11 ms·

I've seen people say with a straight face that when a white person is a victim of a black person's crime, the white person deserves it because SLAVERY! I've al

by Crake 14y ago

I've seen people say with a straight face that when a white person is a victim of a black person's crime, the white person deserves it because SLAVERY! I've also had people tell me that the civilians who died in the WTC attacks deserved it because America is evil and imperialistic in its dealing with other countries. This [HARD-MODE!!] metaphor has gone over great with this same crowd, not so much with me, who thinks the people who are dead got a game over and aren't really playing on any difficulty anymore.

ucee054 14y ago
I don't find these two examples comparable because I find it hard to believe that the American population is currently voting or acting to reinstate slavery. When you pay your taxes to the Pentagon and vote to reelect George W Bush, AlQaeda members see you about the same way that Allied pilots of World War 2 saw the innocent German civilians that they fried with strategic bombing. A friend of mine would have been killed in the 911 attack had my friend been on a different train, so I'm not pointing this out because I enjoy being attacked by AlQaeda. I'm saying this because I feel the responsibility issue is similar to that in last election in the UK, for the following reason: The election was a choice between Dumb and Dumber because of our electoral system. The system makes it infeasible for any party other than the big 2, so at best you get to vote for the second-worst policy or waste your vote. There was a referendum to move to preferential voting instead. The people voted for Dumber, and then voted against electoral reform. So the current bad policy continues by popular decision. If I'm not supposed to blame the British people for choosing this stupidity, who am I supposed to blame?
- Crake 14y ago
  Regardless of who you blame, you shouldn't be going around murdering them. Yes? Also, the person you may be killing might have voted -for- the reform. In which case, the blame was not even justified in the first place. And even if it was someone who voted a way that you don't like--it still doesn't give you license to go out and kill them without warning.
  - ucee054 14y ago
    No but look: The result of the 2 votes is that the British people are just fine and dandy with David Cameron and his policies. Said policies are to cut healthcare and education for the British people, while spending to send more helicopters to Afghanistan. Said helicopters kill people. Wartime kills include many innocents who get bombed, not "accidentally" but rather nonchalantly. Now put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan who is getting his relatives slaughtered by British helicopters. He has got a pretty strong motive for vengeance: "You Brits supported the bastards who killed my family!" If the Afghan decides to bomb London, he's going to bomb London. He's not going to canvas every Londoner, ask me personally how I voted, and wait for the day that I'm out of town before bombing the city. I don't really understand how I'm supposed to criticise him for it unless I think there's an alternate course of action were the roles reversed IE that a Londoner would have done in his shoes. And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation. So I find this sort of reasoning hypocritical and insufficient. The world just doesn't work this way. You can ask the citizens of Dresden about World War 2. I bet some of the victims voted against Hitler, or were even in the anti-Nazi resistance...
    - Crake 14y ago
      And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation. Wow, racist much? Cruelty isn't copyright caucasian. Plenty of shit has gone down that had nothing to do with europeans. I still don't condone terrorism and murder, since an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die. I'm not the biggest fan of my own country, but I can't say I've ever condoned wholesale slaughter of its citizens.
      - ucee054 14y ago
        >I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die It personally suits me fine if AlQaeda never existed. >Wow, racist much? Stop personalising it; it's not about me, it's about consistency. See, the Jihadi pulling the trigger doesn't see him self as a "terrorist" committing "murder", he sees himself as a "fighter for freedom" performing "service", much like the Marine on the other side does. That's why I'm trying to be cold-bloodedly objective, otherwise things become just a matter of opinion. So a question for you: If "wholesale slaughter" of innocent civilians is wrong, then will you condemn the strategic bombing of Germany in World War 2? If you condone the strategic bombing of Germany(, or drone strikes in Pakistan), then how can you condemn Jihadi bombings on the basis of "wholesale slaughter"?
arrrg 14y ago
And those people are wrong. Also: practically non-existant.
- Crake 14y ago
  I'm glad you agree that they're wrong, but they aren't practically non existent, at least in my social circles. I won't say they're a majority (they aren't) but they're definitely a presence.

