Why honour matters

March 1, 2022 thread

In such a polarised country as the U.S., Russian invasion of Ukraine was immediately weaponised by the opposing political forces and became a basis for mutual accusations. Some of these accusations sound very reasonable 🧵

Critics of current administration often accuse it of naïveté. Which might be true. Consider this NYT article. If true, it's horrifying. That would mean they view China as a constructive partner rather than as a malevolent adversary who would do *anything* to topple the U.S. down

And yet, position of this critics, all around the Anglosphere, is way crazier. They admit there are powerful, violent and malevolent forces who pose risks to their countries. And what do they suggest? They suggest pandering them. Because if you don't pander, you might get hurt

That's the single most suicidal logic in the world. It may be unclear on the international level, but it's obvious on individual one. Let me tell you about social structure and dynamics of Russian prison. The lowest position in the hierarchy is reserved for pariahs, the "cocks"

What defines a cock? First, he must sleep by the toilet, parasha. Hence a punchline "I hear a voice from parasha" you use to destroy your opponent's argument, by suggesting he's a cock. Ofc, a cock will be raped by anyone. There's other stuff Twitter might block me for describing

Now, how do you become a cock? Largely by consenting to it. Ofc nobody would ask you directly "wanna be a cock?" and nobody would ever agree. Agreement is given implicitly, step by step, by acting nicely, reasonably and avoiding confrontation. Which "moves you down" in hierarchy

Formally, the process is very legalistic. The Law of Thieves, gives a looooong list of taboos (sexual, etc) and if you ever broke them, that's a reason to be moved down. But - there are two problems. First, *everyone* in prison broke them systematically. And everyones know that

Second, how can they know what you did before jail? They can't. Unless you tell them yourself, admit it. Then you're done. So they'll use schemes, threats, pressure to get you confession and move you done. Hence nice friendly talks in prison are not friendly, they're malevolent

So, if your cellmate asks you about your life, great answer is:

- With which purpose are you asking? С какой целью интересуешься?

That's great cuz:

1. You show you're aware of his malevolent intentions
2. You refuse to cooperate or to show your cards
3. You counterattack

You're not only refusing to explain yourself, but demanding HIM to explain himself. If you explain yourself at his demand, you accept that he has right to question you. You made a concession. And he'll demand new one, by asking additional questions. Then others join

Every concession you made, every question you responded to, marks the new boundary you *yourself* recognised. You make a retreat. And why would you retreat, if you were not stupid, craven and absolutely guilty? A 100% cock

There are two valid theoretical frameworks for the cock problem: idealism, and realpolitik. In idealistic paradigm, the more you explain yourself, the stronger evidence they collect to move you down. Realpolitik-wise however, concessions = sign of weakness and thus the way down

If you just made a counterattack: "With which purpose are you asking?", you would not only reject his right to question you, but assert *your* right to question him. He can back off. Your status up, his down. Or if he's dumb, he'll start explaining himself. A certain way down

Then why don't people make this strong, obvious counterattack? Well, exactly because it is a counterattack. It *is* escalation and they don't want an escalation. Are they insane to quarrel with this violent, unpredictable guy? It's a prison after all, he can hurt them

The way done is usually consensual. You act nicely, reasonably as a responsible stakeholder in the prison community. And this is exactly how you end up a cock. Meanwhile, the guy who toppled you, doesn't want to look rational. He will project violent impulsive unpredictable image

Proponents of "reason" forget that every theory and every approach has its limits of applicability. The same with presumed "reason". It works only as long as your rivals want a constructive partnership. But if they're malevolent and strive to topple you down, that's suicidal

Do they want to work out a constructive partnership or to destroy you? Let's be honest, you know the answer. This guy didn't *really* believe his cellmates are his friends. He was scared and rationalised his fear through self-delusions. His niceness was another name for cowardice