On Warsplaining, or: How prevailing political assumptions have encouraged a bizarre discourse on human conflict that often studiously ignores what these conflicts are actually about
On Warsplaining, or: How prevailing political assumptions have encouraged a bizarre discourse on human conflict that often studiously ignores what these conflicts are actually about
You know them, the warsplainers. Should you discuss a war anywhere in the world while failing to demonstrate the right allegiances, the warsplainers will come for you. The problem, they’ll explain, is that you just don’t understand. You’re woefully misinformed, perhaps through no fault of your own. Most likely, you’re a victim of Western, or German, or Russian, or Ukrainian, or NATO, or Martian propaganda. If only you read the following books and internalise these carefully curated facts, you’ll come around to appreciating the justice of the cause with which you have failed to ally yourself.
> I do, however, admit to dreaming of a universe wherein it is possible to discuss the German role in World War II without receiving a deluge of links to highly predictable Bitchute documentaries from grumpy internet people
This is one of the funniest things I've ever encountered and I want to share it.
If you ever find yourself in a discussion with a Wehraboo (you know, one of those "maybe Germany was actually the good guys" guys), you can shut them down with this one simple comment (and a simple follow-up if needed). It goes like this:
"Hitler was a shit leader. He couldn't even win the war he started"
The smarter (relatively) ones will say something like "well, you try winning a war with the whole world against you", at which point you say
"Part of being a good leader is not taking risky gambles with the lives of millions of people. He should have had a plan to stop that from happening before he started the war, and he should not have started the war if he wasn't confident in that plan"
It absolutely drives them insane. Because they're so used to the extremely hyperbolized, moralistic anti-fascist rhetoric about how Hitler was a bad leader because he was _evil_, they don't know how to respond to you when you evaluate Hitler like he was just a regular leader, and highlight his very real failings. It's just hilarious. Fucks with their brains every time
I was a missionary for the Mormon church for a year and a half starting in Munich, 1982. During that period I rang somewhere between 60-85,000 doorbells, mostly in Bavaria, and experienced a warsplaining continuum. Being a student of history but young and seeking converts, I only asked questions and refrained from voicing or even fully forming my opinions. How I wish it had been my job to chronicle stories and perspectives. It was flat-out fascinating.
I met survivors of Stalingrad, the wounded, widows of those who didn't and never re-married, the atheist Archbishop in Bamberg, US Army officers, parents who didn't want Reagan's rockets in their country, former and regretful Nazis, avowed and proud Nazis, resisters, a few closet communists, refugees from the East, and one actual war criminal without a country. He was a Ukrainian volunteer for the GrossDeutshland, who had to go fight with the French Foreign Legion in Burma for ten years to get a new identity. He chose the name Ivan Snova and settled in Freiburg to sell used books with very mixed feelings. Over many objections, I baptized him into my church.
The difference was, an overwhelming cataclysm was still first-hand and fresh for the majority of people. There was gratitude for having fresh bread and good butter and a general consensus that it was a damned stupid thing to have gone through.
I think one of the greatest downsides to the mass media age (Yes of course there are also upsides) is the emergence of what I call War as Entertainment. The best thing that people who are not directly fighting (or suffering the consequences of) a war somewhere in the world can do is to refrain from opinionising about it on the basis of ad hoc media-driven click-bait stories about the conflict. War is and has always been ugly and messy - rogue atrocities, mishaps etc. That they just didn't used to be televised is the big difference. [So as to head off the possibility of being misunderstood (wilfully or otherwise) the horrific October 7 massacre is NOT what I mean by a media-driven, click-bait story.]
Commenting while reading, idk if you address this immediately following
> Should you discuss a war anywhere in the world while failing to demonstrate the right allegiances, the warsplainers will come for you.
IDK which _specific_ warsplainers you're talking about, but if you mean eg people on social media, I am utterly convinced that _every single one of those_ is either a glowwie, or a bot run by glowwies. They're not real people
>Do not pick a side when looking at a war. Look instead for reasons why a state of war exists, all reasons within reason. Looking for causal processes leading to war is not picking a side, nor does it excuse or rationalise anything - unless you the student is the one doing it. Facts on their own do nothing, they just are.
