It disgusts me to think that maybe 99.99% of world population wouldn't harm another person but due to a ridicolous small fraction of the entire population, we risk to end our lives.
This is completely absurd and makes no sense at all.
I think they would... especially in self-defense, in defense of someone they cared about, and plenty would do so for ideals like "freedom", "country" or "democracy"... and if they wouldn't most would be perfectly happy to let others do it for them.
That's why the military and police exist, and why most people are perfectly happy to fund and support them. It's also why wars have so many participants and supporters.
Politicians can further rile people up to commit violence against scapegoats and even preemptively against distant potential threats. It's not so difficult for them to get a lot of people to commit violence against a historical, cultural, political, religious, or ethnic enemy.
Even if you subscribe to the idea of violence being justified in specific cases, there is no reason in the idea "kill everybody including yourself".
People arguing in favor of doomsday-weapons fail to recognize, the supposedly addressed problem not having a solution in the domain of violence means you have to look elsewhere.
If you give the money there is no 'harm,' yet you have been harmed with the threat of violence. If you need that money to feed yourself or get medical care for your child, it might literally result in death.
If you fight the police officer, others will come after you. If you gather your friends to fight the police officers, you have now subverted the government, created your own government (because you are now an agent of enforcement of your own set of "laws"), and now started a very small scale war (revolution) out of your desire to not be harmed.
If you don't think people would self enrich at the cost of others, I have some very bad news for you. Just because a person hasn't been physically damaged, doesn't mean they haven't been harmed.
If there was a button that gave you a million dollars but would kill a person you have never met, I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who would press it, and those that do press it, would probably be happy to press it many times.
The way you use the word harm is what prevents you from making sense of the problem.
Confusion is not the result of understanding. Sadness is.
The monopoly of violence is disconnected from issues of legitimacy and authority. You don't have to agree with the government, and plenty of folks don't -- hence insurgencies and rebellions all over the world. But unless you can usurp that monopoly of violence from the existing government your feelings about their legitimacy and authority are moot. Lots of governments don't give a damn about your rights, and never will.
There was national civil unrest over police not holding themselves accountable. Some cases are clearly rotten and only get justice due to national coverage. That would not happen if many departments were not rotten to the core. That isn't just the police officer, but their peers, their management, the DA, judges, etc who all play a part in preventing justice when a cop does something bad.
Some police forces in the US like in San Francisco don't seem able to perform their function at even a basic level. Other police departments like Seattle's have been subjected to a consent decree over use of force. Every friend I have who has used a bike in San Francisco has had at least one bike stolen. I've had 2 bikes stolen in that city, and 2 friends who had phones yanked out of their hands. All that and I've seen San Francisco cops ticketing jaywalkers. Half of the people I know in Seattle or San Francisco have had their car window smashed at least once, mines been smashed twice. I had a bike stolen, which required breaking and entering to get, for which there was video, for which the cop knew who the perpetrator was, and yet I did not get my bike back, nor did I hear of any prosecution taking place.
Police themselves have often flown a thin blue line flag, further separating the idea of us (the thin blue line) and them ("civilians"). Us vs them is a clear culture problem.
Add to that that police forces seek out tech like drones and stingrays (electronic surveillance), deals with corporations to attain data that would otherwise require a warrant, and frequently use chemical weapons...
That's all barely touching on differential ethnic enforcement or crack downs on labor.
Then the very top of our justice system has declared war on stare decisis which is the death of supreme court legitimacy. Civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity? Laws that cities within 100 miles of a coast don't have specific constitutional protections. For profit prisons? Police unions?
Police in America will unapologetically ruin your life over drugs or alcohol, but in other countries they take you home.
I don't feel safe around American cops, but I've been in countries where I feel safer around cops.
Cops identifying with the dirty cop rather than their victims tells you everything you need to know.
Until I see cops angry that cops aren't being held accountable and the thin blue line flag go away, I will continue to feel righteously skeptic.
You're telling me that that I have an agenda meant to destroy law and order so I can live in a desolate dystopia (not even bothering to try to create a good faith explanation for why I believe what I believe), while I think you are a hapless victim of conservative media incapable of critically thinking, failing to understand that you are not supporting policy that is in your own best interest.
