3 ms·

It’s a little rich to expect any serious conversation when our society generally holds genocidal war criminals like Kissinger and Stacey Abrams in high esteem.

It’s a little rich to expect any serious conversation when our society generally holds genocidal war criminals like Kissinger and Stacey Abrams in high esteem. And really, I could write pages more of American crimes that are generally seen as the cost of running an empire by mainstream media and politicians, and so could you. That doesn’t mean you need to agree with it.

esailija 7y ago
> I could write pages more of American crimes t https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...
mercutio2 7y ago
Stacey Abrams? The politician?
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Ack, I meant Elliot Abrams.
jmull 7y ago
Do you really think it makes sense to end serious conversations of the ramifications and consequences of political allegiance to questionable political leaders because Kissinger and Abrams? It seems like basic logic would suggest the opposite, right? Why shouldn't we dismiss your comment as some weak Wuddaboutism?
- esailija 7y ago
  > Why shouldn't we dismiss your comment as some weak Wuddaboutism? Because that implies they are equally bad when that's very unlikely. It is giving undue weight to the less bad which makes the more bad side look better than it is.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  Trying to identify themes absent from media is a powerful tool. There’s certainly conversation to be had here—I’m no Stalin apologist, and the USSR is endlessly fascinating to compare to the US. American war crimes do not cancel out the crimes of the USSR. The article doesn’t advance substantive values to take fault with. It doesn’t levy much criticism against Stalin, allowing existing American culture to do the heavy lifting. The climax of the article is the man confiding to his son that he believes Stalin’s deeds are justified. Robeson is dead and not quite the “towering social figure” the author says he was; at least not anymore, and likely not to most people reading the article. The intended communication must be the paradox of a man committed to social justice who supported a mass-killing cult figure. This is a claim of hypocrisy very comparable to claims that people levy against the US daily. However, in attempting to critique Kissinger or Abrams, I hope to critique the imperialist nature of American culture and particularly our sense of nation that is blindingly obvious since the wall fell, my entire life. Meanwhile the USSR is long gone; what is the end the authors hope for? If we applied the same standard to the kinds of people American politicians openly associate with at public social functions, half of congress would be “canceled” for idly chatting over champagne with war criminals, let alone confiding their support in private to a child. Hell, most Americans are complicit in American crimes by the logic illustrated in the article. I’m fine with a high standard, but that’s not what they were trying to imply. This is an attempt to frame contemporary political movements on the left that are ostensibly domestic and material as national security concerns, even if only in the back of your head. I’m open to other interpretations.

esailija 7y ago

> I could write pages more of American crimes t https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti...

mercutio2 7y ago

Stacey Abrams? The politician?

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Ack, I meant Elliot Abrams.

jmull 7y ago

Do you really think it makes sense to end serious conversations of the ramifications and consequences of political allegiance to questionable political leaders because Kissinger and Abrams? It seems like basic logic would suggest the opposite, right? Why shouldn't we dismiss your comment as some weak Wuddaboutism?

esailija 7y ago
> Why shouldn't we dismiss your comment as some weak Wuddaboutism? Because that implies they are equally bad when that's very unlikely. It is giving undue weight to the less bad which makes the more bad side look better than it is.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Trying to identify themes absent from media is a powerful tool. There’s certainly conversation to be had here—I’m no Stalin apologist, and the USSR is endlessly fascinating to compare to the US. American war crimes do not cancel out the crimes of the USSR. The article doesn’t advance substantive values to take fault with. It doesn’t levy much criticism against Stalin, allowing existing American culture to do the heavy lifting. The climax of the article is the man confiding to his son that he believes Stalin’s deeds are justified. Robeson is dead and not quite the “towering social figure” the author says he was; at least not anymore, and likely not to most people reading the article. The intended communication must be the paradox of a man committed to social justice who supported a mass-killing cult figure. This is a claim of hypocrisy very comparable to claims that people levy against the US daily. However, in attempting to critique Kissinger or Abrams, I hope to critique the imperialist nature of American culture and particularly our sense of nation that is blindingly obvious since the wall fell, my entire life. Meanwhile the USSR is long gone; what is the end the authors hope for? If we applied the same standard to the kinds of people American politicians openly associate with at public social functions, half of congress would be “canceled” for idly chatting over champagne with war criminals, let alone confiding their support in private to a child. Hell, most Americans are complicit in American crimes by the logic illustrated in the article. I’m fine with a high standard, but that’s not what they were trying to imply. This is an attempt to frame contemporary political movements on the left that are ostensibly domestic and material as national security concerns, even if only in the back of your head. I’m open to other interpretations.