The below may be in conflict with the above, but an intelligent person can consciously hold paradoxical or conflicting ideas in his mind at the same time, and can also switch positions when analysing in order to see how switching affects the conclusions drawn:
>How does the conflict affect you personally? Which side do you prefer? Which side is a threat to you? Why? Performing this mental exercise helps you stay honest vis a vis your own bias and tendency for picking sides. Remember also to try to understand any side in a conflict the way that side understands itself; doesn't mean you share their beliefs or opinions or anything, it just means you are honestly endeavouring to actually understand.
The two principles outlined above, if I may use such a lofty term as principles, combined is in my experience - professional as personal - pretty much the only way to avoid devolving into mindless "warsplaining" as you call it.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't or don't pick a side in a conflict, of course. What it does mean is, that if I am to pick a side, first thing is to determine if the conflict is of such a nature that my picking a side is even relevant in the first place. Take the eternal war between arabs and jews - I care not who is in wrong or right more than the other. I care about three things:
Which group constitutes the greater threat to me and my people?
How do the respective parties behave and what socio-cultural values are evidenced through their chosen actions?
Does the conflict actually involve me, or threaten to involve me and my people?
To a modern human it may seem calluous, but only an islander safe behind his mental and physical moat of oceans can afford himself the delusion of thinking himself above conflict.
Contradictory? Welcome to the world of studying conflicts.
"Surely nothing could be more ridiculous than imagining ancient warsplainers distributing leaflets on the justice of the Roman cause in the Gothic wars."
Cato the Elder enters the chat: "Carthago delenda est."
“On the other hand, I will admit that it is often a great pleasure to read warsplainers whose opinions I agree with. I come away from their elegant arguments confirmed in all of my prior beliefs, and so I begin to suspect that herein lies the real purpose of warsplaining. (Of course, if we are honest with ourselves, this is the case with almost all political commentary, and that is not even a bad thing.)”
---------------------
There is truly nothing more lovely in all the world of words than an elegant explainer who confirms one’s own opinions.
I enjoy the experience tremendous; so much so that I have parted with my tiny moiety of filthy lucre on occasion to ensure I get full access to those lovely confirmations.
> I’m merely noticing that there appears to be a great disconnect, between the urgency most warsplainers attach to your beliefs, and the actual significance of these beliefs for the political consequences of past wars or the prospects of present-day belligerents
This makes me think about an one of Moldbug's ideas, one that I think bears a lot of explanatory power: America's culture is a pathological mutation of Christianity that removed Jesus but kept most of the other parts.
In particular, the emphasis on your internal state is a pretty particularly Protestant Christian thing. For almost every other religion that has ever existed, they don't actually care what you think, they only care what you do. You talk to a buddhist (a _real_ one, in Asia) and ask them about their _beliefs_ and they'll just look at you confused. What do you mean _beliefs_? These are traditions and habits. _Behaviours_."
But Protestant Christianity, for whatever reason, cares a great deal about your _secret private internal beliefs_ in a way that most other structures of power never have.
Incidentally, the only other structure of power I can think of that ever cared about this was Communism, and isn't that interesting.
Surely, I can trust the Martians to be more transparent! Your use of “terra incognito” made me smile. Thank you for using English with a cogency that native speaking intellectuals (pseudo and otherwise) uniformly lack. I now find myself guilty of “warsplaining”, but have yet to decide if it’s a vice.
Excellent piece, well done. I would add 3 comments: 1. Often the warsplainer thinks his values, his ethical paradigm is superior to everything else and needs to be applied. So for example, democracy is good by definition and idealistically needs to be applied everywhere immediately, even in tribal societies. Africa and the Middle East are there to prove the fallacy of this approach. 2. They assume that taking down a bad guy means automatically getting a good guy. Exactly the contrary of a realistic approach…better a devil you know…3. They are scared of wars because wars often reset the right priorities in life. Of course we all want to live in peace but a long peaceful period is at odds with the human brain that normally focuses on relative value (today many people spend time in feeding stray cats, good, but during WWII there were apparently no cats in the Rome Colosseo).