I wish it were possible to see eye to eye or understand each other, but clearly the schism between us is too great.
The irony is you believe I am under a delusion, and I believe you are under a delusion, and our opinions are irreconcilable. The end result (scaled across the population) can only be uneasy peace and a completely dysfunctional government or Civil War II and a balkanized America.
If you had read my post rather than jumping straight to "ridiculous liberal person," you'd see I've lived in SF and am quite unhappy with the policing there. So your assertion that I want to create an SF like environment doesn't make a lot of sense when I am simultaneously complaining about the SF environment.
Actually, this is a sure fire way to take any praise of the society and twist it as “privilege”. This creates more tension and conflict, because you decide to evaluate things not based on evidence but presumption and judgement.
If you think the concept of privilege is ridiculous, then you don't have the empathy to place yourself in another person's shoes.
Privilege is being in a situation where you could imagine walking in someone else's shoes but don't.
You've had nothing but good experiences with cops, but can't imagine what it's like walking in the shoes of someone who hasn't. You have the privilege of not understanding what that is like. That's what privilege means.
> Lots of governments
It seems like you're misconstruing what the other person said to be a general statement about all governments when it is only applicable to democratically elected ones. Yes, you can disagree with the government but that doesn't mean they are in the wrong if they have the support of the majority of the population. If you don't like something about your government then vote, either with a ballot or with your feet.
I have heard this thought experiment strikingly followed up with "Jeff Bezos is effectively a man who has built a machine to push the button as fast as is physically possible."
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54.
<https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...>
There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
In your comment, what you confuse is capacity for violence (inherent in all actors, state, individual, corporate, or non-governmental institutional, with numerous extant examples of each) with the Weberian definition of a monopoly on the legitimate claim to violence. In practice, enacting violence on virtually any actor will engender some counterveiling response, though the effectiveness will vary greatly depending on the comparative power and/or disinhibition of the entity responding.
If you have never met a truly delusional person in your life, it's easy to have pacifist ideals. As soon as you meet a truly delusional person and those delusions directly conflict with what you need or a right you think you have, you quickly learn that "war" is sometimes the only option. If there are situations that require war, then you must make sure you are capable of exerting force.
I think the quote "If you want peace, prepare for war," is quite accurate. It is perceived weakness that opens you up to having war thrust upon you by someone who has estimated they have more power. In that sense, I think pacifism is a warmongering ideology because I view "despots that have too much power will exist" as an axiom upon which any political philosophy must be built. To a despot, pacifism is opportunity to subjugate. The foundation of despotism is built upon people who will not risk what they hold dear.
Nuclear annihilation is bad, but I would rather live in a world under threat of nuclear annihilation rather than a world where only Putin or Xi could threaten the force of nuclear weapons to subjugate those they wish.
Or perhaps, Tolkein convinced me that I was kidding myself if I thought I was a pacifist, in the first place. If you would break someone's arm to save a million lives, then you're not a pacifist. Which is a sorta kinda okay rough summary of the book's underlying argument.
This is hilariously off-mark. Tolkien was a very anti-war person (shaped by his experience in the Great War).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Country_debate
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/tolkien-lewis...
(I can't vouch for the latter journal, it's just consistent with what I've previously read.)
Winston Churchill, in the first volume of his history of WWII, goes into great detail re this ubiquitous democratic feckless pseudo-pacifism of the thirties. This is the context Tolkien was writing against; a thoroughgoing refusal to consider arms. It was well worth opposing, and had armed opposition been used earlier, England would have experienced only a very short, sharp war.
"Unlike other members of the "Lost Generation" who spent their words rejecting time-honored concepts such as heroism and virtue, Tolkien and Lewis borrowed heavily from the great epic stories of the past. ... According to the C.S. Lewis Institute, "In the stories of Tolkien and Lewis, there is this very important idea about our responsibility to resist evil and choose to do the right thing, even when it looks very risky. This is what heroes do." Both men learned these lessons while on the battlefields of France during the so-called "War to End All Wars." "
https://www.grunge.com/596312/the-c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkie...
I will not use that word to describe The Lord of the Rings
Second off, I don't think it can. It's too late already. But I think there are still elements that show the dangers of what I'm saying. Many Russians left the country. There's even some hiding in the woods. I said the danger is when people support mad men. The problem is that despite this, there are still plenty of people willing to fight his war.
