6 ms·

> There is a great danger with convincing Americans that “they are bad and we are good” is justification enough to invade, kill, or otherwise bring destruction

> There is a great danger with convincing Americans that “they are bad and we are good” is justification enough to invade, kill, or otherwise bring destruction on another nation. You're right, if the jews start getting gassed again we should attempt to understand Hitler's point of view so that we can claim that we're not falling into the trap of "they are bad and we are good". --- I'm just going to say it now, you are a morally corrupt individual who is putting their own "intellectualism" in front of millions of lives. This is the political version of nihilism. That there is no act so atrocious that you shouldn't stop and try and consider the nuance in the moment. You're the person that will sit down and try and consider the nuance while your neighbors children are being raped in the background by some perpetrator. The idea of stop the violence, worry about the nuance later flies over your intellectual head.

sykick 7y ago
That's a pretty damning conclusion given the paucity of evidence to support it. Are you so sure you have enough facts to determine that I'm morally corrupt? What evidence do you have that I think there is no act so atrocious that I wouldn't act without considering the nuance? All you know about me is that in the case of Syria I think it's nuanced. I haven't made any statements about other situations so how can such a conclusion be made? Are you sure you understand my position? But let's look at the historical example you brought up. Did the United States really care about the plight of Jews in Europe? Didn't we famously prevent a ship full of Jewish refugees from landing in the United States? We didn't enter the war to help Jews. My dad fought in World War II. In modern times we'd have diagnosed him with PTSD. The war left him a drunk and he had issues his whole life as a result of it. Should we have fought the war? Of course. Were there costs to it that never showed up in the statistics. Of course and we shouldn't forget or ignore these types of costs when we advocate military action. Did we invade China to prevent the mass killings that occurred under Mao? Did we invade Cambodia to prevent the Khmer Rouge? Did we really care when Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds? Why did we support Saddam invading Iran but not Kuwait? Where was our moral outrage at the former? Where was our moral outrage when Latin American dictators brutalized peasants whilst we supported them militarily? Given our history of exploitation, support of brutal dictators, and active engagement in mass killings are you so sure our leaders' intentions in Syria will be altruistic? You are so sure of the necessity for intervention why don't you go there and fight it yourself? Why are you so quick to send others in your place if you aren't willing to go yourself? What doesn't fly over my intellectual head is that there is a propensity for those in power to rally the populace with pithy slogans and calls for patriotic action in order to mask malevolent intention. To send our armed forces to go kill others without any thought is a truly dangerous idea. We don't give carte blanche to our leadership to engage in killing simply because we've been convinced the other person is bad. It should be more.....nuanced than that. Addendum: In 2005 I was on a light rail late at night on a Friday night. There was a drunk guy on the train and he was pretty annoying. Sort of harassing women on the train. I decided to engage him in conversation. Found out he was a Marine. We talked a bit and then he turned me and said, "I killed kids in Iraq. That's fucked up. I'm too young to kill kids." He repeated it over and over. I didn't know what to say to him. It was very sad. Fuck war and fuck the people who so easily advocate for it.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  The problem with "intellectuals" is that they believe so strongly in themselves they think if they can connect the dots in their head, then it must be. The jews going to the gas chambers didn't give a fuck that someone might have to make a sacrifice and kill other human beings to free them from their suffering. You are a worthless immoral coward who is only allowed to think like that because you live in a society that protects you like babe in swaddling. These people are 'other' to you. You're the piece of shit who argues we shouldn't have joined the allies because maybe there's some nuance to Hitler's stance, as if that fucking nuance should be factored in over human atrocities. "lolr, we didn't go into Rwanda, therefore we should never enter another conflict so as to remain consistent, because intellectualism and our fucking pride of consistency is of more import than other human beings dying". Or the other one "everyone just wants to go to war maaaaan, therefore I know better than they do, let the Syrians die". People like you are HOW Hitler was able to do what he did.
  - sykick 7y ago
    You appear to be upset. I'm sorry that what I wrote made you think that I'm immoral and that I'm a piece of shit. This exchange exemplifies what started all these threads. That is, that it's better off for people to quit social media. Had we discussed this in person I'm certain you'd not think I'm a piece of shit. What's missing in internet discussions like this is the assumption we make about people when we first meet them in person. Namely, that the other person isn't bad even if they have a different opinion. It's too easy in faceless discussions like this to paint an incorrect picture about the other person. I wish you well.
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      more pretense. I'm condemning you and your stance in no uncertain terms, the way I would a man who stood by and allowed the rape of children while they considered the act from the perspective of the perpretrator. People like you actively make this world worse through your rationalized inaction.