With that settled, now let's tackle Islam.
> I do, however, admit to dreaming of a universe wherein it is possible to discuss the German role in World War II without receiving a deluge of links to highly predictable Bitchute documentaries from grumpy internet people
This is one of the funniest things I've ever encountered and I want to share it.
If you ever find yourself in a discussion with a Wehraboo (you know, one of those "maybe Germany was actually the good guys" guys), you can shut them down with this one simple comment (and a simple follow-up if needed). It goes like this:
"Hitler was a shit leader. He couldn't even win the war he started"
The smarter (relatively) ones will say something like "well, you try winning a war with the whole world against you", at which point you say
"Part of being a good leader is not taking risky gambles with the lives of millions of people. He should have had a plan to stop that from happening before he started the war, and he should not have started the war if he wasn't confident in that plan"
It absolutely drives them insane. Because they're so used to the extremely hyperbolized, moralistic anti-fascist rhetoric about how Hitler was a bad leader because he was _evil_, they don't know how to respond to you when you evaluate Hitler like he was just a regular leader, and highlight his very real failings. It's just hilarious. Fucks with their brains every time
So true.
I was a missionary for the Mormon church for a year and a half starting in Munich, 1982. During that period I rang somewhere between 60-85,000 doorbells, mostly in Bavaria, and experienced a warsplaining continuum. Being a student of history but young and seeking converts, I only asked questions and refrained from voicing or even fully forming my opinions. How I wish it had been my job to chronicle stories and perspectives. It was flat-out fascinating.
I met survivors of Stalingrad, the wounded, widows of those who didn't and never re-married, the atheist Archbishop in Bamberg, US Army officers, parents who didn't want Reagan's rockets in their country, former and regretful Nazis, avowed and proud Nazis, resisters, a few closet communists, refugees from the East, and one actual war criminal without a country. He was a Ukrainian volunteer for the GrossDeutshland, who had to go fight with the French Foreign Legion in Burma for ten years to get a new identity. He chose the name Ivan Snova and settled in Freiburg to sell used books with very mixed feelings. Over many objections, I baptized him into my church.
The difference was, an overwhelming cataclysm was still first-hand and fresh for the majority of people. There was gratitude for having fresh bread and good butter and a general consensus that it was a damned stupid thing to have gone through.
I think one of the greatest downsides to the mass media age (Yes of course there are also upsides) is the emergence of what I call War as Entertainment. The best thing that people who are not directly fighting (or suffering the consequences of) a war somewhere in the world can do is to refrain from opinionising about it on the basis of ad hoc media-driven click-bait stories about the conflict. War is and has always been ugly and messy - rogue atrocities, mishaps etc. That they just didn't used to be televised is the big difference. [So as to head off the possibility of being misunderstood (wilfully or otherwise) the horrific October 7 massacre is NOT what I mean by a media-driven, click-bait story.]
Great analysis. Would that the whole concept of "war guilt" would be thrown to the scrap heap of history. War, is not good. It's not bad. It just IS.
“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?”
-Norm MacDonald
Commenting while reading, idk if you address this immediately following
> Should you discuss a war anywhere in the world while failing to demonstrate the right allegiances, the warsplainers will come for you.
IDK which _specific_ warsplainers you're talking about, but if you mean eg people on social media, I am utterly convinced that _every single one of those_ is either a glowwie, or a bot run by glowwies. They're not real people
I recommend the following two "mental tools":
>Do not pick a side when looking at a war. Look instead for reasons why a state of war exists, all reasons within reason. Looking for causal processes leading to war is not picking a side, nor does it excuse or rationalise anything - unless you the student is the one doing it. Facts on their own do nothing, they just are.
The below may be in conflict with the above, but an intelligent person can consciously hold paradoxical or conflicting ideas in his mind at the same time, and can also switch positions when analysing in order to see how switching affects the conclusions drawn:
>How does the conflict affect you personally? Which side do you prefer? Which side is a threat to you? Why? Performing this mental exercise helps you stay honest vis a vis your own bias and tendency for picking sides. Remember also to try to understand any side in a conflict the way that side understands itself; doesn't mean you share their beliefs or opinions or anything, it just means you are honestly endeavouring to actually understand.