But what I'm proposing is much harder and longer term. There's lots of unknowns to me. I don't know how you get people to stop worshiping leaders. It seems like it is a fundamental aspect of humanity. I'm just a computer scientist, I don't know everything about human psychology. I'm not an expert in everything, none of us are.
But I do know people over simplify things but also hold onto their opinions very strongly. So one aspect is teaching people that their ideas are not part of their identities. Doing this prevents us from taking disagreements personally. I know it means teaching people that you can be proud of your country but that blind nationalism is dangerous. I do know it means teaching people to scrutinize the power of leadership, as power often corrupts and living extremely different lifestyles often distances us. I know it means doing much more than this too. But I'm not sure how to even teach all these things to people. But I do know there are far too many people who do not wish to go to war in either country.
So how do you give them the power and prevent charismatic authoritarians from abusing them? I don't know. It is probably similar to the answer of how you prevent people from being in abusive relationships. I'm sure neither of us knows that answer but we both agree that those relationships are bad.
While you may be able to influence another person, you can not change another person.
You are in a state of denial (a delusion) about people and both their capacity for good and capacity for change. You elevate your own ideals against animal (whoever has the most power wins) ideals while failing to recognize your own animal nature. You think your ideals are better than, say a republicans, and yet they are fundamentally equal to you. They might be trying to change you so that you become a nationalist, in the same way you would wish for them to be globalist. You have a false sense of the superiority of your beliefs and a false sense of authority to spread them. As we saw in 2016, they can get into power and co-opt the institutions of indoctrination to indoctrinate in the ways they see fit. Power is the factor that determines who gets to use the institutions of indoctrination.
> It seems like it is a fundamental aspect of humanity.
You recognize one important axiom, but fail to find the contradicting axiom.
War is the state of two irreconcilable delusions, or a delusion and reality. War determines who is wrong, and who is left.
> So one aspect is teaching people that their ideas are not part of their identities.
Do you see how republicans talk about how schools are indoctrination centers for kids and are fighting public education because they don't like this liberal indoctrination?
What do you think it would take for people to drop Christianity?
> But I do know there are far too many people who do not wish to go to war in either country.
I smashed my lego set in anger as a kid. It felt right at the time, but the end result was that what I had built was utterly destroyed, some individual pieces were permanently broken. I did not have the maturity or forethought to see how sad I would be at the destruction of my creations.
Global warming, much like obesity, is a march of small concessions until it gets to a point where the snowball is too big. War is a small march of appeasements until the despot starts seeing appeasements as submissions and becomes emboldened.
You are also moving the bar of the conversation because we first were talking about leaders who wield abusive powers and defining them as delusional. Thus my response is about how to prevent people like this from obtaining power in the first place. A preventative measure (which is why my above response is attempting to explain that preventative measures aren't good solutions for problems already occurring. i.e. a goal post moved). You have incorporated a wider definition of delusion and this moves the goal post for me to defend my position further. But in the war mongering position the widening of the goal post in this direction gets us to where we are: which is a deep seated division. That politics becomes good vs evil. While I agree that the ideas of these people are reprehensible I do not believe that discussing in this framework is productive. People never see themselves as evil and calling them such creates division rather than salvation. I can recognize that we are in this terrible position and that my thoughts do not solve this while also recognizing that once a solution is created we need to act further before rejoicing. We need to prevent this cycle of of casting out out of touch leaders who will abuse us and wait for the next one to come along. We've been doing this for tens of thousands of years, don't you think it is time we start discussing preventative measures?
Nobody wants to go to war. All war is based on rhetoric about its necessity. I think war with china is necessary, and I think the longer we don't go to war, the more pain China will be able to deal us when war breaks out (willing to accept alternative argument, for example, that unchecked dictatorship will rot china's ability to wage war). I absolutely don't want to go to war with China, but Xi is clearly delusional and has embedded into the Chinese system of government a future declaration of war against Taiwan and has made no shortage of rhetoric about using force if necessary. He's even demonstrated colonial imperial ambition directly against Hong Kong showing that his threats are not idle.
I don't want the war at all, but Xi does. I can't change Xi. That leaves one choice: prepare for war.
