Humiliation. You want to humiliate people into not stating their opinion.
From the OP:
I’m attempting to out-debate you, not humiliate you.
Intimidation through humiliation, or the threat of humiliation is a form of bullying. Sometimes bullying works. Shutting somebody up by bullying them is denying them their right to freely state what they believe.
Yes. So say the healthy young hawk supports increasing taxes to pay for the war he thinks is necessary, but still doesn’t want to enlist. According to the OP he is still a coward.
~Max
So if I get on the train and a young non-white man is singing along to urban or ethnic music, and I say “Stop that <racial expletive> music you fucking <racial expletive>”, I wouldn’t be attempting to restrict his speech? I’m certainly not going to do such a thing, but I would absolutely categorise such an attempt as using speech to restrict speech.
If this is so, I don’t see what it has to do with restricting free speech. “Person X should be publicly shamed and humiliated because of Y” is speech. It’s not a restriction on speech – it’s stating an opinion.
I disagree. Pro-child-molestation advocates have generally stayed silent through the years because of fear of social consequences (humiliation, social exile, etc.). Same with some white supremacy advocates (although many of those have spoken up in spite of social consequences, of course, and IMO there should be much more thorough public opprobium against white supremacy advocacy). I don’t believe white supremacists have been bullied, nor advocates of eliminating age-of-consent laws. They’ve determined that public sentiment finds their opinions odious and unacceptable, and have learned that there are strong social consequences to advocating for these things. IMO, warmongering for unnecessary wars of choice should be odious and unacceptable just like these other things. Part of that would be treating advocates of warmongering similarly to how we treat advocates of white supremacism or eliminating the age of consent. I don’t see that as bullying.
If you see all of that as bullying, then I guess we have different definitions and understandings of bullying.
Alright. If speech does lead to the use of force, say a vigilante roughs up the cowardly war hawk, you would be against that?
ETA: Against the use of force, that is.
~Max
In this hypothetical scenario you’re being a racist asshole, but you’re not restricting speech. “Shut the F up” is not restricting speech. These are just instances of cantankerous (and/or racist) speech.
Absolutely. And such an act of violence should be prosecuted.
And yet a university professor who has studied social, economic, and political issues in the trouble zones of the world is much more likely to have a useful opinion than someone serving as a foot soldier. That professor may choose not to serve for any variety of reasons, including the desire not to get shot, but his opinion is probably more useful than a foot soldier who doesn’t understand the larger issues.
Yes, the foot soldier is putting more on the line, but I want to listen to the professor. So should you.
This doesn’t actually conflict with anything I’ve said. Someone can be very logical, accurate, and correct, and still be a coward, IMO. And such a professor wouldn’t necessarily be a coward – if they’re honorable, then I’d hope they’d make some sort of sacrifice and contribution towards the war effort, which could involve many things beyond simply joining the military. If that professor spent some of their spare time volunteering at a VA hospital, for example, then I certainly wouldn’t call them a coward.
Why do you care if they’re a coward, as long as their opinion is valid? IMO, calling the professor a coward is likely to make them less willing to voice their opinion, meaning that we’ll have poorer information when trying to decide a critical public policy.
The validity of their opinion doesn’t change regardless of their moral failings. Either they are valid opinions and we should base policy on them, or they are invalid and we shouldn’t base policy on them. What additional value do you get by attacking the morals of the source in this case? IMO, you are more apt to silence valid analysis and end up getting more people killed.
I want to shift society towards being less tolerant of war and warmongering – especially wars of choice. I think this could be one rhetorical tactic that might help make this happen, even if it’s in a small way.
This is a risk and a valid criticism of the rhetorical tactic I’m suggesting. Yes, someone with good input might be less likely to contribute their opinion. I’m willing to accept that risk because currently our society is so accepting and tolerant of warmongering. Basically, I think we’re in dire straits, and it’s very easy to get into dumb wars because of how society views war. I’m willing to accept this kind of risk because it’s so damn important that we move society away from this tolerance of war, lest we repeat the mistakes of the aughts and get into another colossal mistake in the middle east, resulting in catastrophic loss of life and wealth (again).
I’m not, as I think good information is essential for making informed decisions. And because I don’t share your opinion about warmongering.
I’m sure his opinion is well informed, but if he advocates for sending others out to fight, while not being willing to make any sacrifice of his own, then his opinion is biased because it is his opinion that it is worth the cost that others pay, but it is not worth it for him to pay.
That’s really what it comes down to here, is that it is always easier to run up a big bill if you don’t have a part in footing it.
I think that knowing where opinions are coming from is essential to evaluating whether or not those opinions are useful for making informed decisions.
And you don’t think that we are too easy to go to war? Without looking it up, name the countries we currently involved in hostilities in.
Now look it up. Surprised?
Yes, we are too easy to go to war. We are too easy to send people out to go hurt other people in order for those people to do what we want them to do. Some of it may even be necessary, but it is hard tell which are the “good” wars, when so many of our actions do not have “good” outcomes. Even well intentioned actions often end up having some pretty dire consequences.
There may be wars that I would support, but until the violence that we are projecting to the rest of the world cools down by a few magnitudes, I’m pretty sure that any violence we beget will only beget more violence.
If ending violence is the goal, war is not the answer.
Biases are important to consider, this is true. But we expect the military to be controlled by civilians in the US for a reason. Someone not joining the military (or being willing to make ill-defined sacrifices) making decisions on where we deploy forces is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t want the military or people who are willing to fight wars being solely responsible for making decisions about going to war.
For the same reason I want civilians in charge of the police. Do you want law enforcement policy set by police or people who want to be police officers only?
What if the professor pays taxes and is eligible for the draft?
~Max
And what if your accusation of cowardice convinces people to threaten the hawk? If the hawk receives death threats, but is not actually assaulted? Do you decry the threat-mailers?
~Max
Yes, that’s also against the law (with good reason) and should be prosecuted.
Nor do I
Once again, police are different than soldiers, but, in that case, I do think that anyone who wants more police presence, but votes against a police levy has little value to their opinion on police matters.
Then what?
I am against both acts and threats of violence.
Then does the [DEL]hawk[/DEL] professor deserve to be shamed?
~Max