Something that's been bothering me a great deal about the past few years is that increasingly, there seem to be only two sides to an argument, namely the right and the obviously wrong. Throughout the pandemic, this idea was strengthened through the media as well as through government address. It was always us versus them. The science crowd versus the non-believers. The people who refused to vaccinate against Covid-19 were lumped together with other tinfoil hats and varied assortment of perceived extremists.

## Generalization kills.

It's darn useful, though. It makes it easier on the common man who's not overly interested in checking facts, and thinking for himself. Just tell him who these people with a different point of view are. Tell him what they believe, and more importantly, tell him how he should feel about it. 

And he does.


![image.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmPpDYNEDLp6SZ97v4euFXyiuLjodiQAJ5cAiK7gW1yCRi/image.png)


A famous saying goes "if you don't make a choice, someone else will choose for you". Or something. Maybe it was about becoming part of someone else's story. Whatever it is, it's very true. Not only are other people willing to choose for you, they're actually quite eager to do it. Which means you need to protect your right of choice fearlessly. 
Alas, not many people do.

An overbearing theme in my thoughts over the past few days has been returning, over and again, to this precise problem - people trying to tell you what to think.

## Protesting against what, exactly?

For starters, I began thinking about civil groups here, in my country, who over the weekend protested against war, and for peace (and neutrality). It was supposed to catch the eye of Kamala Harris, who visited Friday, though I don't know if she was much impressed either way. 

And for a moment, I thought about attending. Either that or a subsequent more generalized protest on Sunday. But then I thought a bit about these ringleaders of the protests. Same people who've been leading us through two years of pandemic. Many protests that I indeed attended.

![image.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmeKxSHVQcmqsDV7FXptjs1w7HSc1TVVMHa8RRHKz7DNXG/image.png)

Well, this goes for these people, also, in a way. Protesting against the current thing is as much a lifestyle marker as supporting the current thing, unfortunately, and it can be very tempting to use social activism as a way to fill your own lacks and soothe your own insecurities. *Not to say you should be indifferent. Just, as ever, that you should seek balance.*

And these so-called ringleaders are public figures, too. They're marketing themselves as symbols...of something. And maybe it's in their interest for me to be angry about something, because if I'm not, then they become irrelevant.

## Better to live in neutrality, or die in someone else's war?

I'm a big Roger Waters fan, and he recently shared on [his Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/rogerwaters) his correspondence, allegedly, with a Ukrainian young woman. Correspondence that takes on a very agitated, and riling up tone, trying to stir Waters to action, and some sort of political response. Now, people who follows Mr. Waters will know that he is one of the most active social and political protesters on the music scene today. With one small issue, he's not taking sides.

Now, Mr. Waters pointed that out, in his reply to the girl, asking if maybe someone was standing over her shoulder in composing her message. He also makes a great comment on the girl's insistence that they will fight to the death for their country - 

> When you say “We will resist until the very end” It sounds like a surrender to the gods of war, it sounds like an abrogation of your right to resist the warmongers in the west, who “with the bravery of being out of range” encourage you to fight to the last Ukrainian life. It sounds like an abandonment of your right to reach out through the smoke and rubble to the thousands of your brothers and sisters in the anti-war movement all over the world, including in Russia, where they are risking their liberty in the cause of peace. [..] What about a neutral Ukraine? Is being a dead young woman with a dead cat and dead friends after a fight to the death really preferable to being a live young woman in a stable peaceful neutral country like, for instance, Austria or Finland or Switzerland? Imagine living in a neutral Ukraine? Free from the avaricious corporate advances of foreign empires? What if you could have that tomorrow? 

He also penned [a very interesting article](https://braveneweurope.com/roger-waters-the-war-profiteering-gangsters-will-kill-us-all-unless-we-unite-against-them?fbclid=IwAR3woJzJqpbt_Av7JyQg057ChmvwZemBk8VtZM6fEcCA9nLiZbwgFoGG-ls) along these lines last week, reaching the conclusion that all these "gangsters" (aka politicians) are of the same creed and stripe, and believing in one will end up costing you. This goes for Vladimir Putin, certainly. But it also goes for Zelensky, the "hero" encouraging his people to die. And while he may be willing to put on a combat jacket for your entertainment, I don't know if he's willing to actually die for the Ukrainian people. I sincerely doubt it, though. I wouldn't be surprised, at the end of the day, if Zelensky just got going, when the going got tough, you know? So then, why should you?

*PS - I'm not trying to "attack" Zelensky with this, and if you find yourself with the urge to viciously criticize me for attacking this "hero" and the MSM's darling, then you should think again. It means their plan of controlling you is working.*

## The ever-popular Zuck.

Last but not least, we've got Mark Zuckerberg. As ever. Because how could he keep his nose out of a piece on control and social division? I read today how Facebook has started adding "warnings" on certain posts, saying that you shouldn't believe what so-and-so post says, because Zucky thinks the poster might be "under the editorial control of the Russian government".

... since when is that a crime? Have I missed something? And sure, it's just a warning today, but tomorrow, those pages will be banned, just like Russian media was banned and deleted across social media platforms en masse. And you will have no way of checking whether or not those pages or politicians or public figures were really part of the Russian propaganda machine, or no.

This brings me back to my starting point - you've got three options here. You can choose to believe the page in question was propagandistic and say "good riddance", or you can choose to think they were a great beacon of truth, and deplore the situation, but not the censorship per se. Or you can choose to question both, and take everything you read with a grain of salt. 

## Believe the Russian propaganda. Believe the Western propaganda. Or think for yourself. The last is always the hardest. 


![image.png](https://images.hive.blog/DQmPaEZeLGSg6Spv5BtdPRTngjmNCkfGnddpMkavxZjtkmo/image.png)

## Why did you let them convince you people are assholes?

I mean, we are. But not in the way they want you to think. A lot of this current social division seems to be based on the basic assumption that other people are trying to either actively harm you, or destroy the Universe. They're not. Right now, there seems to be a lot of self-righteousness over the war in Ukraine. Anyone who doesn't say anything fitting the norm is now a "Putinist".

Why? Whence this readiness to believe that your fellow men and women are eager to defend a tyrant willing to invade and slaughter so many people (including his own)? Really, it's the same "logic" they peddled during the pandemic - your neighbor, whom you've known and been friends with for 10 years, is now an irresponsible fuckwit trying to kill you. So's your nephew, and also, your wife. Really? Is it that easy to make us turn against one another? Because if it is, then I don't know what we're trying to avoid here.