Well… let’s not pretend that a broad-based campaign of speech to denigrate one’s opponents isn’t a big issue. McCarthyist witch hunts amounted to primarily rabble-rousing speech (though surely not entirely so), and it hurt a hell of a lot of people.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
I almost thought I had confused myself with the double negatives. Societal shaming of child sex advocates does amount to a restraint on liberty, but there is consensus that the chilling effect is justified in all cases, thus the restraint on liberty is justified. Societal shaming of draft-eligible war hawks who intend to remain civilians is missing that consensus, and thus constitutes an unjustified restraint on liberty.
Indeed, it is the very debate over whether a particular military action is justified where you intend to place accusations of cowardice. You say this is for the express purpose of making people of certain personalities sensitive to such an accusation reconsider their position, that is, for them to be intimidated by the threat of societal derision and humiliation. To do this before or during the debate itself seems premature and counter to the principles of our country.
Speech alone does not restrict free speech. The effects of your speech restrict free speech. In fact, if your accusations of cowardice fail to intimidate other people, then there is no point at all.
I’m not telling other people to tell you how misguided you are. I am telling you directly that your intentions are well-meant, but the methods are misguided. I do so at your own request.
~Max
It can certainly be harmful. But not necessarily. Polite society looks askance at advocacy for segregation or slavery. I want them to look askance at warmongering as well.
I just don’t see freedom from social consequences for one’s speech as part of liberty. Such consequences can be unfair or unjust, though I don’t think they are in this instance.
The obvious issue being, it’s you who is defining what is (or presumably isn’t) ‘warmongering’. Essentially, you are attempting to shut down discussion for anyone who isn’t current or former military in cases YOU think are ‘warmongering’, as there isn’t any sort of universally accepted definition of that wrt US military policy. YOU don’t think that the US should be thinking (or debating I suppose) military action against Iran, and are offended that many people who advocate for it aren’t willing to join the military, or aren’t currently in the military…and, perhaps, that they are perhaps in the military but wouldn’t be at threat for being at the sharp end of the spear wrt any military action we might take in Iran. But it’s YOU defining what all this is, arbitrarily, and then using that arbitrary definition to then label some subset of people who you disagree with as ‘cowards’. This seemingly includes many politicians from both political parties, as you’ve indicated up thread, but it could encompass many more. I’m former military. Does this mean I get a pass for ‘warmongering’? I was in the Navy, and all my deployments were either in the US or in the Pacific, with the exception of some duties I did during the first Gulf War that were relatively close to the ME. I wasn’t, however, in any sort of real threat…I wasn’t a pilot flying combat strike missions or anything remotely like that. So, if I advocated for the US participation in the first Gulf War, does that mean I am or am not a ‘coward’? And how do you arrive at your conclusion? Based on historical hindsight? Based on your opinion on whether the first Gulf War was or wasn’t important? Based on the fact I was in the military, or based on the fact that I actually had almost no risk wrt combat in the first Gulf War? IMHO, it’s all a huge chain of unsupported and arbitrary definitions and positions YOU are coming up with, which has no actual validity outside of yourself. Hell, I’d guess that there might be disagreement between you and those in this thread who have seemingly supported you on which conflicts were or weren’t necessary or justified or whatever criteria you are using. There are some in this thread who might be thinking that the US should never have and never in the future use military action, and some that might think that specific instances are or were justified while others weren’t, and those lists might not align with your own. You SAY you don’t want to shut down all discussion by anyone who isn’t current or former military, but then it’s fairly arbitrary when someone who isn’t can or can’t discuss these things without you labeling them ‘coward’. To me, as I’ve already said, if you got your way and you could publicly shame anyone for advocating US military intervention who doesn’t meet whatever arbitrary criteria you are using, the result would be to shut down all discussion except for some elite that you are defining. And that not a good thing AND is kind of directly against what this country is supposed to be. You were former military, so you should know that the military is controlled by civilian types, many of who never served and never wanted too. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be involved in the discussion, or that they are ‘cowards’ if they didn’t or don’t want to server…man, just the opposite. Our system wasn’t ever supposed to be some military elitist thing where ‘cowardly’ civies aren’t allowed to discuss things unless they agree with you or me or some other arbitrary dude on the internet.
If I thought our system (and society!) weren’t fundamentally broken in some crucial ways, I might agree with you. But they’re broken – broken hard. I’m willing to use any rhetorical tool that might help prevent it from getting broken further. It really is desperate times. If you don’t think times are desperate, then I’m probably not going to be convincing to you in the least.
Also, it’s hard to read blocks of text like this.
Sorry, I’m posting from an iPad at the air port.