> there is no one size fits all for humans.
Humans have blood that carry oxygen to their brains. We have to eat to obtain energy to function. We don't know the extent to which other chemicals or structures govern our thoughts (including social ones) or not. So if you believe that our consciousness has a basis in physicality, we can't know to what extent this statement is false or to what degree it is false.
That also ignores that there are systems that govern us. All humans are subject to the idea that "the most powerful entity wins." All humans are subject to death.
That's ignoring that:
> there is no one size fits all for humans.
and
> Then we can teach people to not treat men like gods.
are a contradiction. You are trying to make one size (no gods) fit all.
If there is no one size, then conflict is necessary, and war is just a degree of conflict.
> Then we can teach people to not treat men like gods.
You want to teach people to not treat mean like gods, while they want you to teach you to have the same gods they do. You are asserting the authority and superiority of your own belief system under the implicit condition that you have more power than they do. I identify as liberal, so I believe liberal systems are better, but unless liberals can maintain power, then liberal belief systems don't matter. We are seeing America slowly become a white christian state because ethnic forces have used their power to corrupt the judicial branch while we see liberal forces floundering and incapable of achieving any goals like rule of law (the idea that laws apply to people with power).
So there is a cycle:
Ideology -> power -> war -> ideology
Ideologies generate power, which are used to win wars, which are used to increase ideology. In this way ideologies are competitive and naturally selected.
As for the second statement, you are quick to blame a leader for their delusion, and you seem to have a top down view. My view is bottom up, that small scale (a single person) delusions grow into large scale delusions, and once there are two incompatible large scale delusions, there is war.
I don't think I've moved any goal posts, I think you need to confront the idea that there is probably a person who exists with the direct opposite opinions of yours with the same desire to spread their opinion, and who is functionally equivalent in power.
> We've been doing this for tens of thousands of years, don't you think it is time we start discussing preventative measures?
If we've been doing it for tens of thousands of years, then it seems like those memes (in the technical sense of the word) have been naturally selected for because they are more viable than other memes, that is to say, we have the privilege of living in high resource times and therefore having high resource privilege, but in low resource times, we might choose to kill rather than starve. Whether the resource is food, microchips, oil, or anything else that modern society depends upon, it might be that willingness to kill your neighbor could be a competitive advantage and we see the results of those forces of natural selection alive today.
We are animals and I think we both believe in fighting our animal nature and the animal law (natural selection) that binds us, but we can't do it in violation of reality.
I agree. But at the same time I also think the average Chinese person feels the same as you and I. Maybe they think it is Xi, maybe they think it is Biden (/US). But does that matter? The point I'm getting at is that those in power are able to paint this narrative, even if it is of their own doing. They make the story they write a reality by getting people to follow them.
> are a contradiction. You are trying to make one size (no gods) fit all.
Gods, not god. (I think you're also not giving that comment, which has a history older than our combined age, a good faith read)
> If there is no one size, then conflict is necessary, and war is just a degree of conflict.
This too isn't true as flexibility exists.
> My view is bottom up
Actually I think both our views are bottom up. I think you see the differences in our opinions and are creating a larger divide than there actually is.
If you think that you can teach that treating humans as gods is bad, why do you think that blind nationalism can't be taught. If blind nationalism can be taught, why can't the average Chinese person be made to feel that war (to prevent the evil of separatism) is regrettable, but necessary?
He did the same thing you wish to do (indoctrinate people with a no gods ideology) to indoctrinate people with a Xi is a god ideology.
I think the average educated Chinese person probably isn't very happy, but I think the average Chinese fox news watcher equivalent is probably just fine, maybe a little suspicious of zero covid policy, but overall whipped into a nationalist frenzy.
There's plenty of video evidence of Russians not feeling the same way as you or I. There are clearly unrepentantly evil people.
> This too isn't true as flexibility exists.
I don't understand this refutation. We are seeing the results of non-flexibility in abortion politics in America, in Ukraine, and in countless other examples.
Making someone flexible violates the idea that you can't change someone (to be how you want).
Our very existence, being male and female, binds our species to eternal conflict. Genetic propagation is a limited resource that must be competed (fought) over. It doesn't take too long watching Planet Earth before it's clear that conflict is axiomatic to genetics (in the general case).