The two principles outlined above, if I may use such a lofty term as principles, combined is in my experience - professional as personal - pretty much the only way to avoid devolving into mindless "warsplaining" as you call it.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't or don't pick a side in a conflict, of course. What it does mean is, that if I am to pick a side, first thing is to determine if the conflict is of such a nature that my picking a side is even relevant in the first place. Take the eternal war between arabs and jews - I care not who is in wrong or right more than the other. I care about three things:
Which group constitutes the greater threat to me and my people?
How do the respective parties behave and what socio-cultural values are evidenced through their chosen actions?
Does the conflict actually involve me, or threaten to involve me and my people?
To a modern human it may seem calluous, but only an islander safe behind his mental and physical moat of oceans can afford himself the delusion of thinking himself above conflict.
Contradictory? Welcome to the world of studying conflicts.
>>>> Warsplaining, like all discourse, is subject to vast gradations in quality and professionalism.
Yes, back in the day, warsplainers were *real* warsplainers. 😎
'grumpy internet people'
😂
The only just war was Cyrus's, and I'm only 90% sure on that.
"Surely nothing could be more ridiculous than imagining ancient warsplainers distributing leaflets on the justice of the Roman cause in the Gothic wars."
Cato the Elder enters the chat: "Carthago delenda est."
“On the other hand, I will admit that it is often a great pleasure to read warsplainers whose opinions I agree with. I come away from their elegant arguments confirmed in all of my prior beliefs, and so I begin to suspect that herein lies the real purpose of warsplaining. (Of course, if we are honest with ourselves, this is the case with almost all political commentary, and that is not even a bad thing.)”
---------------------
There is truly nothing more lovely in all the world of words than an elegant explainer who confirms one’s own opinions.
I enjoy the experience tremendous; so much so that I have parted with my tiny moiety of filthy lucre on occasion to ensure I get full access to those lovely confirmations.
[deleted duplicate comment]
> I’m merely noticing that there appears to be a great disconnect, between the urgency most warsplainers attach to your beliefs, and the actual significance of these beliefs for the political consequences of past wars or the prospects of present-day belligerents
This makes me think about an one of Moldbug's ideas, one that I think bears a lot of explanatory power: America's culture is a pathological mutation of Christianity that removed Jesus but kept most of the other parts.
In particular, the emphasis on your internal state is a pretty particularly Protestant Christian thing. For almost every other religion that has ever existed, they don't actually care what you think, they only care what you do. You talk to a buddhist (a _real_ one, in Asia) and ask them about their _beliefs_ and they'll just look at you confused. What do you mean _beliefs_? These are traditions and habits. _Behaviours_."
But Protestant Christianity, for whatever reason, cares a great deal about your _secret private internal beliefs_ in a way that most other structures of power never have.
Incidentally, the only other structure of power I can think of that ever cared about this was Communism, and isn't that interesting.
Surely, I can trust the Martians to be more transparent! Your use of “terra incognito” made me smile. Thank you for using English with a cogency that native speaking intellectuals (pseudo and otherwise) uniformly lack. I now find myself guilty of “warsplaining”, but have yet to decide if it’s a vice.
Excellent piece, well done. I would add 3 comments: 1. Often the warsplainer thinks his values, his ethical paradigm is superior to everything else and needs to be applied. So for example, democracy is good by definition and idealistically needs to be applied everywhere immediately, even in tribal societies. Africa and the Middle East are there to prove the fallacy of this approach. 2. They assume that taking down a bad guy means automatically getting a good guy. Exactly the contrary of a realistic approach…better a devil you know…3. They are scared of wars because wars often reset the right priorities in life. Of course we all want to live in peace but a long peaceful period is at odds with the human brain that normally focuses on relative value (today many people spend time in feeding stray cats, good, but during WWII there were apparently no cats in the Rome Colosseo).