General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do political pundits who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU? [View all]Igel
(35,317 posts)Fear, because they feared making an accusation that might annoy or infuriate the "wrong" people. So the OSCE reports all kinds of unmarked uniforms and equipment in the eastern Donbas. At the same time, there are a lot of pictures of how the LNR and DNR proudly mark their equipment and issue various patches for their men.
Presumably we're expected to think that there's as likely a chance of Lutherans from Stockholm, Muslims from Indonesia, or white Zimbabweans mounting the incursion into the Donbas as Russians. We can't have "likely" or "almost certainly" when accusing allies. It has to be proof beyond not just a reasonable, but beyond any doubt. And if the proof proffered might be a bit tainted we go all ad-hominem and start looking for secret "dog whistle" meanings to words that might allow us to sleep off the hook.
Because ultimately the goal is to be counter what's local. Perhaps because what's local is hated, perhaps there's bitterness at one's truly glory and rightness not being properly appreciated, perhaps because there's an echo chamber set up between the priest and the acolytes whose tithes support the priest, perhaps because if one's wrong about this it's possible they were wrong about something in the past. At some point being contrary becomes a mental tic, a bad reflex, a pernicious habit, one that is as addictive as nicotine and toxic as meth. And the conversation becomes Monty Python's "Argument clinic" on steroids. There's no thinking there. Just a search for self-justification and self-importance.