It's been a depressing struggle to work around the Singular Dimension of the Contextualized Russian Troop, which spans from Point A, "invader," to Point B, "suckered conscript." (Edit: Not that I mind the struggle, compared to say picking a team and blanket-dehumanizing people on the other team)
I even saw a thread today where somebody said in essence: Here's how it really is--their families back home don't care about them anyway, and they don't really love their families, so it's fine.
Implying we don't have to care about them being casually tossed by their masters into a meat grinder, in other words.
Well, these dudes are owned and loved by the human race at a basic, species level, at least, and ought to be.
When you are literally fighting an invasion of tens of thousands of coordinated mass murderers, accurately contextualizing them according to a nuanced multiplicity of dimensions is counterproductive. The task on the ground is to toss as many of them as possible into a meat grinder. Dehumanizing them helps with that, even though it will likely dehumanize the defender as well. During war empathy with the attacker is critical to hunting them, but sympathy is a handicap.
is...was...maybe. Maybe that's the way it is or was. It's a perspective.
...must be though? Must it be? I don't think so. War has also changed and is changing. People look back and say "_that_ was a mistake." New methods are taken. Try Project 100K today, in the nation where it was contextualized for millions in and out of the service through hard lessons, and there's a clearer boundary.
Let's be intentional and keep doing better with those boundaries. Looking backward is OK. Changing the forward is crucial. History is a lesson in workings but it's also a message--do better and change the way stuff works.
Curious what the threshold is to becoming a mass murderer, and also wondering if “tens of thousands” of these people meet that criteria.
I’m not fighting in this war, but I do have family and friends on both sides of the conflict. I don’t think that dehumanizing people is the way to go.
Also where are you regurgitating this bit from and why? - “During war empathy with the attacker is critical to hunting them, but sympathy is a handicap.”
> Also where are you regurgitating this bit from and why? - “During war empathy with the attacker is critical to hunting them, but sympathy is a handicap.”
That idea shows up in Ender's Game and some of the player sequels (the Bean books) - understanding your opponent and how he/she/it thinks is presented as a devastating, effective tool for warfare.
The biggest fight I've ever been involved in was pushing another kid off his bike into the snow when he picked on my sister, so I have no clue if the idea is even remotely true.
The thread about their families don't love them - was it on Kamil Galeev twitter account?
I think it's wrong. Many are from minority ethnicities where family ties are strong. I suspect it is a possible psyops. If they start to believe no one loves them back home it's easier to just desert, get 10k$ and stay in Ukraine.
11 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 38.5 ms ] threadI even saw a thread today where somebody said in essence: Here's how it really is--their families back home don't care about them anyway, and they don't really love their families, so it's fine.
Implying we don't have to care about them being casually tossed by their masters into a meat grinder, in other words.
Well, these dudes are owned and loved by the human race at a basic, species level, at least, and ought to be.
(See also: Project 100,000)
...must be though? Must it be? I don't think so. War has also changed and is changing. People look back and say "_that_ was a mistake." New methods are taken. Try Project 100K today, in the nation where it was contextualized for millions in and out of the service through hard lessons, and there's a clearer boundary.
Let's be intentional and keep doing better with those boundaries. Looking backward is OK. Changing the forward is crucial. History is a lesson in workings but it's also a message--do better and change the way stuff works.
Curious what the threshold is to becoming a mass murderer, and also wondering if “tens of thousands” of these people meet that criteria.
I’m not fighting in this war, but I do have family and friends on both sides of the conflict. I don’t think that dehumanizing people is the way to go.
Also where are you regurgitating this bit from and why? - “During war empathy with the attacker is critical to hunting them, but sympathy is a handicap.”
That idea shows up in Ender's Game and some of the player sequels (the Bean books) - understanding your opponent and how he/she/it thinks is presented as a devastating, effective tool for warfare.
The biggest fight I've ever been involved in was pushing another kid off his bike into the snow when he picked on my sister, so I have no clue if the idea is even remotely true.
(And that should have read "later sequels", not "player sequels". Smartphones.)
"their families back home don't care about them anyway, and they don't really love their families"
Let us stipulate for a moment that this is true. Then, let us also take your advice and think about history and its lessons. There we find a question:
What about Russian history has produced this depraved circumstance?