> I think you're also not giving that comment, which has a history older than our combined age, a good faith read
That is disappointing to hear. How do you think I am reading it, and how do you think I misinterpreted it?
> I think you see the differences in our opinions and are creating a larger divide than there actually is.
I think we both are likely to agree with enough time and patience. I think we would probably agree on many outputs, given the same inputs. I think your confusion and uncertainty is a result of unresolved contradictions in the axioms you hold.
I don't think you've run into a delusional person, like a manager or a parent, exercising their power over you despite every attempt made to negotiate or achieve mutual understanding, in a manner that forces you to fight rather than submit. I think your mental model of how reality works is not burdened with that experience.
Trying to get your Alzheimers grandpa to remember you is an exercise in futility. No amount of wishful thinking, desire, effort, or anything else is going to make that happen. Same for trying to get some people to feel empathy.
I think you feel grief over the state of conflict in the world, for which the first stage is denial, then you get to bargaining "something must be able to be done, we must be able to solve this or prevent it." I think eventually you will get to acceptance.
> But also recognize that just because someone doesn't have the answer to everything doesn't mean it is wrong.
We can all want and wish for things, at some point we have to grow up and accept reality. If you don’t have a solution, then you don’t have the answers. You should’ve kept your mouth closed as you’ve said “i don’t like war, there’s a better way, but i don’t know what it is”. How many veterans that have watched their friends die do you think are on this board (you’re talking to one now)?
War is horrible but when we fight there is no other option.
It doesn’t matter.
Wars are waged by powerful interests over which the average person has no control.
I suppose on a personal level — confronted with a mugger or burglar — one could implement one’s philosophy. Thankfully, though, those occasions are rare and regardless of one’s outlook, the decision in the moment is based less on philosophy and more on adrenaline, panic, fear, rage, etc. (which can lead a ‘warmonger’ to capitulate and cower in fear or a ‘pacifist’ the knock the crap out of someone… one never knows.)
If there are any dictators, emperors, prime minister, or presidents on this board, perhaps their musings on the subject would mean something. If not, it’s just navel-gazing.
Are you sure about that?
Dictators come and go, nuclear winter stays.
If everyone believes in the idea of "live free or die" then there is a chance to not live and die a slave to a dictator.
I prefer living to life.
I was extremely moved by the Hong Kong protestors who were living the morals of my forefathers, while my peers here in America were busy bootlicking while talking about how awesome their freedom to lick boots is.
This quote is the parent quote of "live free or die":
> "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
It captures the idea clearly.
He didn't exclaim any morally high-flying attitude and said that after the demonstration was over and he was in jail, no public really remembered him, the news didn't write great stories about his heroic deeds and he suffered tremendously as a small cog caught between the wheels of history.
You're attitude also reminds me strongly of pre-world-war Germany where there was also a sentiment that a war with the unjust oppressors is much better than the current rotten piece; you can see where this has lead.
Ending, I don't what to dismiss your positive attitude to oush against oppression, but I want show that there is more to the issue than "live free or don't live at all".
So what you say sounds great - in theory. But letting Mike Tyson answer: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".
You've identified the prisoners dilemma that dictators use to attain power. Every person is faced with a dilemma. Do I defect (submit to the oppressive regime) or do I cooperate (fight the oppressive regime). Cooperation has very high cost when other people choose defect. The more people that defect, the more costly cooperation is.
Liberty requires that sacrifice, but no one wants it to be their sacrifice, and a despot uses that property to enslave everyone. Martyrs are a necessary, but not sufficient component of liberty.
> You're attitude also reminds me strongly of pre-world-war Germany where there was also a sentiment that a war with the unjust oppressors is much better than the current rotten piece; you can see where this has lead.
Russia has the same rhetoric against "Nazi oppressors" in Ukraine. China pushed rhetoric about America causing civil unrest in Hong Kong. The civil war, revolutionary war, ww2, etc. all seem to push the same sentiment.
It might not be the rhetoric itself, but the values behind the rhetoric and the consistency between rhetoric and actions.
> But letting Mike Tyson answer: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face".
