Building international coalitions is a way to show that a war is necessary and has support. If a country is willing to send its men in to danger, then it can be inferred that that country is making a good faith sacrifice in order to prevent what it sees as unacceptable actions of a sovereign nation.
Do they have nothing at all to sacrifice to assist in the war that they want?
I think that the more we stir the pot, the more problems we cause, and the worse things get. If someone thinks that we should be firing (very expensive) missiles at infrastructure and people on the other side of the world, and they think that their only obligation is to stand up for the anthem, then they are willing to spend our treasury and ask our people to risk their lives in order to bring harm to others, but not willing to do anything themselves? That’s pretty shitty.
I think that part of the problem here is that we are just so used to the idea of others going off and sacrificing themselves so that we can sit on our couches and eat bonbons is so ingrained that it has become normalized. Wars of choice are entertainment to us now. We sit and we watch as the smart bomb hits its target, and we applaud and cheer the bravery of our men and the power of our innovations, and then we grab another handful of cheetos.
That the very idea that asking people to be held accountable for their advocacy to send others into war gets such push back, such an anathema to the culture that we have developed tells me that it is not the size or the readiness of our military that gets us involved in wars, but the detachment and the apathy of the american public.
I know people with advanced degrees in martial arts. They can beat the shit out of 99% of the population. Having one as a bouncer means less violence, not more. The fact that they occasionally have to engage in violence is not due to their skills, but due to the nature of the job. If there is someone with less skills, then more people usually end up getting hurt in order to keep things peaceful.
Bull-fucking-shit. I have trouble even believing this is a real life anecdote. I have taken martial arts, met others who have and have seen bouncers who have that as a hobby. In no fucking way do I trust a guy who takes martial arts to be sparing in his use of those skills. Some do but others definitely do not and in fact take bouncing jobs so they can “practice real world”.
Cute. The whole point of this thread is your awesome strategy to score points on the warmongers but we wouldn’t want to dilute that with my point scoring on your attitude.
What would you suggest? That they go around virtue-signalling about volunteering in the VA to avoid some stranger labelling them a gutless coward? “I support this military action and I am entitled to support this military action because I donated £100 to Help for Heroes.”?
I agree that the American government does not do enough to inform the public about the military actions the US is involved in, the goals of those actions, whether those goals are being achieved, and the costs and consequences of those actions. I also think there’s not enough Congressional debate and oversight. There should be a collective responsibility of the entire nation towards military actions, and the aftermath of those actions. So yes, detachment and apathy are problems. However, I doubt you’re going to solve that problem by going around calling people gutless cowards.
Maybe you just don’t hang out with very responsible people. Yeah, I know some people who are good at hurting people who enjoy hurting people, and I don’t spend much time with those sort, but there are those who actually take the shit seriously.
If you say you know people who don’t use their skills responsibly, I won’t call you a liar. The fact that you call me a liar because I do know people that use their skills responsibly only speaks to the company you keep and the way that it colors your perceptions of others.
No, there are multiple points of disagreement here. First among them is the idea that YOU get to decide what constitutes warmongering. Second is the idea that once you have so decreed, you are justified in attacking the character of a segment of the population without any actual insight into that character, based only on an arbitrary criteria of being military or some vague notion of what constitutes “substantial sacrifice.” (And you still haven’t addressed the problem of numbers or what kind of things you think half the population could do to fulfill your criteria either.)
Finally, I take issue with the notion that there’s no difference between the emergent phenomena of social shaming that naturally arises when a large or overwhelming majority of the population holds an opinion (as in your child molestation example), and a campaign to wilfully organize and institute public shaming as a weapon to effect a particular policy goal. While the first is simply a by-product of society itself, the second is nothing more than maliciously hurtful manipulation that you attempt to justify merely by the ends you hope to achieve.
Its callous disregard for the harm it does to the individuals it targets, coupled with the further stifling of public debate by substituting personal attack for any discussion based on merits makes this tactic borderline sociopathic.
As much as I might like to be all-powerful, I don’t actually believe that anyone should do something just because I say so.
I would generally go on a case-by-case basis, and the thrust of this thread has been about personal interactions, not insults directed at broad swaths of strangers. More like in one’s day to day life, if they come across these cowardly (in my view) attitudes, then I’m advocating that they call them out.
