This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is not secretive to openly process someone through the justice system, sentence them to death in a fair trial, house them in a a valid (for US standards) prison facility on death row, and then unceremoniously kill them. You provide no argument, you've just asserted that this is secretive somehow again and again. If you believe these institutions are working in secret, make that case. If you don't believe that, give a justification for why institutions that are not working in secret would start if the method of execution was changed from being a publicly broadcasted event to a private one. Why would that elevate the risk of torture?
But that is exactly my experience both here and elsewhere when talking about Us foreign policy. And is in part what you are doing in this very conversation.
This is the perspective of another person. I'm sure he would articulate it differently, but this is what I presume motivates many middle Eastern terrorists.
But you don't engage with it. Instead you assert the American perspective. Despite all the innocents killed by the US. How are you not seeing this? It reminds me of this exchange between Michael Scheuer and the House Homeland Security Committee.
From his perspective he was. He sees no reason to dignify the sanctity you or others reserve for the US and its actions on the world stage. And as he demonstrated, and like America has demonstrated against many a innocent victim across the globe, those rules and laws are just a piece of paper. Those US soldiers are dead just like those civilians are. If you want to pretend that the motives of the shooter don't matter, go ahead. But I think they do. And I think that a military like the American one, that has done some many horrible things in the service of a demented foreign policy can't play victim or hide being international law, sitting on a throne of dead women and children. That were to the US at the time 'convenient targets' they later choose to call 'Collateral Damage' after the women and children dead are counted.
Can you acknowledge how absurd it would sound to a person who identifies with the victims of those attacks that people representing the organization that committed those atrocities are complaining that they themselves were attacked in a 'place of trust' that's actually a military base?
Here you are asserting your American frame. There's no argument. Just an assertion that, to you, Nidal did wrong based on specific premises. I don't think oathbreaking is the main problem when people commit a mass shooting. I think you're just being obtuse to rhetorically distance yourself from the moral arguments made by the victims of Americas zionist foreign policy. Trying to qualify the event through ways that can't be equated with the actions of US armed forces. But when we do look at the actual issue at hand, which is the killing, there are plenty of equivocal examples to be drawn on.
Did any of the civilians bombed by the US?
I'm familiar with the death toll and the number I mentioned is generally accurate, depending on how much faith you put in US universities doing research into the topic. I already said, however, that the total number would not matter to the point of contention, given that it's very high in any case. High enough to make a mockery of any US serviceman who pretends to be a victim when killed. Especially so in Yemen.
What do you think this chain of replies is about? You said Americans were generally well versed in the moral cost of the actions they support. Noting several popular authors who you allege are read in America. I maintained that many Americans generally were not, given the repeat support they show for bombing innocent civilians.
So to incorporate your example, yes. If someone murdered an innocent person on command of someone hoping to benefit some twisted foreign policy, then wrote a book about how haunting the face of their victim is as it twists in pain in their dreams. And then someone else reads this, says it affected them dearly, and then goes out and supports killing innocents in search of the same gain the murderer sought, I would call that perverted, yes. The emotions felt by the reader were purely self gratifying and perverse. The emotional turmoil just another experience to be had.
No, I don't understand this. I'm saying that when you don a military uniform, you represent that force.
For the most part, yes. And this is demonstrated by the plurality of blacks living in America today. And the history of the native Americans, who never in their thousands of years of history on the continent did anything to make it into America as it is generally known to be. That was all 'Europeans'.
It's by definition more secretive the less transparent it is.
What do you mean, I don't engage with it. I have at least some understanding of it (despite what you might think) but I don't agree with it. Do you?
This might be true. I don't agree with his perspective. Do you?
I don't think I've been pretending they don't matter.
Well, do you agree with collective guilt, or not?
If it is wrong to kill people who are not directly guilty of a crime, then what Nidal did was wrong. If it's not, why are you complaining that the U.S. did it?
I sense, generally, that you disagree with actions taken by the United States government and therefore sympathize with Nidal. But I'm not getting a clear ethical framework for why you think what Nidal did was right and what the U.S. did was wrong.
Well...usually if there's premises there's an argument.
What's your argument that what Nidal did was good?
I think there's actually a huge moral valiance to oathbreaking. A single person killing his wife is much more evil than a single person who uses a nuclear weapon to destroy an entire carrier battle group, killing thousands of people including any civilians who happen to be onboard. Do you disagree?
See my question above.
The link that you provided does not substantiate your suggestion that the US military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Middle East throughout the Global War on Terror. It substantiates that hundreds of thousands of people were killed, which I did not dispute.
You, of course, will not be able to find any actual polling or research suggesting that a plurality of Americans support bombing innocent civilians.
You will argue that they support it from a consequentialist framework because they agree with actions that lead to the bombing of innocent civilians.
Very well: are you opposed to any action that might lead to the deaths of innocent civilians? Do you condemn all acts that lead to the deaths of innocent civilians?
And Nidal Hasan chose to don that uniform. He should have represented that force, instead of some other force (be that the Taliban, Palestine, the mob, whoever.)
