So recently I replied to a comment on a post that stated that, because of the current political climate we’re facing here in Canada, that the UK and France were somehow morally obligated to provide our country with nukes.
I’m autistic, that doesn’t excuse things I say, but maybe my messaging comes off the wrong way in how I type. I know I can be snarky (if that’s the word), but I genuinely almost never mean to actually offend somebody when I say something here. I decide to voice my disagreement with us having nukes, because in my eyes, the entire idea makes no sense. We signed a non-proliferation agreement, I think nukes shouldn’t exist and therefore shouldn’t be owned by anybody, I believe our country should set a good example rather than fall into this line of thinking in favour of WMDs over challenging circumstances like our own, that WMDs are essentially a war crime by their very nature for the same reasons landmines are, that more of a dangerous thing never makes one safer, and it simply takes one bad apple to ruin a batch of cider when it comes to the theory of “mutually assured destruction”.
I have all this reasoning for the stance I have. I am logical, I take the facts, make my own interpretations of those facts, and from there I ask myself who shares those same thoughts. I get into disagreements with people based on my values, and I value consistency in the values of other people.
So it infuriates me that in me explaining my reasoning for my stance and saying “no, Canada should not have nukes”, the response I get from the person I responded to was:
-
To call me naive and basically anti-Canada
-
To call me a tankie???
-
To block me? Supposedly for “being a tankie”?
I’m infuriated. The person who did this makes up a significant amount of the posts on my feed, meaning I’m unable to interact with a significant amount of posts I see all because I’m anti-nuke. This is genuinely childish behaviour, and it frustrates me that so many people are like this because they choose a side to root for, and work backwards from there.
“I’m Canadian, I like Canada, therefore if you don’t think Canada should have nukes, you’re anti-Canada and a sympathiser of dictatorships”
THIS ISN’T HOW LOGICAL THINKING WORKS.
Like yes, I know I’m getting too heated over a single moment like this, that this is minor and will come to pass, but something so small as this shouldn’t suddenly penalise me from interacting with maybe a quarter of my feed, and I hate how common this “pick a side” mentality is where nuance doesn’t exist.
I see people that look at what’s happening in the U.S., see that China has become more appealing to other countries around the world as a result, and suddenly their entire personality is “China bad”. Like wow, hot take of the year award goes to the person who thinks China bad, round of applause. Everybody knows China has it’s issues, nobody worth talking to who thinks rationally disagrees with that, but because “China bad”, people have to make it their whole personality telling you how bad China is, ignoring nuance, ignoring the current state of affairs, and calling people who disagree with their stances in their non-stop barrage of anti-China posting tankies.
Then on the other hand, you have a large swath of people that ascribe to communism, and then as a result of them believing in that, suddenly decide that Russia, China, and literally any country with a historically communist government can do no wrong. Good fucking God, I’m not a communist but you’re allowed to be one without throwing nuance out the window or playing mental gymnastics to defend vile actions of governments as if they’re inherently the belief systems themselves.
Also American party politics. You’re a Democrat and upset Trump won? Blame the non-voters, blame the Greens, blame those who voted for Cornel West, but never blame the people that lead your side. They’re infallible after all, it’s not like they could have changed their position on an issue or two to appeal to voters or anything. A disenfranchised vote drawn away from the Democrats is still a vote for Trump anyway! Team first, excuses and finger-pointing after, no room for logic or common sense.
Critical thinking for people is out the window for people most of the time when it comes to politics. Not even particularly in debates either, people will be so ingrained in their pick-a-side politics and lack of critical thinking that everything has to have politics in it. “Everything is political”, yes, I agree with that, but when somebody asks a question over something so simple as asking where to find a bottle of alcohol, and the top comment is a political joke rather than genuine assistance, I’m sorry, you’re unfunny, your joke is tired, and you’re kind of a dick. It’s always the people who pick a side, make their side their identity, and work from there, never those that work from their values and then pick a side.
I hate how nuanced criticism of people you otherwise agree with suddenly means you’re not on the team. I hate that giving credit where it’s due makes you a supporter of “the other side”. I hate that if I don’t support the party currently in power in my country, or certain hypothetical actions our country could take, I’m suddenly against the country I live in and love. I hate how insults are improperly thrown around, if I’m being called a tankie, at least call me one when I’m acting like one rather than use it as a stand-in for “person disagreeing with me”.
Don’t think critically. Don’t develop your own values and moral compass. Don’t be consistent to those values and morals. Don’t be nuanced or give credit where it’s deserved.
Pick a side.
Pick a side.
Pick a side.
One thing to remember is that a lot of narrative is generated by bot farms. These days it is imposible to figure out if you are even arguing with humans. Or just got cought in an autogenerated thred of bot trolls.
Perhaps, but so think that the Fediverse at least is too small to actually get targeted by any significant bot activity (excluding some repost bots). I also think that people in general is waay to quick in pointing out that anyone with differing views are a bot.
I hate how nuanced criticism of people you otherwise agree with suddenly means you’re not on the team.
Do you ever have meltdowns? Like, any sort of sensory input and you’re going to lose it? It feels like sometimes people are so worked up that any reply puts them on the defensive, and they are reading to respond rather than reading to understand.
I hate to admit it, but I do it sometimes too, so I try and stay off the internet when I’m mad 😅
Something that helps me not get mad when someone replies to me with some asinine remark: is this person arguing with something I didn’t say? If so, no need to reply. It still bothers me to not respond to things that are twisting my words because I wonder if they actually just misread, but if they aren’t sure they can ask, right? If they aren’t asking then they just want to talk and that’s fine too, have fun 🤷♀️
(also everyone gets called a tankie on here, welcome to the club 😅)
You claim others aren’t “thinking critically” and your position is that all Canada has to do is “set a good example” because of existing agreements… Have you seen the world recently? I’m not saying either side of this argument has everything right, but you actually do sound naive. Like ignoring-the-entire-shitstorm-of-recent-events naive.
