims in that war, no debate here. Yet, although it's easier to paint the whole Russian nation as a soulless violent mass, the reality is much more nuanced.

Your reply to my post is a great example of why nuance is dead on the internet.

Sorry, I killed your nuance. It was too tiny for the internet to notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people are upset they are catching heat for expressing opinions that are clearly the product of ignorance, and often malicious ignorance.

If you are going to open your mouth and claim space in the public sphere, try to inform yourself first. No shame in asking questions or not being 100% informed, but stop pretending your half-baked uninformed opinion is worthy of some special deference or respect.

Yeah right. "Just asking questions" are words used to ridicule and silence these days. It's literally a shaming phrase.

There is also the BS about not having the obligation to "enact the labor" of informing someone of why you think they are misguided.

Unquestioned loyalty and obeisance are the only acceptable actions.

Fair point, to a limit.

Some of these things have been settled a long time ago and don’t even warrant discussion anymore. For example, if you don’t want to inform yourself why poor people are also more likely to be fat now, don’t make a stupid song about it and pretend you’re some enlightened independent.

NP. The phrase “settled science” is used to shut down discussion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in kids is looking now like it’s going to be one of the biggest medical scandals in recent years but for many years careers of health care providers brave enough to question the strength of the actual evidence were ruined with the use of “settled science.” And, of course, once the proponents could not keep their finger in the “settled science” dike any further, because the increasing weight of evidence started to make their mantra increasingly untenable, they went to insults and no-holds-barred harassment to try to keep the scientific discussion stopped.

The reality is that the body of evidence supposedly supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children was and still is appallingly weak. That weakness is finally getting deep scrutiny in the US and abroad, but it’s happening about a decade after it should have happened and after many kids were hurt unnecessarily. And in the meantime, states have passed legislative bans, which is the wrong way to handle medical care (see abortion as another example). But we are stuck with legislative bans because proponents of what is essentially a religious belief shut down all research and discussion of scientific evidence within the scientific and medical community. That provided an opening for legislative bans whereas if medicine and science had been willing to police themselves and had been willing to admit the science was not remotely settled, I don’t think we’d be in this position of overly broad bans that shouldn’t be the business of state legislatures.

So while in theory I agree that some things should not warrant discussion, that concept alone is weaponized more often than not.

And then when called on it, their out is "Well, science evolves, we went with the best of what we knew at the time!", as if they were appropriately circumspect beforehand.

[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.

Do not debate with idiots. No rational person will label you for questioning any idea. If they do, it is an indicator that they are a) clueless and b) not very well educated.

[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."

It is not a war of choice for Russian people, it is war of choice for Russian government. A lot of Russian fled Russia to avoid the war because they knew they will not have a choice. For Ukrainians, there was a choice. At the very beginning of the war I was in Kyiv, and we all knew that we will not fight if America will not fund this war. If Americans was not pouring $$$, Ukrainians would sit down and negotiate and would save thousands of lives.

[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 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!

Do you see the pattern in who is labeling you and does not allow to question anything?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You are biased. Many Russians who loudly expressed their dissent were aggressively and often violently shut down. Many many disagree with the war but they keep their opinions to themselves in fear of retaliation. That's why you only see the videos of gleeful monsters. My Russian friends are part of a volunteer group that helps Ukrainians who were dislocated to Russia to get to Europe. You will not know about these people helping and volunteering, they don't advertise their participation for safety reasons.

Ukrainians are the victims in that war, no debate here. Yet, although it's easier to paint the whole Russian nation as a soulless violent mass, the reality is much more nuanced.

Trump understood those nuances when he said that there is no reason to be enemies with Russia. And he was labeled a Russian supporter. The world was so much better when Americans and Russians was able to find some common ground. Biden is not getting it.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You are biased. Many Russians who loudly expressed their dissent were aggressively and often violently shut down. Many many disagree with the war but they keep their opinions to themselves in fear of retaliation. That's why you only see the videos of gleeful monsters. My Russian friends are part of a volunteer group that helps Ukrainians who were dislocated to Russia to get to Europe. You will not know about these people helping and volunteering, they don't advertise their participation for safety reasons.

Ukrainians are the victims in that war, no debate here. Yet, although it's easier to paint the whole Russian nation as a soulless violent mass, the reality is much more nuanced.

Trump understood those nuances when he said that there is no reason to be enemies with Russia. And he was labeled a Russian supporter. The world was so much better when Americans and Russians was able to find some common ground. Biden is not getting it.

Tbh, as Russian, I don’t see what common ground could be or should found with the Russian government now. I wish only victory to Ukraine and support Biden’s decision to send aid. I also want the world to know about many Western leaders who helped Putin shut the anti-war protests but now act as if there were no opposition at all and each Russian citizen should be punished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people are upset they are catching heat for expressing opinions that are clearly the product of ignorance, and often malicious ignorance.

If you are going to open your mouth and claim space in the public sphere, try to inform yourself first. No shame in asking questions or not being 100% informed, but stop pretending your half-baked uninformed opinion is worthy of some special deference or respect.

Yeah right. "Just asking questions" are words used to ridicule and silence these days. It's literally a shaming phrase.

There is also the BS about not having the obligation to "enact the labor" of informing someone of why you think they are misguided.

Unquestioned loyalty and obeisance are the only acceptable actions.

Fair point, to a limit.

Some of these things have been settled a long time ago and don’t even warrant discussion anymore. For example, if you don’t want to inform yourself why poor people are also more likely to be fat now, don’t make a stupid song about it and pretend you’re some enlightened independent.

NP. The phrase “settled science” is used to shut down discussion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in kids is looking now like it’s going to be one of the biggest medical scandals in recent years but for many years careers of health care providers brave enough to question the strength of the actual evidence were ruined with the use of “settled science.” And, of course, once the proponents could not keep their finger in the “settled science” dike any further, because the increasing weight of evidence started to make their mantra increasingly untenable, they went to insults and no-holds-barred harassment to try to keep the scientific discussion stopped.

The reality is that the body of evidence supposedly supporting the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children was and still is appallingly weak. That weakness is finally getting deep scrutiny in the US and abroad, but it’s happening about a decade after it should have happened and after many kids were hurt unnecessarily. And in the meantime, states have passed legislative bans, which is the wrong way to handle medical care (see abortion as another example). But we are stuck with legislative bans because proponents of what is essentially a religious belief shut down all research and discussion of scientific evidence within the scientific and medical community. That provided an opening for legislative bans whereas if medicine and science had been willing to police themselves and had been willing to admit the science was not remotely settled, I don’t think we’d be in this position of overly broad bans that shouldn’t be the business of state legislatures.

So while in theory I agree that some things should not warrant discussion, that concept alone is weaponized more often than not.

And then when called on it, their out is "Well, science evolves, we went with the best of what we knew at the time!", as if they were appropriately circumspect beforehand.

The failure of medicine and science to examine themselves in this issue is going to be part of the medical scandal.