Vaenyr posted this:
"Also, another reason why "everything is so serious these days" is the global rise of fascism we are experiencing right now. There's a massive difference between "we should or shouldn't use tax money to improve roads and pay for school lunches" and "deny people life-saving healthcare, deny crises like climate change or pandemics, blaming things on Jewish space lasers" and so on. The former isn't seen as much anymore nowadays, it's mostly the latter. And that directly impacts the lives of millions of people. It's easier to ignore politics when you aren't affected by the direct actions of your fellow men."
*
I'm not going to argue with that. I just want to add that those of us who regained our freedom only a few decades ago tend to see these issues in a somewhat broader historical context. That's certainly true of many Eastern Europeans, and I dare say it's not just my opinion.
Fascism may indeed be on the rise, but these things do not happen in a vacuum. Fascism gains ground when the good guys become weak, complacent, and dormant. When they get too comfortable and forget how the real world operates. When they spend years turning a blind eye to bad actors around the world. When they continue buying resources from them while ignoring their rhetoric, ambitions, and long-term goals.
It's true that nobody wants to go to war or die for another country. But if a nation constantly preaches ideals while doing little to defend and preserve them, sooner or later it may find itself directly threatened by an enemy it failed to confront when the danger was still manageable.
The enemy never sleeps. In the age of global media, hostile powers can amplify toxic propaganda, deepen divisions, and help elevate corrupt or sympathetic politicians in other countries. The question is: did the good guys understand what was happening? Did they effectively counter that propaganda? Did they explain to ordinary people, through television and other media, what those hostile actors were trying to achieve?
Take immigration, for example. An enemy may exploit fears about mass immigration, but do the good guys understand that some concerns genuinely exist? Do they not realize that citizens want to see that borders are being managed and that immigration is taking place within a clear legal framework? Even from a public-relations perspective, a responsible country should demonstrate that it takes such concerns seriously. Uncomfortable issues should not be swept under the rug. They should be addressed openly, honestly, and lawfully, while preventing excesses from either side.
I have a perception that there is a certain degree of infantilization in parts of the West. You can crucify me for saying this, but one example is the phenomenon of "Queers for Palestine." To me, it's such an obvious contradiction that it's hard to comprehend. Wanting peace is admirable. But when people ignore the methods and ideology of groups such as hamas while supporting the broader cause, it becomes difficult to understand the logic.
And in saying this, I'm not trying to whitewash Israel. I'm simply pointing to what I see as a contradiction in the worldview of some activists.
It's also worth noting that many people seem willing to ignore what some protesters openly chant in the streets. There are individuals who openly support hamas and its methods. I find that deeply disturbing. If society is willing to oppose and suppress the far right, then it should be equally willing to oppose and suppress the far left when it embraces extremism.
One can also observe that some forms of far-left activism seem highly selective. Where are the mass protests against radical Islamism? Where is the same level of outrage over the treatment of women in Afghanistan, the persecution of women in Iran, public executions, or the killings of Christians in parts of Africa? Were these movements equally vocal in support of Ukraine?
To me, it often seems that activism becomes most intense in areas that, intentionally or not, happen to benefit some of the world's authoritarian regimes and hostile actors. People should think critically about that possibility.
We generally know who the bad guys are. What often seems missing is the willingness of the good guys to stand firmly against them. Too often, all we hear are carefully worded condemnations delivered from comfortable positions of safety.
Take Barack Obama as an example.
By all accounts, he was a decent man - not a narcissist like Trump. He may even have been a very good president for American citizens. But as a global statesman, he represented a version of America that was restrained, cautious, and well-intentioned - yet ultimately too weak when confronted with aggressive adversaries.
To me, Crimea is a prime example. putin annexed it, and the response from the West was limited. Obama looked putin in the eye and did not look away - but in international politics, that alone is not enough. Determination without meaningful action carries little weight in the eyes of those who respect only power. And once putin saw that he could get away with Crimea, he decided to go all in.
That is one of the lessons many people in Eastern Europe took from that period. Good intentions are important, but they must be backed by credibility, resolve, and the willingness to act when fundamental principles are challenged.
And when all the good guys do is talk, people get hurt. People die.
There is little point in trying to reason with a wolf that intends to eat you. If someone is determined to harm you, you must possess both the will and the means to defend yourself and those around you.
Otherwise, your ideals and moral principles risk becoming nothing more than fairy tales used to impress the local peasants.
