Every criticism, personal or not, could lead to someone taking it the wrong way and going to far. I recognize the risk of what I’m advocating for, I just think that we’re in such a bad situation, and so close to another dumb war, that I think it’s worth this risk.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
In fact, the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with your whole position in this thread. By being former active military and a current civilian employee, by orders of magnitude you enable wars of choice more than some internet yahoo who says we should bomb Iran. If America wasn’t full of people like you, voluntarily filling up history’s largest standing army, America wouldn’t have so much blood and treasure to spare on optional wars.
Feel free to make such a case. I’m certainly willing to listen (though perhaps it would deserve its own thread).
Well, I might make a thread but the case is rather obvious. You were cashing paychecks during optional wars. You continue drawing a check while knowing full well optional wars are the only thing on the horizon. But no shame for you, you’re a Patriot.
I remember talking to a kid who was just going into aeronautic engineering and he was talking about he should join the military so he could get his pilot license as that would be nice on his resume. I asked if being ordered to kill people was worth a line on his resume and he was a little befuddled. He was 18. What’s your excuse?
“Gay Rights advocates have generally stayed silent through the years because of fear of social consequences (humiliation, social exile, etc.). Same with some Mixed Race Marriage advocates … I don’t believe Gay Rights Advocates have been bullied, nor advocates of eliminating anti-miscegenation 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 **gay rights **or eliminating the miscegenation laws. I don’t see that as bullying.”
It doesn’t take a long trip back to get to a time when the changes I made would have been mainstream opinion. So when all the “right-thinking” people in society were calling the members of those groups faggots and dykes, was that bullying? Were cries of “N-lover” and “We don’t want your kind around here!” not bullying? Hey, they were just words after all, right? It was just people stating their opinions. And anyway, as long as we get what we want, how it’s done isn’t really important is it?
You advocate intentionally wielding social stigma as a blunt instrument against people you personally have decided need to be stopped, then try to deny that’s what you are doing by attempting to define them in such a way that nobody would offer a defense. It appears that as long as you get to decide what wars are “unnecessary” then *you *get to label anyone whose opinion is different as “warmongers.” Once that’s done, you’ve decided it’s perfectly justified to use name-calling and public shaming to attack their character rather than their reasoning. But that’s certainly not bullying them, because they so richly deserve it for being “warmongers” (according to iiandyiiii)! So long as you get to define them as “people who deserve whatever they get,” then surely nobody can complain when you “give them what they deserve.”
What’s even worse is that any time there’s an iiandyiiii-defined unnecessary war, practically everyone in favor of it is going to be an iiandyiii-labeled coward due to sheer inescapable math. If you add the active, reserve, and veterans of all ages together you only get a little over 20 million in a nation with a population of over 320 million. A war with only 25% of the population in favor will by sheer numbers have 60 million iiandyiiii-labeled cowards, even if every active, reserve, and veteran troop (save iiandyiiii himself of course) favors it. And if the nation is 50/50? Those other 140 million people can all be planting Victory Gardens, collecting scrap metal, and volunteering at the USO and so forth, right? There’s actually no practical way 140 million people could “Make a substantial sacrifice” to support the war effort unless we water down “substantial sacrifice” one hell of a lot.
As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to: “I think I should get to incite a smear campaign, attacking people’s character when I disagree with their reasoning, in an attempt to publicly shame them into either silence or backing down from their position. Furthermore, since I get to define the opposition as bona-fide Bad People, it doesn’t matter if what I say about them is factually true, nor does it matter whether there’s any real chance that the overwhelming majority of my opponents could actually meet my “Well, I won’t pick on you then…” conditions. It only matters if I achieve my very noble goals.”
If you want to Pit me, by all means go ahead. Or if you want to start a new thread on the culpability of military civilians, go ahead. I promise I’ll take part.
Social shaming has certainly been used for evil in the past. I’m in favor of social shaming for actual bad things (i.e. child molestation, warmongering), and against it being used for things that aren’t bad.
This really just comes down to people’s feelings about warmongering. I think it’s really, really awful and highly damaging to society. You and some other folks, apparently, do not. That’s the source of our disagreement. Unless you think it’s wrong to shame child molesters, then it’s not about social shaming – we all appear to agree that social shaming is appropriate in some instances. It’s just about whether warmongering qualifies.
Your arguments have moved from self-contradictory to absurd.
By all means, explain how saying “shut the F up” consists of a restriction on speech. IMO, a restriction is something that actually restricts. Not an obnoxious and entirely optional suggestion/direction.
Disagree with the OP’s premise. We all have strengths and weaknesses and just because one feels that something should be done and support those who do it, it doesn’t mean everyone should participate. I would say ideally those who have such a calling should, and others should support those with that calling. I would also compare it to firefighting. Not everyone is cut out to be a firefighter, but mostly they are supported, along with the system that provides fire coverage. Not becoming a firefighter does not mean one is a coward, or unsupportive, hypocritical in any way, same with the OP’s premise.
No thank you. If you refuse to recognise that an obnoxious direction to stop speaking is indeed an attempt to stop someone from speaking, then there’s very little point in attempting to have an intelligent interchange with you.
Got it. So you believe speech can restrict speech. But not, apparently, if it’s you telling me that I should stop my speech because it might dissuade other speech. Or something like that.
At least we’ve gotten to the heart of our disagreement.
You’re like the fifth poster to bring up firefighting. It’s been addressed many, many times in this thread.
Please define warmongering. Is it any effort to deploy the military? I may have missed this in the entire thread, so if you’ve already defined it I apologize.
There’s millions of people who fit your criteria, I don’t know why you don’t just get on with the public shaming and humiliation unless you are waiting for someone else to do it.
I’m trying! I even started a thread on a public message board about it. 
No problem – I’m using “warmongering” as a shorthand for pushing for wars (including “small” wars typically labeled as military actions or operations) of choice, akin to the most recent Iraq war, or proposals to start a war with Iran.
Does that mean that you would not level any criticism at him or his ideas, no matter how valid or deserved, if there was a slight chance that it may cause him to choose not to return?
I’m just trying to point out to you that it’s outrageous to expect people to sacrifice and support the military if they support a war but you have no obligation to sacrifice and stop helping the military when you oppose a war. You are directly helping people get killed but shaming some random yahoo is more important.