Allero

Well, entropy is eternal

This took a weird turn, and I hoped we are on the same page.

I do not support Russian government, and I hoped I made it very clear. All I call for is being honest when making accusations towards anyone.

"Russia is behind this" became a common trope that seemingly doesn't need any confirmation. Someone called it on Russia - then Russia it is. It's an instrument of propaganda, and it's how people are trained to believe whatever they hear without even attempting to check proofs.

Cold war is literally both sides, and I don't know what angle makes it not true. Could you elaborate why you put all blame on USSR, exactly?

There were issues with USSR, and quality of life and level of democracy was generally higher in the US; but what does it mean in the context of foreign relations? Isn't/wasn't the US literally the number 1 most invasive country on Earth, with military installations all around the globe and an insane toll of global conflicts and inflicted misery? With all respect, if we compare these two countries specifically, USSR was rather a cute little nuance, and it must take a lot of indoctrination to fail to see it.

Again, this is not to say either USSR or Russia are flawless or even good; a lot of fuckery went on in each, which has caused immense suffering. But if we consider Russian/Soviet imperialism, we should be sure not to apply double standards, or else you'll risk overlooking dangerous precedents.

Think of that from another perspective.

Assuming human lifetime to be 70 years:

• 0.4 lifetimes ago, the term "smartphone" was first used

• 0.5 lifetimes ago, Internet became a thing

• 1.7 lifetimes ago, first airplane rose in the sky

• 3 lifetimes ago, we got the first Turing-complete computer

• 6 lifetimes ago, we started discovering electricity

• 8 lifetimes ago, Middle Ages came to a close

• 20 lifetimes ago you'd be at the end of what we now as antiquity.

• 75 lifetimes ago you'd be at the beginning of Ancient Egypt and the early Bronze Age.

• 105 lifetimes ago you would witness the beginning of first human civilizations.

• 150 lifetimes ago people invented agriculture

• 4300 lifetimes ago humans as we know them appeared

History is speeding up, and today one human life is enough to witness a change our ancestors wouldn't see in a millennia.

Sure, we are, as always, grains of sand in the desert of eternity, but we are grains that matter. That make a change. Every day.

It took only 8 lives to rise from medieval times to where we are now, and less than one lifetime to transform...everything.

Oh, I know that feeling! Sorry to know the long comment is gone, happened to me more than once.

Oh, so you attribute the rise of Finnish right-wing to Russia as well, as in Russian agencies artificially create a wave of anti-immigration and then send immigrants in? Honestly, with all the real damage Russia has done, I feel like it is used as a scapegoat here; among a few reasonably confirmed cases (mostly of Russia killing dissidents abroad etc.), there is a sea of practically baseless speculation. Last time I saw this was a few days ago, when German military vehicles burned and journalists attributed it to Russia because some random pro-Russia Telegram channel mentioned it (and did so with clear factual errors that are alone enough to dismiss it).

Cold war, we should remember, was a two-sided conflict. It was not good vs evil, it was capitalist world full of red scare and propaganda vs communist block full of authoritarianism and, again, propaganda. Both sides could do much more to maintain peace, it's just that one side has eventually collapsed, leaving the other to rule the world and write history books. And as much as Europe was concerned about USSR being on their doorsteps, so was USSR concerned about militarization of Europe with the aid of the US. That's what this entire showoff is based on; it's not a one-sided show of intimidation, and, arguably, both sides would rather not have it. Moreover, it was started by the US swinging nuclear arms around, and then USSR jumped along.

I'm not sure what you consider to be a shot of democracy - perestroika itself or the dissolution of the Soviet Union? In first case, yes, it was a welcome change, but as some of the Soviet republics, particularly in the Baltics, were essentially held in by force and censorship, it was a catalyst for the future dissolution, which is likely why it wasn't done sooner. Dissolution itself brought a lot of freedom to the former republics which were not super fond of being Soviet to begin with, but was a disaster for Russia, Belarus, and new states in the Middle East. In the latter, there was nothing to blow as there was nothing democratic about them to begin with - it was just a bunch of new dictators.

Speaking of Russia in particular, while trying to show a face of democratic change, Yeltsin has consolidated power by creating puppet parties (including a puppet Communist party), silencing opposition by not letting them into main federal TV channels that were the main information source at the time, and destroying existing democratic institutions, sometimes with actual military force (see the assault on Congress of People's Deputies). By the time Putin (heavily endorsed by Yeltsin as the new leader of the country) got to rule Russia, it was already heavily in United Russia party's grip. Make no mistake - this was a show of democracy designed to be blown. And, sure, it was an easy play, as Russians by then never really knew the times they, and not someone in the high cabinets, could vote someone in.