The thing is, when AREN’T times desperate? Let me ask you a question here…let’s say it’s 1938 and someone is advocating for the US to intervene in Europe or take a harder line with respect to Japan. These wouldn’t have been popular positions. Using your criteria though, no one who wasn’t in the military or wasn’t willing to join could or should be able to ‘warmonger’ for US intervention without you labeling them ‘coward’…correct? Can you explain why or why not? Give it serious thought, don’t just handwave it away. You don’t know anything more than you would in 1938, and you are just Joe Citizen, just as you are today. Or, let’s say some guys at the bar who have never been in the military and aren’t going to join it are advocating for a rebellion against our British overlords, but you don’t know anything more than Joe Citizen knows at the time. Again, consider this wrt what you are advocating and then consider…was Thomas Jefferson and the rest REALLY cowards? Should only George Washington basically have been able to weigh in on this without you labeling the rest ‘cowards’?? :dubious:
That’s the thing. You are going to label a bunch of folks ‘coward’ using your own arbitrary stances and definitions and based on your own opinion of what you THINK are or aren’t military actions or stances or even wars that the US has or may participate in. I don’t think things are that desperate that we need to resort to this sort of thing. Instead, a reasoned discussion can be had on the subject of whether the US should or shouldn’t use military action or the threat of military action in the future. But our CIVILIAN elected officials need to be able and free to discuss this stuff, and our citizens to voice their opinions for or against without constraint and without someone labeling them ‘coward’ because THEY DISAGREE.
When the question turns to choosing whether it’s worthwhile to direct others to die, your seriousness should always be gauged by “what if it was you? have you ever been in that position? your children?”
I might walk back from the stance of labeling them with an insult such as “coward”, but I will say if you are suggesting others ought to make deep sacrifices that you prefer not to, then your opinion on the matter weighs about as much as a white feather. Or should, at least.
Who is ‘you’ in this context? Me? You? Our elected officials? If the later, then no…I disagree. What they SHOULD be thinking about is…what’s best for the country? What does the country need? If they are thinking in terms of their own personal stake (their family, their lives, whatever) then they probably aren’t thinking about what’s best for the country, since, frankly, most people don’t want to risk their own or more importantly the lives of those who they love. But sometimes lives have to be risked for the good of the country. The problem with arbitrarily deciding when that is or isn’t right, or when folks should or shouldn’t be allowed to discuss or advocate for it is the hindsight part of what I was getting at (probably poorly) in my last post. At the time, the OP’s sentiments might have shut down all discussion about the US putting more pressure on Japan (could have lead to war…in fact, it DID lead to war) or getting more directly involved in Europe (same…we were, at one point fighting a covert war with the German Navy after all, and our ships were getting sunk and our sailors killed). But that wouldn’t have been a good thing…my WAG is the OP doesn’t think it would have been. But that’s because, in hindsight (post 1938) it’s pretty obvious what we should have done.
We all need to be free to discuss this stuff openly and without label. Now, if the argument being used is something like ‘we should nuke those dirty erranianz back to the stone age’, then this can and should be derided as the un-nuanced crap it is. Like the motto of the board, attack the post, not the poster. Attack the argument, don’t use a broad brush designed to shut down ALL discussion except for some arbitrary select group who can because they are willing to risk their lives (or they don’t have a choice…my WAG is that FDR wouldn’t get labeled ‘coward’ by the OP, but because of the arbitrary, um, rule I guess that he couldn’t rush out to risk his own life due to his health issues. But think about that…why does he get a pass just because of that??).
And that is your right to hold that opinion, and in your own mind (or that of the OP), you can think of them as ‘cowards’ if you like. Myself, I’d think of them as folks I simply disagree with. Just like I think of you and the OP as folks that, on this subject (and probably myriad others ;)), we simply don’t agree. I don’t have to put any sort of nasty label on you for that, just appreciate you guys for giving me someone to argue with. 
Yes, there’s a risk in not going to war. Maybe there’s a genocide going on right now in Iran, or in Venezuela, or in Kazakhstan, for all we know. Maybe going to war could save millions of lives.
But IMO, from looking at history, the risk in going to war is almost always much, much higher than the risk in not going to war. Catastrophically higher, in almost all circumstances. So I’m comfortable with this tradeoff. Even if I might have been wrong in 1938, presumably not having all the information about what was really going on.
Put yourself in my shoes. Why should I support your proposal?
I have not admitted that war is always beyond the pale. A given military action might be warranted, or it might not be - obviously I will have an opinion but I do not expect society to have a strong consensus one way or the other as we do with child sex. I am not a god and it is not my decision alone (or even at all) whether or not our country takes a military action. I am also young and possibly fit for military service, but have no intention to enlist. I do pay taxes though, and if there were a draft or an invasion or bombing of my state I could be affected. So I am in fact entitled to express my opinion on foreign or military policy, because I do have a stake in the matter, however small.
Now here comes along another person who says virtually all military actions are quite unnecessary. Cool, I might disagree but maybe we can talk about specifics when the debate arises.
