View Single Post
Old 06-02-2019, 11:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,296
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You implied that they were the same, just cogs in the machine. I am pointing out that they are not the same, and that there is a spectrum.

Gallagher may be the worst (that we know about), but that doesn't mean that he's that much of an outlier.

Having iiandyiiii's in the system helps to balance things towards restraint against unnecessary violence.

If the only people that joined the military were people who were pro-war, what balance would there be?

The first part was his opinion. One that I do share. That advocating for a war of choice that you could fight in, but don't, means that you are asking others to risk them and theirs so that you and yours don't have to, gutless coward is a kinder label than I would use. This is his personal opinion, and why he is making this proposal. This is not the proposal itself.

The second part is the proposed policy, that people should be shamed and humiliated for this. As far as public figures go, I have no problem with this. Trump is a gutless coward (though saying that is an insult to gutless cowards), Bolton too. Any of the elected representatives or political appointees that beat the drum for war who have never seen, nor have any desire to see, the horrors that a war truly is are gutless cowards, and IMHO, can and should be called out for being so.

As far as private individuals, I don't see that he is calling for them being walked down the streets naked while chanting "shame" and throwing rotten fruit at them. But if we change the mindset so that calling for others to risk themselves while you hold down the couch leads your friends and family to think poorly of you, then this would be effective.

My goal, and I think iiandyiiii's as well, is not to shame or humiliation people, but to get people to think twice about their support for unnecessary wars. I think that that is what some of you have been reading into this, as many have made statements to the effect that it is looking for an excuse to get to shame and humiliate people that we don't like, and that is not the case. The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars of choice, and the proposal was a consideration as a tool in that kit to help towards that goal.

Whether that is an effective tool or not is up for debate, (I, for example, am not entirely convinced), but all the projection of motivations as to the purpose of the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.
Thanks, this is a generally accurate representation of my position. "Shame and humiliation" is meant to be a tool that might be effective in some instances in order to help make our culture and society less tolerant and accepting of dumb wars. It certainly wouldn't be the only tactic, and it would probably be most effective against public figures -- it's just another tool in the tool belt, rhetorically speaking.