![Kamil Galeev Profile picture](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Wars typically get a lot of coverage and much of it is criticism. Interestingly enough, even Ukrainians attacked by a huge heavily militarised aggressor are getting *lots* of it. Let me give some considerations on criticism - mostly to Ukrainians but to also to whoever. A short🧵
They gonna tell you that critics are not always the enemies. But the dark truth is that a good number of critics are. Human interactions necessarily include a political dimension. Neurotypical people do not just honestly tell what's on their mind. Instead they play a social game
What game are they playing? It depends. Some "critics" are haters who wish you death. There's an asymmetry between hatred vs sympathy. A fan is not *that* much of a fan, he has other interests, his life doesn't revolve around you. But the life of a hater absolutely fucking does
There's another category which might not wish you destruction. But if you make it, they'll be very very upset. This group may include some of those you consider to be friends. Your failure will cheer them up and vice versa. Finally, there are people influenced by first two groups
What unites them is that neither of these groups has you best interest in mind. However, they pursue different goals. Most typical games they are playing are:
1. Active subversion
2. Reputation destruction
1. Active subversion
2. Reputation destruction
Active subversion. They unconsciously (or consciously) try to figure out what course of actions would be worst for you. Then they socially pressure you to choose it. They'll criticise you for good moves and praise for bad ones. They guide you to your demise by booing and cheering
Reputation destroyers don't aim to guide you anywhere. They criticise whatever you do, both good and bad moves. If you are inactive they'll criticise your inaction, if you are active - action. They might not even think what would be worse for you, they just attack your reputation
So the test on active subverter vs reputation destroyer would be. Imagine you did so obviously disastrous, so clearly ruinous that he most probably understands you made a bad move? An active subverter will congratulate you on that. A reputation destroyer still gonna criticise
If you made a good move, you can't really tell a difference. For example when Ukraine declared mobilisation, both active subverters and reputation destroyers were booing. However, subverters did it cuz they thought it's a good move, while reputation destroyers didn't think at all
But if Ukraine didn't do that, then we would see the difference. Active subverters would be praising Ukraine for this ethical, reasonable approach. Meanwhile reputation destroyers would be criticising their cowardice and lack of will to exist (which proves they are a fake nation)
It's all about priorities. Since active subverters aim to guide you to your demise, they're trying to use both "carrot" and "stick" approaches. They fear that if they criticise you for a disastrous move, then you might reconsider and change your course of actions. Unacceptable
Reputation destroyers don't guide you anywhere. Thus they use only a "stick" all the time. That makes them very easy to recognise: they're non stop producers of negative affirmations. Which are also performative in a sense they're aimed both to your self-image and public image
Much of criticism is purely malevolent. And many critics don't really hide it. They don't even pretend to act in your best interest. If they criticise you, that's just a white noise. Ignore. But if they praise you (however they frame it), that's a reason to be concerned. End of🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