Then he proposes the public shaming and humiliation of anybody who advocates for unnecessary military action if they are eligible for service but intend on remaining a civilian. He asks for my opinion on that stratagem. Now I think draft dodgers and chicken hawks are un-American and deserve public ridicule. A war hawk also aught to enlist if the war he advocated for comes to pass and the army issues a draft. But why would I be a coward for having an opinion favorable to war while intending to remain a civilian? He says I am a coward for sending Americans off to die for an unnecessary cause. I would agree, unless the cause was necessary, in which case he is a coward for refusing to support a necessary military action.
I ask why not just debate the justification for war on the merits? He says war is too horrible, too often unnecessary, and that he is justified in calling me a coward even if it doesn’t convince me because it can convince others not to agree with me. I say the name-calling hurts his credibility too and he says it is worth the risk. I say people might get the wrong idea and start threatening me, he says that’s still preferable to war. I say his scheme to publicly shame and humiliate is effectively an intimidation tactic. He says that is the point.
I say that this proposed name-calling would inject vitriol into public debate. He says that is less important than avoiding war. I say he is trying to shut down public debate, that he is favoring security over liberty. He says he is not restricting liberty, besides, there is no debate to be had, advocating for war is like advocating for rape. I point out that rape is always wrong while there are some military actions, particularly defensive wars, which are justified. He says those are so rare as to not matter, besides he wouldn’t call someone a coward for supporting a necessary war. I say his opinion on whether a war is necessary might be wrong. He says that’s not the case, but if it were, so be it.
I step over the possibility that he is begging the question and assert that societal intimidation has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and is therefore a restriction on liberty. He says it does not, for example societal intimidation of rape advocates isn’t a restriction on liberty. I say, yes it is, but there is a consensus that rape advocates deserve public shaming and humiliation which doesn’t necessarily exist for military actions. He says “I don’t see freedom from social consequences for one’s speech as part of liberty. Such consequences can be unfair or unjust, though I don’t think they are in this instance.”
My counter is that he is not the arbiter of whether a particular social consequence is unfair or unjust, society is. He can have an opinion, but I cannot support his opinion in the absence of clear consensus. It is not clear to me that all military actions are beyond the pale, so it would be improper to support this stratagem of publicly shaming and humiliating advocates of any military action who intend to remain civilians. That decision belongs to society and one of the principles of liberty is that society makes the best decisions under the auspices of honest debate, not a shouting match or under threat of argumenta ad hominem.
Please, consider my point of view.
~Max
Thank you, I will certainly consider your point of view, and I plan to go forward advocating against unnecessary wars in the most effective ways I’m able. Which may, in some circumstances, involve using epithets like “coward” against those I feel are deserving.
I don’t see US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria as having provided structure & stability, or having done much to save and improve lives in the region.
Battles have been won, no doubt. But at what cost and to what benefit?
I’ve got a son in the Navy. I get worried when people callously suggest he should be put in harms way without a damn good reason. Especially when so few of those advocating for war the loudest have so little to lose.
Let’s keep this civil.
As it happens, I know former military individuals who firmly believe that they should be accorded more respect than anyone who has not been in the military. I also know former military personnel who find that sort of thinking to be embarrassing and dumb.
Aside from toning down your rhetoric, providing evidence of your position would be helpful in a debate.
[ /Moderating ]
You never did respond to this, Bone. Care to?
Duely noted.
That simply means that veterans are people.
Not to diminish your personal experience with veterans, but my current job finds me in the midst of almost exclusively veterans (in service and support of other veterans). The overwhelming majority of whom do not fit the “entitled” category. FWIW.
I think you’re position is without merit and is ineffective beyond giving cover to call people names under the guise of “trying something”. Similar to how attempting to conjure wizards to stop war or changing your name to Meta World Peace would, it’s a wholly useless gesture not unlike those you deride. That you craft special pleadings to dismiss the inconsistencies in your rubric weakens any semblance of a narrative It’s compounded by the fact that your writing here has little ability to influence policy and it becomes all the more vacuous.
I too think war is terrible and should never be engaged in lightly. To my eternal shame, I supported the Iraq war in 2003 because I was fooled. I hope that will never happen again. Thoughtful discussion, reasoned arguments, and solid evidence pursuaded me of my error. Your method would do worse than nothing.
Well… this just seems like a general criticism rather than a response to my specific post. You haven’t actually pointed to “inconsistencies”, just claimed them with illogical metaphors (a pointless run for president vs actually serving in the military? Really?). Further, you’re focusing on the “insults” part and ignoring the “social shaming” part, which is what (I hope) would actually influence public policy.
But fair enough – based on the tone of your post, this is probably the most you’re interested in continuing this. If I’m wrong and you’re interested in further discussion, I’ll be here! Thanks for contributing.
Let’s suppose that one supports military action but doesn’t want to participate in it. So…? There are no consequences.
I’m proposing social shaming (for those able but not willing to sacrifice and contribute).