We should certainly have experts running and planning critical parts of the economy, but we should also make sure it's as hard to corrupt as possible. Governments are prone of injecting propaganda in schools we both care about, cutting medical spending, and attacking nuclear plants during the wars. If we should have governments at all, they should either work through as much of direct democracy and self-organizing as opposed to representative power (which is quite close to anarchy), or through careful and open computerized planning with active input of the people. The global political goals in the meantime should shift towards cooperation and integration on all levels, so that one plot of land uniting against the other plot of land would look as absurd as it actually is.

Instance name checks out

Also, hello there, fellow labrat! Are you a microbiologist?

You monster!

Immigration being seen as a weapon has always bewildered me. If people come to your country, commonly running away from famine and war, and you see them as nothing but a weapon, something is seriously wrong. I am aware some countries like Finland are already fairly filled with immigrants, but Europe could use some more cooperation to solve this.

To my perspective, Russian government was not the bad one, it was a rival, as in yet another place being run by shitheads. Funnily enough, 1991-2000 was actually the time when liberties coming from Perestroika were tanked again, the country was destroyed against people's will, and wild privatization combined with corruption has left millions in deep poverty and famine; crime arose. People had their homeland taken away from them before they could react, and they were intentionally kept clueless on what was going on. But it was also the time when Russia had better relations with Europe and the US, which is why this period is seen as "Russia being good".

Removing all governments overnight is not feasible indeed. But we should admit the harms patriotic and, as a radical extension, nationalist models cause to society at large and our global cooperation, we should own up to what it means to hostility, warfare, and breeding idiots who make it worse for all of us. Every time someone tries to instill patriotic feelings within the population, they just want to make us more controllable and divided. We shouldn't let them. And as an extension of that, we should advocate for direct democracy and gradual dissolution of government as a main controlling entity.

This doesn't mean, however, that you can't praise certain decisions made by your government. They can be objectively good!

Unfortunately, it's commonly not researchers that create academic circles, it is publishers and other entities with vested interest in making us publish more garbage.

Scientific world is corrupt as hell.

Guess that's why Europe has built defences against immigrants, and many European countries straight up rejected to accept them? And that's why right-wingers with their anti-immigration policies win over more and more votes?

My point is, this is one of the consequences that comes with national identity. For some, it's just unfair preference of "their" people and things, for others, it's nationalism and xenophobia.

Blocking "disinformation" is also a slippery slope towards autocracy. Y'know, Russia did the same back in the day. I understand that it feels like a necessity amidst hybrid wars, but it's bound to be problematic down the road.

Nope, I'm from Russia.

But then again, where does that not have its place? Are people in Europe, say, universally welcoming to immigrants? Or maybe Asia is not full of xenophobia? Africa, at least?..

There are much better factors of unity than being on a certain plot of land.

Why do you think so?

I may advise you to track previous actions and their outcomes. More often than not, it does work.

We can always do our best to make it closer.

Most people claim this to be Utopian, and then just try to tone it down in others, so their own compliance is not seen to themselves as weakness but rather "wisdom". No - it is a surrender, an act of learned helplessness.

Sure, it's hard to force politicians to abandon the concept of nations, and it's hard to bring a revolt to a population so compliant.

But everyone can make personal steps.

First, admit that patriotism is bullshit. There is no ground to be patriotic, and nothing realistically unites you with your "nation". You have more in common with a person of the same position on the other side of the globe than you have with the president of your very "own" country.

Second, watch your own preferences in people and what you factor in your decision. Maybe you give too much weight to where the person comes from? Is it that you label people in some way based on that characteristic alone?

Third, if you have the opportunity, form an international collective, reach out to specialists within other nations, or if you can't, see if you can build a collective or even just a friend group with the immigrants around you.

Fourth - advocate for people in other countries, learn what they face, what they get to endure. For example - do you know that the deadliest of recent wars was not in Ukraine or Palestine, but in Ethiopia? What do you know about the current situation in Myanmar, aside from the Facebook drama? Did you consider supporting women rights' causes in the Middle East?

Personal action and involvement will not allow you to fall for the traps the state tries to implant in your mind, and you'll be personally responsible for a small, but proud piece of international cooperation - one that should become commonplace to the point when it wouldn't make sense for anyone to draw divisions.

Human life is human life. Human suffering is human suffering - here or on the other side of the globe. The concepts of unity, hope, and cooperation are all universally recognized wherever you are. Why not step in?