sykick 7y ago

That's a pretty damning conclusion given the paucity of evidence to support it. Are you so sure you have enough facts to determine that I'm morally corrupt? What evidence do you have that I think there is no act so atrocious that I wouldn't act without considering the nuance? All you know about me is that in the case of Syria I think it's nuanced. I haven't made any statements about other situations so how can such a conclusion be made? Are you sure you understand my position? But let's look at the historical example you brought up. Did the United States really care about the plight of Jews in Europe? Didn't we famously prevent a ship full of Jewish refugees from landing in the United States? We didn't enter the war to help Jews. My dad fought in World War II. In modern times we'd have diagnosed him with PTSD. The war left him a drunk and he had issues his whole life as a result of it. Should we have fought the war? Of course. Were there costs to it that never showed up in the statistics. Of course and we shouldn't forget or ignore these types of costs when we advocate military action. Did we invade China to prevent the mass killings that occurred under Mao? Did we invade Cambodia to prevent the Khmer Rouge? Did we really care when Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds? Why did we support Saddam invading Iran but not Kuwait? Where was our moral outrage at the former? Where was our moral outrage when Latin American dictators brutalized peasants whilst we supported them militarily? Given our history of exploitation, support of brutal dictators, and active engagement in mass killings are you so sure our leaders' intentions in Syria will be altruistic? You are so sure of the necessity for intervention why don't you go there and fight it yourself? Why are you so quick to send others in your place if you aren't willing to go yourself? What doesn't fly over my intellectual head is that there is a propensity for those in power to rally the populace with pithy slogans and calls for patriotic action in order to mask malevolent intention. To send our armed forces to go kill others without any thought is a truly dangerous idea. We don't give carte blanche to our leadership to engage in killing simply because we've been convinced the other person is bad. It should be more.....nuanced than that. Addendum: In 2005 I was on a light rail late at night on a Friday night. There was a drunk guy on the train and he was pretty annoying. Sort of harassing women on the train. I decided to engage him in conversation. Found out he was a Marine. We talked a bit and then he turned me and said, "I killed kids in Iraq. That's fucked up. I'm too young to kill kids." He repeated it over and over. I didn't know what to say to him. It was very sad. Fuck war and fuck the people who so easily advocate for it.

celticmusic 7y ago
The problem with "intellectuals" is that they believe so strongly in themselves they think if they can connect the dots in their head, then it must be. The jews going to the gas chambers didn't give a fuck that someone might have to make a sacrifice and kill other human beings to free them from their suffering. You are a worthless immoral coward who is only allowed to think like that because you live in a society that protects you like babe in swaddling. These people are 'other' to you. You're the piece of shit who argues we shouldn't have joined the allies because maybe there's some nuance to Hitler's stance, as if that fucking nuance should be factored in over human atrocities. "lolr, we didn't go into Rwanda, therefore we should never enter another conflict so as to remain consistent, because intellectualism and our fucking pride of consistency is of more import than other human beings dying". Or the other one "everyone just wants to go to war maaaaan, therefore I know better than they do, let the Syrians die". People like you are HOW Hitler was able to do what he did.
- sykick 7y ago
  You appear to be upset. I'm sorry that what I wrote made you think that I'm immoral and that I'm a piece of shit. This exchange exemplifies what started all these threads. That is, that it's better off for people to quit social media. Had we discussed this in person I'm certain you'd not think I'm a piece of shit. What's missing in internet discussions like this is the assumption we make about people when we first meet them in person. Namely, that the other person isn't bad even if they have a different opinion. It's too easy in faceless discussions like this to paint an incorrect picture about the other person. I wish you well.
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    more pretense. I'm condemning you and your stance in no uncertain terms, the way I would a man who stood by and allowed the rape of children while they considered the act from the perspective of the perpretrator. People like you actively make this world worse through your rationalized inaction.