Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Mar 2, 2022 13 tweets 3 min read Read on X
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
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
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

Mar 1
Three years of the war have passed

So, let’s recall what has happened so far

The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today Image
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.

Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia

(Operation Danube style) Image
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable Image
Read 32 tweets
Feb 8
Why does Russia attack?

In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them. Image
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.

The question is - why. Image
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.

Let's see why Image
Read 24 tweets
Feb 2
On the origins of Napoleon

The single most important thing to understand regarding the background of Napoleon Bonaparte, is that he was born in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean, in the words of Braudel, is a sea ringed round by mountains Image
We like to slice the space horizontally, in our imagination. But what we also need to do is to slice it vertically. Until very recently, projection of power (of culture, of institutions) up had been incomparably more difficult than in literally any horizontal direction. Image
Mountains were harsh, impenetrable. They formed a sort of “internal Siberia” in this mild region. Just a few miles away, in the coastal lowland, you had olives and vineyards. Up in the highland, you could have blizzards, and many feet of snow blocking connections with the world. Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 4
Slavonic = "Russian" religious space used to be really weird until the 16-17th cc. I mean, weird from the Western, Latin standpoint. It was not until second half of the 16th c., when the Jesuit-educated Orthodox monks from Poland-Lithuania started to rationalise & systematise it based on the Latin (Jesuit, mostly) model
One could frame the modern, rationalised Orthodoxy as a response to the Counterreformation. Because it was. The Latin world advanced, Slavonic world retreated. So, in a fuzzy borderland zone roughly encompassing what is now Ukraine-Belarus-Lithuania, the Catholic-educated Orthodox monks re-worked Orthodox institutions modeling them after the Catholic ones
By the mid-17th c. this new, Latin modeled Orthodox culture had already trickled to Muscovy. And, after the annexation of the Left Bank Ukraine in 1654, it all turned into a flood. Eventually, the Muscovite state accepted the new, Latinised Orthodoxy as the established creed, and extirpated the previous faith & the previous culture
Read 4 tweets
Dec 16, 2024
1. This book (“What is to be done?”) has been wildly, influential in late 19-20th century Russia. It was a Gospel of the Russian revolutionary left.
2. Chinese Communists succeeded the tradition of the Russian revolutionary left, or at the very least were strongly affected by it. Image
3. As a red prince, Xi Jinping has apparently been well instructed in the underlying tradition of the revolutionary left and, very plausibly, studied its seminal works.
4. In this context, him having read and studied the revolutionary left gospel makes perfect sense
5. Now the thing is. The central, seminal work of the Russian revolutionary left, the book highly valued by Chairman Xi *does* count as unreadable in modern Russia, having lost its appeal and popularity long, long, long ago.
6. In modern Russia, it is seen as old fashioned and irrelevant. Something out of museum
Read 10 tweets
Nov 30, 2024
In his “Clash of Civilizations” Samuel Huntington identified eight civilisations on this planet:

Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Western, Orthodox, Latin American, and, possibly, African

I have always found this list a bit dubious, not to say self-contradictory:Image
You know what does this Huntingtonian classification remind to me? A fictional “Chinese Encyclopaedia” by an Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges: Image
Classification above sounds comical. Now why would that be? That it because it lacks a consistent classification basis. The rules of formal logic prescribe us to choose a principle (e.g. size) and hold to it.

If Jorge Borges breaks this principle, so does Samuel P. Huntington.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(