I have learned the hard way not to respond to social media provocations. It never achieves anything. It never changes anyone’s mind. It always makes you feel worse. It commits one to open-ended argument, where responses may be hours, or even days in coming, indefinitely prolonging the grouchiness such arguments inspire.

So I most often bite my tongue and scroll on, but often itch, ITCH, to step in.

I find it particularly infuriating that so few people use their own words to express their own thoughts. Instead they’ll entrust their opinions to influencers, or memes, often with no more input than writing “This!” above it.  These posts are almost never as profound or powerful as the poster believes.  I am often tempted beyond endurance to either shoot it down completely, or at least ask: have you read this thing through? Have you thought this thing through? Are you aware of what this implies? And, because in social media, words are rarely more than slogans, and slogans rarely mean as much as one’s willingness to use them, are you thinking what I think you’re thinking?

I resisted this time, but all the same spent too much of my convalescence day brooding about it. So I’ll put my response here.

The repost in question was from some indie record label owner explaining why he continues to work with Russian bands. Apparently it’s because America’s bad. America has killed lots of people in the last few decades, and so therefore we should all have no problem with listening to Russian bands. I found the answer less than satisfying.

My imaginary response would go something like this: 

It strikes me as classic whataboutism. By listing this long litany of US crimes and atrocities, he’s not actually answered the question of why he’s comfortable working with Russian bands.

Presumably, he either:

a)       Doesn’t believe in cultural boycotts in general

or

b)      Doesn’t believe in cultural boycotts of Russia in particular.

Neither point is made.

In justifying their decision, it’s interesting that the writer has not gone for the “separate the government from the people” line, but rather chooses to rant about an entirely different government. The former would at least have implied a token condemnation of Russia’s actions, but there is none forthcoming here.

However he might feel about boycotts, it is difficult to imagine this person signing any bands with a blatantly Trumpist agenda. Can we assume there are similar prohibitions in place for bands with a blatantly Putinist agenda? It’s wise to assume nothing; from this post we can gather nothing.

There are plenty of US bands who quite openly oppose and condemn their government’s actions, with precious few Russian bands opposing and condemning theirs (unless they’re in exile). To be fair, most of them are probably in jail, or have learned to keep their mouth shut (and who can blame them?), but that’s all the more reason to be vigilant. In Russia, praising the government and pushing its goals is often the quickest way (sometimes the only way) to get things like airtime, publicity, and the privilege of playing live without a visit from the secret police.  So the pool of bands who are bravely anti-Putin, or at the very least safely apolitical is a small one, and the writer gives no indication he bothers to wade it.

There’s also a hint of disingenuousness about it: the writer must be aware that in many parts of the west (mind and yours especially), boycotting Russian cultural products is a relatively simple affair of not much more than switching vodka brands, while a corresponding American one would have to involve moving into the woods and living in cave.

The late foreign correspondent Robert Fisk once wrote that he didn’t believe in cultural boycotts and didn’t engage in them, but did respect others’ right to do so. Speaking for my own eternally-humble self, I do my best to ensure my hard-earned shekels don’t go to bands who blatantly go against my values.  Despite all the apparent indignation, it’s not clear from this tirade what values on are display. There may be principled objection to the atrocities listed or it may be a cynical way to justify atrocities elsewhere.