[andretti1977]

I know it may be off topic but i don't want people to discuss about the reliability of the data involved, no, i want people to reflect about the outcome: end of humanity.

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.

[pmoriarty]

"maybe 99.99% of world population wouldn't harm another person"

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.

[Loquebantur]

This is a category error.

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.

[tekknik]

Humans are built with a solution to violence, along with every other animal on the planet. Actively seeking violence and defending yourself are very different thinks and since this is instinctual, I find it very implausible you can convince all 7 billion of us to not fight each other. This is why you end up with violence as a deterrent.

[hayst4ck]

A police officer is a position of power. In many parts of the world, someone in this position of power will use that power to acquire resources via bribes or extortion. This person with authority of the state has a right to violence that you do not have. This person has determined they have a right to your money and a "justification" (The law of nature: I have more power) to take it.

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.

[dredmorbius]

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself.

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.

[systemvoltage]

We grant government the monopoly of violence in return for protecting individual rights. That's the idea.

[blaser-waffle]

We don't grant a government the monopoly of violence -- they are the government because they hold the monopoly of violence.

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.

[pharke]

> all over the world

> 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.

[systemvoltage]

You have a very contrived and negative view towards Police and government. While it is good to have skepticism of powerful structures, it is also important to see the facts. Most police officers are courteous, professional and protect citizens (and their rights).

[hayst4ck]

I don't think you are skeptic enough about police officers. While most fit that description, most will also cover for officers who are being unethical rather than uphold the law themselves. I've run into (American) people who have quit the force they were a part of because they stated it was just too corrupt. That means there is a culture problem which is more than just a couple bad police officers. When a police officer does something bad, that's one cop being bad, but when a police officer is bad and the department doesn't do a good faith investigation and protects them, that is ACAB.

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.

[systemvoltage]

My experience and every person I know who has had positive experience with police in America. This is a progressive narrative to destroy law and order and institute a desolate, dystopian and rotting policies that we see in cities like LA and SF. I am sorry, I don't buy your narrative or the mainstream progressive one.

[dTal]

>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.

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."

[ratsmack]

War mongers also cross the entire political spectrum almost like they're born with a death wish. It's too bad they can't be excised from the system before they gain too much power.

[toss1]

War mongers is a dangerous oversimplification.

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.

[andrepd]

Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread?

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)

[toss1]

>>Yes, self-defense is a legitimate use of violence. Is there any other point at all in this thread?

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.

[hayst4ck]

I think I am quite liberal and I could be considered a warmonger.

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.

[Nomentatus]

I was a pacifist until I read Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England. Also entertaining. But long.

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.

[andrepd]

> Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," a very long pro-war (warmonger) screed that he consciously designed to counter pre-WWII pacifism in England

This is hilariously off-mark. Tolkien was a very anti-war person (shaped by his experience in the Great War).

[Nomentatus]

Tolkien was an able soldier at the front in WWI. He despised war as veterans do, but by the same token he was obviously no pacifist. He also despised the NAZIs, but was confronted by students, and a nation of voters, who declared themselves uninterested in defending their country or opposing the NAZIs. Tolkein began writing LOTR in 1937. Lewis, very similar views. It is impossible to construe TLOTR as a pacifist work; although it clearly warns against pursuing "any means possible" against an enemy (as is consistent with his Christian faith.)

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...

[wsgeorge]

> screed

I will not use that word to describe The Lord of the Rings

[Nomentatus]

It's hyperbole, no question, but I'm going to say it's kinda sorta justified by the sheer length. Meant to be humorous, but hyperbole is a relatively rare taste in humor.

[lurquer]

The delusion, perhaps, is the average person worrying about whether they are or are not, or should or should not be, a pacifist.

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.

[godelski]

I've met delusional people, but I disagree with your stance. I think there has to be a better way. The reason we go to war is not because these delusional people exist, but because they are able to garner massive support. War can't exist without people willing to die for a cause. Those causes are frequently lies or exaggerations. Or issues caused by autocrats (delusional people) seeking to expand their power. The existential threat to humanity isn't so much that delusional people exist, but that the average person still holds celebrities in high regard. Because we treat men like gods.

[tekknik]

So let’s bring this out of the theoretical realm and into reality. How does this apply to the current Ukraine / Russian war? What is the better way to thwart Russias illegal advance?