by Crake 14y ago

ucee054 14y ago

I don't find these two examples comparable because I find it hard to believe that the American population is currently voting or acting to reinstate slavery. When you pay your taxes to the Pentagon and vote to reelect George W Bush, AlQaeda members see you about the same way that Allied pilots of World War 2 saw the innocent German civilians that they fried with strategic bombing. A friend of mine would have been killed in the 911 attack had my friend been on a different train, so I'm not pointing this out because I enjoy being attacked by AlQaeda. I'm saying this because I feel the responsibility issue is similar to that in last election in the UK, for the following reason: The election was a choice between Dumb and Dumber because of our electoral system. The system makes it infeasible for any party other than the big 2, so at best you get to vote for the second-worst policy or waste your vote. There was a referendum to move to preferential voting instead. The people voted for Dumber, and then voted against electoral reform. So the current bad policy continues by popular decision. If I'm not supposed to blame the British people for choosing this stupidity, who am I supposed to blame?

Crake 14y ago
Regardless of who you blame, you shouldn't be going around murdering them. Yes? Also, the person you may be killing might have voted -for- the reform. In which case, the blame was not even justified in the first place. And even if it was someone who voted a way that you don't like--it still doesn't give you license to go out and kill them without warning.
- ucee054 14y ago
  No but look: The result of the 2 votes is that the British people are just fine and dandy with David Cameron and his policies. Said policies are to cut healthcare and education for the British people, while spending to send more helicopters to Afghanistan. Said helicopters kill people. Wartime kills include many innocents who get bombed, not "accidentally" but rather nonchalantly. Now put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan who is getting his relatives slaughtered by British helicopters. He has got a pretty strong motive for vengeance: "You Brits supported the bastards who killed my family!" If the Afghan decides to bomb London, he's going to bomb London. He's not going to canvas every Londoner, ask me personally how I voted, and wait for the day that I'm out of town before bombing the city. I don't really understand how I'm supposed to criticise him for it unless I think there's an alternate course of action were the roles reversed IE that a Londoner would have done in his shoes. And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation. So I find this sort of reasoning hypocritical and insufficient. The world just doesn't work this way. You can ask the citizens of Dresden about World War 2. I bet some of the victims voted against Hitler, or were even in the anti-Nazi resistance...
  - Crake 14y ago
    And if you look at body counts over time, Anglo Saxon countries are pretty indiscriminately bloodthirsty, and usually kill with much less provocation. Wow, racist much? Cruelty isn't copyright caucasian. Plenty of shit has gone down that had nothing to do with europeans. I still don't condone terrorism and murder, since an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die. I'm not the biggest fan of my own country, but I can't say I've ever condoned wholesale slaughter of its citizens.
    - ucee054 14y ago
      >I'm sorry you feel that your countrymen are such terrible people that they deserve to die It personally suits me fine if AlQaeda never existed. >Wow, racist much? Stop personalising it; it's not about me, it's about consistency. See, the Jihadi pulling the trigger doesn't see him self as a "terrorist" committing "murder", he sees himself as a "fighter for freedom" performing "service", much like the Marine on the other side does. That's why I'm trying to be cold-bloodedly objective, otherwise things become just a matter of opinion. So a question for you: If "wholesale slaughter" of innocent civilians is wrong, then will you condemn the strategic bombing of Germany in World War 2? If you condone the strategic bombing of Germany(, or drone strikes in Pakistan), then how can you condemn Jihadi bombings on the basis of "wholesale slaughter"?

arrrg 14y ago

And those people are wrong. Also: practically non-existant.

Crake 14y ago
I'm glad you agree that they're wrong, but they aren't practically non existent, at least in my social circles. I won't say they're a majority (they aren't) but they're definitely a presence.