And Mike Tyson better than anyone knows you can't be the greatest ever without getting punched in the face a few times. What sacrifices do you think he made to get where he got? I find irony in quoting someone that literally risked their life and limb to achieve what they achieved while defending the idea that choosing slavery over risking life and limb is rational.
It is clear that it is rational to make either decision. The prisoner's dilemma is a dilemma, it is not clear what the choice should be. Education can help inform what the best strategy is or at least what the outcomes of various strategies are.
Conscripts in Russia are literally being marched off to their death because they have been enslaved. Had they fought their mafioso kelptocratic oppressors (at great sacrafice), they could be enjoying the fruits of their labor and incredibly rich natural resources rather than being forced to ethnically cleanse themselves (at least the non muscovites) in the meat grinder.
It is a personal tradeoff everyone has to make and find, when, in your words, to defect or to cooperate. Yes, indeed
In your original comment you seemed to be making an unusual hard tradeoff in terms of freedom, that is why I invoked the example of the imprisoned demonstrator.
Make Tyson was obviously exceptional. I think our discussion is more what regular people would do. Top athletes also have coaches that mentally keep them to overcome resistance. Regular people typically (unfortunately) don't have access to that .
And yes, the example you give regarding Russia is exceptionally and probability a good counterexample to mine, to illustrate the other side of the Coin.
The basic problem in the world is that while a majority of the people may want to live self-determined lives, and be governed by a self-ruling democracy, there is a significant minority who wants to, at a personal level steal, extort, or extract value from others, and at a societal/governmental level rule over others. The latter are perfectly happy to steal, extort, extract, and/or rule over others using deception and violence.
If the people who want to live free and self-determined lives and under self-determining governments are not better prepared and better armed than the bullies, thieves, and authoritarians, they WILL be ruled by those bullies, thieves, and authoritarians.
If someone comes to your home to steal, rape, rule, or otherwise harm you or your family, is your response to say "sure, do what you want", or will you defend yourself?
Will you not call the cops if you have a chance because they might use violence to subdue or even kill your assailants (because they'd be doing violence on your behalf)?
If you defend yourself, or call the cops to do so, are you a warmonger?
If someone attacks our land and people, or a neighbor's land and people, and we call the military to defend ourselves, are we warmongers?
It is a useless accusation that undermines real understanding of what is happening.
When people say they are "anti-war" or "pacifist", they do not mean anti-self-defense. This kind of rethoric is uninteresting.
(Case in point: I am anti-war and I voted in favour of sending military aid to Ukraine and adoptions sanctions over Russia)
Yes, there is another point.
Many people, simply refer to all parties as "warmongers". The "warmonger" accusation is thrown every day at the people, politicians, and countries sending arms to Ukraine. Some of this can be attribute to Active Measures Dezinformatsiya "shaping the information space" directly from Russia and some to useful idiots who parrot the same lines, but not all of it. I've encountered many, like the OP, who just talk about any person or country in a position to project violent power, as a "warmonger" if they suggest using that power.
There are also many people who will claim that the USA is a "warmonger nation", far worse than Russia and China. While the USA has started military action since WWII, and some of it erroneously, it is NOT the USA that is "warmongering" in any way equivalent to the expansionist states Russia and China, both of whom have a continuous history of "annexing" neighbors (Tibet, HongKong, South China Sea, East China Sea, etc. & Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine), while the US has certainly behaved as the worlds policeman (and sometimes over-aggressively), it has not annexed anyone. Yet, there is plenty of "warmongering" rhetoric thrown at the USA, including in it's support of Ukraine, and claims that it is worse than CCP and Russian Federation.
So, what we need to distinguish is who is the expansionist aggressor, and who is the we hope better prepared and better armed democracy.
(That said, if a better-armed democracy tips over into an autocracy, watch out. and make no mistake, there are strong movements in the USA that are attempting to do exactly that, starting with actions to undermine democracy such as undermining the independent judiciary, denying elections, etc.)
EDIT: Plus, people are happy to prattle on about how the US Defense Budget exceeds the next X nations combined budgets, and how it is such a "warmonger" state. Yet when it finally becomes seen that we need to literally push back against Russia or China and defend democracy itself, it's pretty handy how all that turns out to be the "Arsenal Of Democracy" and we can actually supply the effort without breaking much of a sweat. And then people who normally call the US a "warmongering nation" can happily say "I'm all for defending countries"...
