3 ms·

I would invite you to read a list of notable quotes by Gen. LeMay [0]. The man had a specific interest, sustained over decades, in promoting and normalizing the

I would invite you to read a list of notable quotes by Gen. LeMay [0]. The man had a specific interest, sustained over decades, in promoting and normalizing the idea that the US should kill civilians to make wars easier. Meanwhile, most estimates put North Korea's total deaths at between 400 and 700 thousand. I'm sure you'll find many war crimes on both sides. The crimes of North Korea do not justify those of the US, and those of the US do not justify those of North Korea. If you insist on comparing them, again, I'll take that comparison any day. To put this another way, the fact that the US has done X, does not excuse 1000X done by repressive regimes around the world. Trying to cast the US as the world's "bad guy" isn't brave or controversial, it just gives cover to the truly evil nations committing ongoing genocide. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

travmatt 9y ago
I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad. Funnily enough, the EU is the chief purveyor of this equivocation, regularly chiding the US for it’s privacy laws while hypocritically issuing exemptions to China for its repression of political dissidents and keeping conspicuously quiet regarding its censorship.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad. Translation: "USA, USA, USA, USA". If you think about it not as a citizen or partisan but in terms of systems of human organization, the question to ask is: "Why is it that different nations with different cultures still manage to have some of the same moral blind spots?" In this view, Hitler's concentration camps, Gitmo, and the Russian Gulag are all serving the same function. The difference is in magnitude. The idea that citing equivalence is dishonest rests on the idea that magnitude is all that matters in moral issues. If Jerry Sandusky had only molested one child would he be a significantly better person than he is after molesting dozens? Sorry I don't really feel the need to canonize someone who unlike Sandusky only managed to victimize one person, nor would I feel the need to give Sandusky any credit if a person were discovered who had victimized thousands. My point is that ugly things happen for a variety of reasons. All regimes (the US, NK, Russia, China, etc.) benefit in some way from identifying a class of people to imprison as political prisoners. The US is generally able to keep the number imprisoned fairly small and keep them overseas where they are out of sight and out of mind. Other nations are not able to manage this and must imprison more people. Similarly, any spouse may benefit from intimidating the other spouse in some way. Some do it verbally, while others do it physically. Sure you can get on a moral high horse and say that only the physical form of intimidation is bad, that verbal threats are harmless. That's analogous to the idea that Gitmo is harmless but NK or Russia's treatment of political prisoners is deeply concerning. Note that my argument is not that both are equally bad. They are not. My argument is that they are both bad enough that we have s much stronger moral duty to fix the problems at home before we focus our energy on politicizing similar issues abroad.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

travmatt 9y ago

I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad. Funnily enough, the EU is the chief purveyor of this equivocation, regularly chiding the US for it’s privacy laws while hypocritically issuing exemptions to China for its repression of political dissidents and keeping conspicuously quiet regarding its censorship.

grandalf 9y ago
> I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad. Translation: "USA, USA, USA, USA". If you think about it not as a citizen or partisan but in terms of systems of human organization, the question to ask is: "Why is it that different nations with different cultures still manage to have some of the same moral blind spots?" In this view, Hitler's concentration camps, Gitmo, and the Russian Gulag are all serving the same function. The difference is in magnitude. The idea that citing equivalence is dishonest rests on the idea that magnitude is all that matters in moral issues. If Jerry Sandusky had only molested one child would he be a significantly better person than he is after molesting dozens? Sorry I don't really feel the need to canonize someone who unlike Sandusky only managed to victimize one person, nor would I feel the need to give Sandusky any credit if a person were discovered who had victimized thousands. My point is that ugly things happen for a variety of reasons. All regimes (the US, NK, Russia, China, etc.) benefit in some way from identifying a class of people to imprison as political prisoners. The US is generally able to keep the number imprisoned fairly small and keep them overseas where they are out of sight and out of mind. Other nations are not able to manage this and must imprison more people. Similarly, any spouse may benefit from intimidating the other spouse in some way. Some do it verbally, while others do it physically. Sure you can get on a moral high horse and say that only the physical form of intimidation is bad, that verbal threats are harmless. That's analogous to the idea that Gitmo is harmless but NK or Russia's treatment of political prisoners is deeply concerning. Note that my argument is not that both are equally bad. They are not. My argument is that they are both bad enough that we have s much stronger moral duty to fix the problems at home before we focus our energy on politicizing similar issues abroad.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]