1. Language gap -> Most Westerners do not consume content in Russian
2. So, Westerners form their opinion based on what their own media/cultural establishment told them
3. Western cultural establishment forms their opinions based on what Moscow cultural establishment told them
Western discourse on Russia is being formed by the Western cultural elites. And the Western cultural elites rely on the facts selected and interpretations provided by the cultural elites of Moscow. As a result, it's the upper class of Moscow that defines how the West sees Russia
Perspective of the Moscow cultural elites is wildly overrepresented in the Western discourse. Since the Western cultural elites hardly even interact with anyone else, they fully depend upon the former as the source of both "facts" and interpretations to base their opinions upon
Discourse on Russia = the wildly overrepresented circle of Moscow cultural elites with good Western connections + the silent, voiceless, unrepresented empire. And I don't mean just the ethnic periphery, I mean everything that is neither Moscow, nor St Petersburg
As a result, the dominant Western discourse on Russia is being infected by all the prejudices, biases and the (semi)conscious class interest of a narrow social circle whom the Western cultural elites draw their opinions from
Example
1. Moscow cultural elites know that disintegration of empire is against their interest 2. They claim this scenario "makes no sense" (=against our interest) and look for arguments against 3. Through their Western connections, Moscow perspective becomes Western perspective
Another example
1. Moscow cultural elites know Navalny is "not bad" (= not bad *for them*) 2. They select facts and construct arguments to support Not Bad Navalny theory 3. Through their Western connections, their POV becomes Western POV
They fully shape the Western opinion
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
And that’s why you shouldn’t trust the reputable sources blindly. Many of them tend to distort facts when it suits their political agenda. The very systematic whitewashing of @Navalny by the media establishment is a good example
Consider a “good and balanced” account of @navalny politics quoted by Grozev. This is Masha Gessen’s article in the New Yorker. Notice how this reputable journalist is describing one of Navalny’s debut video clips:
“One was a forty second argument about gun rights”
Seriously?
Watch it yourself and make your own judgment on whether the “forty seconds argument on gin rights” description fits well to this video. You can make your own conclusions on the impartiality and trustworthiness of the quoted article
Writing boringly is a powerful skill that moves you up many, many professional hierarchies. Life is unfair though. Some were blessed with a natural gift for writing unreadably, others should learn it
The first concept we need is the level of abstraction🧵
Three principles of boring writing:
1. Stay on the same level of abstraction 2. Stay on the same level of abstraction 3. Do not give reader any explicit or implicit hints he could use to get to another level of abstraction on his own. Lock him on his level and throw away the key
Imagine you are describing empirical evidence. Give one example, two examples, three examples, give as many as you can. But never include any hint or clue on how these examples may reflect more general and (God forbid!) nontrivial patterns. Lock the reader and throw away the key
Every theory has its limits of applicability. "Kremlin guys are crooks" theory, too. This narrative is so successful, because it appeals to the meanest humans instincts, in particular - to the envy. Envious people tend to overuse this idea far, far beyond any reasonable limits
Like, ok, I understand that you're poor, constantly stressed about money and necessity to pay the bills. I also understand that you're envious about yachts and villas. That doesn't mean that "they're crooks" theory is all explaining. If they were, this war just wouldn't start
"They're just crooks" narrative is not successful, because it is so true. It is so successful, because people are obsessed with their unreflected envy and cannot distance from it. If this war is going on, it means they're not *just* crooks. They're something else, too
It is also convenient to talk about personal guilt, it just won’t get you anywhere. I know many Ukrainians will hate to hear this, but I don’t think this war will end with any sort of moral catharsis at all. Meanwhile much of Ukrainian discourse seems to be catharsis-oriented
Consider the “reparations”. This idea is not completely unrealistic. Ukraine may have a chance to use some of the Russian gov/oligarch assets abroad for post-war reconstruction. Should Russia collapse, Ukrainians may also have a chance to enter Russia and take what they want
But that’s not what is being proposed (for the most part). For the most part ppl seem to imagine reparations as Russia paying trillions bazillions dollars *over a long period* to pay for the harm it inflicted. I think this plan is madness and potentially suicidal madness
I very much liked your question because it shows a very widespread fallacy. Take “commonsensical” assumptions and deduce conclusions out of them. Meanwhile, much better of commonsensical wisdom is just propaganda that doesn’t stand the test of reality
Assume that much of what you consider to be “facts” is false, and often completely false
@elonmusk, as a Twitter user I see this as a highly arbitrary decision. You may say: you don't care how I see it. Fair enough. Unfortunately, arbitrary rule affects everyone's personal strategies. If you are subject to it, you can't realistically plan anything long-term
From a user's perspective, planning anything in the long term requires predictable rules. If the rules are unpredictable, long term thinking is just stupid. You either:
- Reduce your planning horizon here
or
- Transfer to more predictable jurisdictions
Some may combine both
I was always sceptical about the prospect of you "destroying Twitter", assuming that you won't destroy it in a technical sense -> most of the community will stay. But now I see a very real possibility of people living *preventively* because of the atmosphere of unpredictability