So, the main point is that I'm calling out the inconsistency inherent in the "warmonger" labeling.
The common folk may find war too unpleasant to conduct themselves, but they rally behind someone who will do it for them.
It has been the case for a lot of modern wars (even those pushed by us or nato).
It's not a matter of country.
Like you, for example, or majority of "west" for that matter, has completely believed that "70%" number that was released by Russian government.
None of my friends / relatives / acquintances supports this war (only my GF's mother). That is a piss-poor statistic, but the sad truth is that there simply cannot be any reliable sociology in a country where saying "no to war" leads to criminal prosecution.
I think it's also crucial, that from people who "support this war", most support the image they see on TV, not the real-world atrocities. Most of people who support this war think they are fighting "battalions of NATO soldiers from Poland" and a small group of nazis who threaten Ukraininan soldiers with death if they don't go into battle. For majority it's impossible to fathom fighting with brotherly Ukrainians.
Sure, but in democracies (or any system where legitimacy depends on the "will of the people"), why the people believe something isn't usually considered relevant.
It’s honestly very unsettling to think about.
I think not enough people understand this point. So many believe that they are immune to propaganda because they laugh at some that they see. But they do not laugh at the propaganda that does influence them. There's different propaganda for different people. This is the same underlying arguments for the privacy avocation groups, but I don't want to derail the conversation at hand.
We should take a step back and think about Russia's problem.
Not only did Russia's dictatorship made it illegal and a punishable offense to express any negative feeling regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they manipulate all their media with pro-Putin and pro-war propaganda.
Keep in mind that Russia's regime response to anti-mobilization protesta was to arrest protesters and force them to the war front.
No wonder a big chunk of Russians, when faced with any war-related question, they make it their point to promptly give a canned response on how they are apolitical. Self-preservation in a totalitarian state kicks in almost as a Darwinian response.
If you found yourself living in that sort of castrating society, what would you answer if state posters asked you what you thought of the ongoing war?
The poll is from Nevada, same poll company that said 1% support Navalny as a politician. Navalny got 27% on Moscow mayor election in 2013. Tens of thousands of people were on demonstrations in his support in 2021, risking getting beaten up by police and jailed.
Out of ~100 people I know, maybe a couple somewhat support war.
In Moscow, none of civilian cars you see on the streets have Z/V/military symbols in support of the war. If war has 70% support, at least 1% would put it on display.
It is very clear to me that these existential threats are elites playing a game with our lives. The lives of everyone on this planet. The same elites that have nuclear bunkers and would survive the repercussions of their acts. The same elites who get us worked up with racism and scapegoatism. It doesn't matter if you're American, Indian, Chinese, or Russian; the honest to god truth is that the VAST majority of us want to just live in peace and don't give a shit about this geopolitical nonsense. It's strange to me that you can go back to Diogenes and find people discussing this same sentiment, about being citizens of the world. Nationalism is a hell of a drug. Fine in moderate usage but large doses make people go insane.
I do recognize that there is a lot more complexity to all this. Like another commenter pointed out, even 0.01% of 8 billion is 800k. But this shows an existential threat to humanity. That even if the rate of psychopaths with power is extremely low, that the total number is still quite large. But it isn't just these elites that make us think small cultural differences are quite large, I see every day people come to these same conclusions. I don't understand how this happens when we really are all just people doing people things. Exposure?
I'm not sure how to solve this tbh. I do think working towards a post scarce society is one of the biggest tools we can have. People tend to be much nicer and far less likely to act criminally when they don't have to worry about getting by. People aren't inherently evil, but justify small steps in that direction with good intentions. Post scarcity takes away some of this power that these people have, but it won't take away all of it. I know this is something we techies here are able to work towards, but I don't know what the other parts are, and I don't think it is going to be a fully technological solution (that would be absurd). But I do thin, like you're saying, that we need to discuss this. After all, even if it is unlikely to happen, the fate of the human race depends on this discussion. A 0.001% chance of nuclear war is still too high.
I practically never do math in my head anymore - I either need to practice again to sharpen up a bit or only ever depend on calculators from now on.
And true, 800k is plenty - you just have to recruit existing repeat criminals.