Kind of a weird thing to say, given that nobody can think of American without thinking of cowboys, and nobody can think of cowboys without thinking of Indians.
So is every process that is not publicly broadcasted 24/7. That doesn't mean that if not broadcast, they necessitate legitimate and reasonable concerns for malfeasance. Especially to the level of torture that goes beyond general operations of US prisons.
I gave an example in my post, I'll give one again for clarity to better express what I mean: Here I asked a question you did not engage with that we are now engaging with.
From my perspective we are now finally getting to the point, posts later, where you engage with the moral point that's been leveraged. This is what I meant when I said you were not engaging with the point.
Factually the US has committed atrocities against civilians in the middle East. Their military has been pivotal in carrying these atrocities out. To that extent, yes I agree that US servicemen are legitimate targets for reprisal attacks. I wish those attacks did not take place just as much as I wish the US stopped murdering the innocent when chasing after a demented zionist policy. But morally there is no question. Just like, morally, one could say that the US had a legitimate interest after 9/11 to go after Osama bin Laden and drop a few bombs. But they far overstepped what was morally permissible.
So to further clarify the point of contention that relates to the viewpoint I expressed and you replied to: Do you agree that when deciding to start a war against Iran on the basis that it's ruled by an an evil regime that hates America, as is so often alleged, that Iranian soldiers and their bases are legitimate targets, yes or no? Or do you only believe that US servicefolk are exempt from being valid targets when others take issue with how America has been governed? I'm not asking for what formal rules about declarations and acts of war say. I'm asking you, morally, what is permissible. Or do you, like many Americans I converse with, instinctively believe that Americans are of greater moral value to others? Where if they commit atrocities or represent the regime other allege are evil, that they can not be held accountable or be 'legitimately' targeted in the same way the US does to others?
No. But I also think there's a difference between a soldier and a civilian. And the rules of engagement that are set by both parties. But I already specifically asked you a question about this here:
And here:
You replied that the distinction to this obviously moral contention being presented was that Nidal was American, and not capable of carrying out a legitimate act of war. To which I asserted that you were not engaging with the point:
The way I experience this, the American frame here is simple. The only legitimate ways to wage war are conveniently conventional and appeal to the perceived strengths of the US military. Dropping bombs on targets of convenience via air is legitimate, strapping a bomb to your chest and walking it towards your target of convenience is not. The CIA doing espionage operations that lead to a military target getting bombed or otherwise assassinated is legitimate. A lone Palestinian pretending to be American and then shooting a bunch of military targets is not.
If the US had legitimate interest in the region but killed a bunch of civilians in the process, I'd still understand Nidal's viewpoint. I'd just admonish those who want to pretend that you can import the people you just bombed and not face the consequences. And I'd likewise want to diminish those voices that wanted to pretend that there are no morally grey areas in war and that it doesn't carry a cost.
I think that killing good people is bad. And that when good people start killing one another, some want to say that there can only be good people on their side, not the other. I think those people are not just wrong but acting in a way that is morally blind and moving towards evil.
That still would be completely immaterial to the point being discussed, which I accused you of trying to distance yourself from. Not that I even believe you to actually hold this position. Unless I'm gravely misunderstanding you and you take issue with the CIA and any espionage operations the US engages in or benefits from that rely on spies or similar 'oathbreakers'.
Outside of that I don't manage to relate to your hypothetical. Feel free to clarify. For instance, oathbreaking in a marriage can mean murder, sure, but also infidelity. My point would be that murder is worse and the oathbreaking largely irrelevant when the stakes have been raised that much. And I feel more emotional relation to the weight of betrayal from someone you lived with and trusted, rather than someone who made a vow. I'd argue the vow itself is functionally ceremonial and irrelevant in the modern world. As it does not represent anything real or serious to many people. Regardless of whether we think it should or not. Whilst feeling of betrayal or the knowledge that someone wants or wanted to murder you carries more of the emotional weight.
You're going to have to clarify. From the article:
We can cut the number in half if you want, or more. The moral valance of the argument still stands. But I don't understand where you are coming from when you say that the link does not substantiate what I said.
The majority of Trump supporters are in favor of bombing targets even with a great risk of civilian casualties. That's a valid plurality, I'd say. It's an interesting article in any case, that validates my overarching point as well:
Beyond that, if you're willing to risk your own civilians as victims then you can do that. I won't listen to anyone try to play victim about that after the fact though. Which is, similarly what irked me about the Fox News interview. So long as the response is proportional, I'd say it's valid. But that both parties should start recognizing the cost and the evil they are engaging in and stop.
Now you're just playing wordgames. The original point was about the validity of military targets. Nidal chose to wear that uniform and then used that uniform to advantage himself on the battlefield against his enemy. You can execute people for that, which America and others have done. But that's, again irrelevant to the point.
European peoples would have recorded their own culture and history just the same. And we would be none the poorer for it to not have stories of cowboys and Indians. As we would not know of that history existing. Just like we now, today, do not know what history or modern life could have been had the Indians not been there. And even if we did, I would likely celebrate it, as that would very likely have meant less human suffering. But that's purely hypothetical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link