askchapo

Getting into Russia v. Ukraine is doing it on hard mode. Its much easier right now to discuss narratives surrounding domestic issues, or the obvious contradictions surrounding Trumps activities in Iran and Venezuela. There are tons of left-wing topics one can discuss that have no media presence and people aren't really able to fire back at, since they don't have any talking points preloaded.

It is more effective to use these other topics to build the media criticism skills one would need to get a clearer view of Russia vs. Ukraine.

I also think it is an interestibg topic for a bunch of nerds online like us to chat about, but I literally don't give a fuck if someone has the incorrect ideas about the conflict, it has very little effect on my organizing because there is no left-wing influence over US foreign policy in the first place. That is decades away, and there is plenty of time to get peoples heads on straight, but that happens through developing class consciousness and then materialist analysis via real life organizing around local issues. When foreign policy does come up, its basically "we should be friends with our comrades in China and promote mutual development in both countries".

Anyone like that is the rubeiest rube since rubes came to Rubetown and I have no tolerance for it

I agree with other people in the thread that arguing about Russia/Ukraine with libs is an uphill battle for a variety of reasons. Russia is the military aggressor in the conflict, they're a much bigger country and they've been played up as the villains forever, which isn't helped by the fact that post-Soviet Russia does kinda suck ass. Just avoid the topic, arguing in favor of Russia just works to discredit you in the eyes of normies.

Trying to argue that the Russian forces didn't actually commit X or Y warcrime is especially ineffective unless you can definitively prove it, which you probably can't. The way I argue is by hammering on about Israel, which is so undeniably, cartoonishly evil that most normies are no longer in denial about it. I use Israel, Western nations' continuing loyalty towards them and how blatantly our media lied about them to undermine people's faith in media narratives about other issues, including Ukraine.

Granted, you are basically never going to convince anyone over the course of one conversation. That's just not how people work. The best you can hope for is putting cracks in the foundation of their current beliefs, making them question things they never thought about before next time they watch the news. You're not gonna change their minds, but you can ensure that they'll eventually come around on their own.

I think it's good to try to resist being holier-than-thou and to really try to understand why people believe what they do. We don't make the world a better place by simply denouncing the masses from on high, but by getting them on our side to the extent that they aren't already, regardless of where they were before.

Pretty low tolerance. It's willful ignorance at best

I'm kind of over it. Being tolerant that is. I have these people in my family and I just ignore them now or call it out. On social media I just block the ukraine flags now, there's no point.

Start with pointing out that Ukraine supports Israel

Or the numerous Nazi paramilitary organizations

The thing I've encountered is people who think reading ten different Western papers is the truth. "See I'm objective because I triangulate the truth by reading BBC, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Washington Post, FP, and the Independent" calls all foreign papers propaganda

If they have some kind of radical spark in them, I try to focus on debunking some specific narrative using an engaging podcast or video essay. Their problem is that they don't have the language to assess things and some kind of gentle introduction to theory will do more for them than attacking them.

If they are generically liberal or reactionary and the media narratives just reinforce what they want to believe, I write them off. Maybe I'll talk to them about limited subjects but there's a pathology driving them and they're reactively hostile to everything I could counter it with. That pathology serves some psychosocial or psychosexual function I can't replace with a new media diet.

i don’t think it’s terrorist attack, that’s a war tbh, but those who don’t see nazism in ukraine won’t see it anyway as anything bad.

exploding trains or bridges with unwilling accomplices is more to the tune of terrorism, which they did. but anyway we should stop calling everything bad or evil as terrorism reflexively. ukraine is an aspirant state to join global empire so they can be kinder gentler nazis, like entity

I don't worry about it. I try to focus on where we can politically struggle together for better material conditions. I figure its easier to get people into a political environment that encourages learning so they can debunk themselves in a supportive community than to do it all myself.

None.

depends on how resistant they are to being educated. no one is born with knowledge of the world around them and no one is immune to propaganda. with AI poisoning the well it's harder than it has ever been post-internet to find reliable sources to get your info from.

but if you do provide the sources and info and they flatly refuse to learn then they get both barrels