Before weighing in on Ukraine, make sure your comments are well-informed.

Take a pause before deciding to engage in online debates, and know that you don't always have to provide your own two cents.

As of right now social media has been inundated with posts about the conflicts happening in Ukraine. It’s almost as if COVID does not exist anymore in the online discourse, or at least to the extent that it originally was. But like with everything that has been infected by the bug of social media, the information surrounding the Ukranian conflict has now been tainted. It’s become so difficult to find actual well-sourced information (although I will admit I haven’t been enthusiastically searching). Instead, the discourse essentially boils down to shouting matches, name calling, and accusations of white supremacy for some weird reason, rather than an open, good-faith discussion.

I will admit that I am absolutely ignorant to the conflict and really any sort of geopolitical conflict that tends to happen in the world, and would rather focus on scientific discourse.

But even with my ignorance so vast it can fill an ocean, I’ve been dragged into the discourse in some sense by friends who ask me about what I think about what’s going on and to add my two cents. I had absolutely nothing to offer. I mean, what would I comment with?

I told my friends as much, but then was asked to weigh in on comments such as “well, I think we could all agree that Biden is …”

Now, make no mistake my disdain for this administration is pretty high, even as someone who considers myself for all intents and purposes a classical liberal. But even still I was asked to give my ideas on a topic I knew absolutely nothing about.

Even more frustrating is that phrase “I think we could all agree”, because it presupposes that we would agree in the first place. Even if we do agree, why make such an assumption in the first place instead of asking me what I thought of Biden instead?

Maybe this seems like such a small thing to be concerned about, but from my perspective a lot of the discourse surrounding the Ukrainian conflict matches what I outlined above. People who are not well-informed or versed asking other uninformed people to weigh in. Essentially, the discussions have just devolved into inflating each other’s egos and making comments for the sake of “clapbacks” than to provide any substantive argument.

It may sound weird for me to get wrapped up in such a topic, but what’s concerning here is how much the discourse over Ukraine has mimicked that of COVID.

People who have otherwise no knowledge on the science have touted themselves as the sole arbiters of scientific truth, as if shouting “trust the science” is indicative of actually knowing the science. We all know full well how many shouting matches and misinformation we have seen over the internet, with people even still claiming that these vaccines stop transmission, or for even demonizing repurposed drugs.

The whole idea that “horse dewormer” has taken on a life of its own, and especially by people who couldn’t even be bothered to look up information on Ivermectin outside of what is spouted my mainstream news outlets indicates a fundamentally wrong way of how the internet has shaped the way we engage with information. It provides for nothing more than a group of uninformed people wanting praise and affirmation from other uninformed people.

---

Social media has changed the way we perceive and review information. In some aspects it’s great because it allows for a direct feed of information before it can be formally covered by the press.

But, as the saying goes, a lie will make its way around the world before the truth gets out of bed.

At the same time we can find a vast number of information out there, we also have no way of making sense of it or even knowing if the information being presented is actually true. Do we trust the random video footage posted online with a small caption, or do we provide a bit of hesitation before rushing to judgements and possibly risk being piled on by fervent supporters of the narrative portrayed online?

Take for example all of the information coming out about the “Ghost of Kyiv”, a supposed Ukranian fighter who took down several Russian jets and has become an immediate modern day folklore hero. Well, it turns out that the video being spread online may have come from a simulation. It doesn’t mean such a person does not exist, but it throws doubt into the validity of said claims, and it teaches how dangerous it may be to jump to immediate conclusions without any verifiable proof. And this is not the only time that this has happened. In such a short time frame many stories have come out about the goings on in Ukraine that or either false or cannot be substantiated.

For more on such topics, Robert Gouveia covered a bit of this on his YouTube channel last night. But of course, like with all things, don’t take his words or interpretations as fact, but see it as a glimpse into how a lot of misinformation is being disseminated in regards to the current conflicts.

So my concerns over Ukraine are not necessarily tied to Ukraine specifically. I really have no knowledge on the matter to allow for me to engage in a robust discussion. But what I find concerning is the amount of parallels we can draw between Ukraine and COVID. What’s concerning is the way that the information is being presented to us, and how it filters through the media to portray a parochial narrative rather than factual information and truth. The end result is only that people who should know better than to rush to immediate judgements will now instead grasp onto a topic provide their two cents if it at least gains some traction or acknowledgement.

And just as quickly as many of the information surrounding Ukraine have turned out to be possibly be false or unsubstantiated, remember that so much of the initial response to COVID was eventually found out to be false as well. The initial reports of inundated New York hospitals actually used images from Italy. More important would be the images of China and people falling over unconscious, stoking fear across the world that eventually would lead many countries to adopt lockdown measures that they previously criticized when implemented in China.

A more recent example of disseminated false information were the reports from a supposed doctor that one Oklahoma hospital did not have any room for gunshot victims because it was filled with Ivermectin overdoses. Not only was that statement false, but apparently the idea of Ivermectin overdoses inundating the hospital cannot be attributed to the so-called whistleblower. But again, the misinformation spread quicker than the correction, and of course social medial blew up with reports on this immediately debunked bit of misinformation.

Those of us who have become skeptical of the media’s ability to report on anything should know full well not to jump to conclusions. Even more important, we should know better than to engage in whatever we see online without hesitation on whether the information is true or not. Instead of engaging in a “listen and believe” model, we should just do our best to “trust but verify”.

But more importantly, we should make sure that we know the scope of our understanding and knowledge of a topic before we decide to engage in the discourse. Not everything needs to be engaged in, especially on socially media were approval from peers beckons you to respond to every comment that you see, even if you have no idea of the factual basis of the thread. Sometimes it’s more important to know what you don’t know, and that little bit of introspecting is important when trying to engage in online discourse.

Of all the things COVID has taught us, it has taught us that we should encourage more skepticism and encourage more learning and sourcing of information. If we feel the need to respond, we should do so after we believe we have garnered enough information to engage in a fruitful discussion.

As of now I have decided to abstain from any talks on Ukraine because I do not feel it is my place to provide my perspective on something I know so little about, and those who feel the same would do well do take this precautionary approach. And in no ways can my silence on the matter been seen as some of complicity as well. I may be concerned about the victims, but I won’t let that be used against me to be beaten by ideologues who may consider my silence to be some form of violence.

Also know that I’ve taken the same approach to COVID. There’s so many things that I’m learning as a I wade through tons of COVID papers, and yet there’s so many things I still do not know. Because of this, I will either choose to abstain from discussions or at least speak with some hesitancy and lack of absolutist language. So even in manners that we know lots about, it may be a good idea to show some restraint or reservations.

But if you continue to struggle with the idea of engaging online, even if you feel you do not have the means to do so, then it may be time to consider avoiding social media as a whole. There’s really no downside to realizing there’s more to the world that what we see on our screens, and sometimes that removal from media is all you need to gain some much needed introspection.

But even if you still want to engage in a topic, make sure it doesn’t stray too far off topic or else you may be caught off guard. Know your limits, and know when to engage. Sometimes it’s perfectly acceptable to not say anything at all.

---

Note: I am copying and pasting my Anthology Series posts onto the Archive section. I thought this would mean that those posts would reside specifically within that section, but that appears not to be the case. I’m assuming because “Modern Discontent” is the main page and so everything ends up under there regardless. I apologize if it takes up space, but also use this time to possibly read up on those topics. I would consider most of the information within those posts to not be outdated, and so it may be fruitful to look into them and learn a bit about those topics!