I think it’s naive to think that nuclear weapons are justifiable just because someone else has nuclear weapons.
It starts an arms race and makes the overall situation worse. This type of mindset is literally how we got to this point to begin with. The U.S. built up a stockpile of nukes, to which Russia built one up, to which the U.S. built more in turn, so on, so forth.
So yes, I am of the stance still that no we should not have a nuke. Like I said previously, yes it’s bad we’re in a situation where the U.S. has nukes and we’re left in a position where they’re able to use them and we have nothing to dissuade them.
However, just because someone poisoned the punch doesn’t mean we should poison it more. Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in WWI started a chain of events nobody would have predicted lead to the sheer level of conflict it did. Now imagine that with nuclear weapons being exchanged by small and large countries alike.
Why should we partake in the very activity that got us to this situation to begin with? Just because we have trouble getting the big guys to get rid of them doesn’t mean we should throw our hands in the air, give up, and make more of these things.
Countries with nuclear weapons don’t get bombed or invaded by the US.
That’s not enough justification. Why does the logic come down to “but my guy is better”?
Because the reality is that the DPRK will never be bombed or invaded, while countries without nuclear weapons are bombed and invaded. Hell, we don’t even have to only focus on the US! Regardless of what you think about the justifications behind the war, Russia certainly wouldn’t have started a war if Ukraine had its own nukes. They’d have sought any alternative possible.
It has nothing to do with anyone being “better” but with countries having an interest in their own sovereignty. If a country doesn’t have nuclear weapons its sovereignty will always be in danger, because a nuclear armed country might come and kill them.
So owning indiscriminate killing devices isn’t a war crime until they’re actively used?
I need to reiterate. Two bombs killed anywhere from 150,000 to nearly a quarter million people. Who do you think those people were? These aren’t targeted devices, and they’ve only gotten more powerful since they were first dropped 80 years ago.
Yeah, we use them to protect ourselves now. We keep it, we don’t touch it, and it’s on standby to back us up.
However, Putin invading Ukraine was seen as “unthinkable”, regardless of what you think of the conflict there. Trump starting a war with Iran was far from a smart decision, and yet it happened anyway. We may have sanity from our leaders not to press the button now should we acquire a nuke, but what of when someone without sanity comes into power? We create the same cycle that caused us to procure those weapons to begin with, and the arms race continues until suddenly everybody is killing hundreds of thousands of people at the press of buttons.
Two bombs killed anywhere from 150,000 to nearly a quarter million people. Who do you think those people were?
Mostly civilians, because the US loves to exterminate innocent people because it’s an evil country. The US does not need nuclear weapons to kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands, though, it does that with conventional weapons every few decades.
However, Putin invading Ukraine was seen as “unthinkable”, regardless of what you think of the conflict there. Trump starting a war with Iran was far from a smart decision, and yet it happened anyway.
There’s a world of difference between “bad idea that probably won’t work” and “bad idea that can’t work” - this idea that some craaaaazy dictator can come to power and use the nukes is a misunderstanding of how power structures work.
No matter how stupid or irrational any individual leader is they’re merely the head of a much larger apparatus filled with other people who do know what they’re doing. The wars against both Ukraine and Iran had a lot of other people behind them who thought it might work. There’s a severe shortage of people behind the throne who think using nukes might work.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter! You can’t take away the any country’s nukes, they’ll nuke you if you try. That means you have to let everyone else have them to defend themselves and maintain sovereignty. Nuclear proliferation is inevitable, even if you don’t like it.
I’m undecided on if Canada having nukes would be good or bad.
You’re right that the more people that have them, the more likely someone will use them, which would be extremely bad.
But if the choices were: 1) USA invades Canada, 50,000-2,000,000 Canadians die (plus some number of Americans). 2) Canada has nukes, USA does not invade, no one dies.
How can you balance the existential danger of another country having nukes against so many deaths?
(All potential deaths, yes. But we’re already solidly in theoretical territory. I sure can’t accurately estimate the chances of the US invading Canada in all potential scenarios, nor can I estimate how much more likely Nuclear Armageddon is if one more country has nukes)
I’ll admit you sound a lot like my son, with whom I’ve had a lot of arguments over similar things. What I keep trying to explain is that values are good guides, but life and people and existance doesn’t follow fairytale ideals. The good doesn’t always win because that’s what you’ve always seen.
Values guide, but being jaded and flexible with your values is essential to survival.
I think why you feel it’s everyone pushing you to pick a side is actually people telling you to move beyond the bubble of your “values” and recognize that life is far messier and that you might need to adapt your thinking to deal with those unfortunate realities.
I reject the premise that I need to move beyond my values. Those people telling OP to pick sides is just that stupid monkey tribalism, literally animals that are incapable of engaging intellectually. The people telling OP to bend to the world are wrong, including you. Just because the stupidity is so dense it has mass does not magically make it correct. The world is wrong and constantly stuck in this dumb loop of history rhyming. Humanity is a giant disappointment, consciousness is a curse, I wish the whole system would burn to the ground.
I want to agree broadly but I think jaded is specifically a bridge too far, because it connotes boredom, cynicism, and hopelessness. We can accept life’s chaos, messiness, and nuance without losing our heart and wonder.