[godelski]

First off, I think you're trying to pigeonhole me. I hope you're holding the counter proposal to the same degree of scrutiny. But also recognize that just because someone doesn't have the answer to everything doesn't mean it is wrong (I'll also say that people have been saying the other thing for thousands of years and it has not prevented us from having wars either).

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.

[tekknik]

I’m not sure how any of this stops Russians from shooting at you.

> 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.

[hayst4ck]

Your problem is one of the iron laws of being human:

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.

[data_maan]

In other words: You'd rather die (and have also all your children die) than live under Putin or Xi.

Are you sure about that?

Dictators come and go, nuclear winter stays.

[hayst4ck]

Definitely. "Live free or die" means more than anything, that if no one will sacrifice themselves in the fight for justice, then you will be oppressed, your family will be oppressed, and your children will be oppressed as will your friends and their families.

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.

[data_maan]

I on the other hand met in person someone from Hong Kong whose uncle, I believe, had been imprisoned during a much earlier demonstration for a different cause.

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".

[hayst4ck]

> 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'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.

[tekknik]

Not the parent, but yes absolutely. If I can’t speak out against things I don’t like then I am not living. You can hole up and wait out the nuke tossing then join the workers party rebuilding their palaces after you come out. Your children will likely be forced into labor as well, that’s Poohbears favorite move.

[civilized]

The few warmongers often have the support of the majority, e.g. in Russia right now, where polls consistently show 70% support or more for Putin's attack on Ukraine. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or...

The common folk may find war too unpleasant to conduct themselves, but they rally behind someone who will do it for them.

[therusskiy]

It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda.

Like you, for example, or majority of "west" for that matter, has completely believed that "70%" number that was released by Russian government.

[mradek]

Sure but if a propagandized population is hellbent in what they believe, they are a danger. Just because they have been brainwashed doesn’t mean we should let our guard down out of pity. It should make us more alarmed because they would actually go and do something batshit crazy.

It’s honestly very unsettling to think about.

[schwartzworld]

Considering the ridiculous politics here in America, I don't find the 70% statistic hard to believe. News is propaganda here, and people support terrible things all the time, so why should Russia be different?

[godelski]

> It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda.

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.

[Kamq]

> It's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda.

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.

[civilized]

Except they were not released by the Russian government.

[therusskiy]

They were released by Levada, it's now been some time that they are being influenced by Kremlin.

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.

[yks]

"70%" number is effectively meaningless, it might be 30 or 90, but it is a fact that the war is supported by Russian society. They may not _like_ it but they _support_ it. If Putin says the war is over now, Russians would support that too.

[CGamesPlay]

It’s literally illegal to not be “in support” of the “special military operation” if you are in Russia. No poll could possibly be accurate.

[andretti1977]

The common folk may be led to think that the only alternative they have to live is war. And they are led to think that by those small overpowered fraction.

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.

[pain2022]

I'm so tired of seeing this 70% number. There is a lot of available evidence against it. Why is it so widely quoted by western media?

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.

[andrepd]

Since there is no free press in Russia and if you publicly come out against the war you might be jailed and brutalised, I'm surprised the percentage isn't even larger.

[throwaway290]

As practice shows, it's one thing to support the attacks but quite another to be willing to go to the frontline...

[yks]

Current Russian practice shows that there is no difference, thousands of newly mobilized men have already died and their society doesn't care, mothers just blame Ukraine.

[simplotek]

> The few warmongers often have the support of the majority, e.g. in Russia right now, where polls consistently show 70% support or more for Putin's attack on Ukraine.

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?

[IAmGraydon]

If Maslow’s hierarchy of needs had one more layer at its very base, it would be power. That is, the ability to project their will into the world. People who are made to feel powerless (like the Russian population) will align themselves with a source of power (Putin) to satisfy their need for power, even if by proxy. The need for power is so fundamentally important to humans that any source of this is valued above most moral conflicts that the source may cause. This is how a large population of “good” people can commit atrocities, as in WWII Germany, for example.

[godelski]

This concept has always baffled me too. There's the old saying (I think from cold war era): the difference between you (a foreigner) and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders.

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.

[loceng]

If 8 billion people in the world, your 99.99% leads to 80 million people who would be willing to harm others - a lot of people - where certainly only a fraction of that is enough to create an army for a tyrant; and to which where the second amendment in the U.S. stems from, knowing that only an armed population can counter threats on freedom.

[zenta]

Nit: I don't know that it changes the point, but 0.01% of 8B is 800K.

[loceng]

Hmm.. wow, I sure fucked that up. Thanks for pointing out.

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.