This is a thoughtful and reasonable criticism and I thank you for offering it.
This seems like hyperbole, but thank you nonetheless.
A recap please. The two categories of suggestions I noticed were supporting veterans and monetary payments. Both of which I referenced.
The underlying question, which I guess I needed to make more explicit, is should the people making the alternate sacrifices, or for that matter, the people in the military, parade their sacrifices/service? I’m curious about the determination process of deciding if someone is a gutless coward or not. Does a member of the military need to state their profession before stating support for a military action? Is a nephew in the military sufficient to be in favour of a military action without being called a gutless coward? Is a 1% of income donation to a military cause sufficient, or does it need to be 10%? Will the shamer be asking the hawk a polite checklist of questions before determining if he’s a gutless coward or not? (BTW, these questions are directed at the debaters on side with the OP’s argument, not you specifically.)
None good I’m afraid. My ideal suggestion is to elect leaders who believe in accountability. Unfortunately, I believe that’s as difficult as hell.
If so, then that is not a reference, that is being petty about it. Why would you choose to call it virtue signaling?
No, virtue signaling is making a big deal about getting pissy at someone for not standing for the anthem. Helping out returning vets that are injured by the wars that we chose to enter is actually helping. Paying a higher tax that actually pays for the costs associated with war is actually helping. Your “referenced” examples were caricatures of what is being spoken in this thread. If that is what you actually think that we are talking about, then no wonder you are confused. But I have no idea where you would be coming from talking shit about people who are actually willing to support our troops in real ways as opposed to the “virtue signalling” of putting a “I support our troops” sticker on your gas guzzling SUV.
If you really think that that sort of thing is virtue signalling, while interrupting a service member at dinner to say “Thank you for your service” is patriotic, then we are far to far apart to ever come to any sort of agreement or consensus on this, or really any topic.
If you need to quantify your patriotism, then you are not a patriot. These questions are pretty much irrelevant to anyone who is actually looking to decrease the number of wars of choice we engage in.
Of course it is, as they are elected by people who are apathetic and disengaged from the wars we are fighting. If you wish to elect better leaders, but don’t do so by starting with the people, then you are just wishing, and as long as you are wishing, could you wish me up a pony too?
Virtue signalling is performing a positive act, and then promoting yourself for performing that positive act. I don’t automatically decry the self-promotion, but I do have kneejerk scepticism towards it. I have much more respect for a Habitat for Humanity volunteer that shows up 50 weekend days a year, than a politician that shows up for two hours to gets his picture taken holding a hammer. I admire someone who volunteers to help injured veterans. I don’t mind if they want to promote themselves, to virtue signal, if their volunteerism is sincere. But my admiration is slightly higher for the people who do the volunteering and go modestly about their way. What I object to is the idea that the modest volunteers need to do the self-promotion, or face being called gutless cowards.
Also, going back to my original objection to the OP’s premise, why is someone who volunteers to support injured veterans more virtuous than someone who wants to build housing for the poor? More so, why should someone who is good at building houses, but poor at nursing wounded people, be forced into the latter because they want to express an opinion about US military actions?
Regarding increasing the tax burden to pay for military interventions, I think that’s a sound idea. If a full-scale invasion of Iran is likely to cost 3.7 trillion dollars, I think the American people should know that they’re signing up for a per-person average cost of $10,000 to support the invasion. That’s part of the collective responsibility that I do support.
I’m not calling you a liar, I’m saying it’s massive bullshit to extrapolate from some honorable martial artists you know that we should trust random people trained in violence to be wise in their violence usage. My doubting the reality is only in that if you’ve met a few martial arts trained people, I have a hard time believing you didn’t meet a few assholes you are forgetting to mention.
Maybe we operate under slightly different definitions. I see virtue signalling as performing a positive act specifically for the purpose of being seen performing that act. Like your politician example.
You know what you do to help out in society, and that’s what’s important.
I don’t see it so much as needing to do self promotion, or be called a gutless coward, but that it is said that if you do not sacrifice something of your own while asking others to make a sacrifice, then you can make your own judgement as to whether or not you are doing enough.
Small groups or friends, where one says, “Yeah, go kick those [ethnic slur]'s ass!”, and the reply from a friend being, “And what are you willing to sacrifice for that war?”
The idea, in my mind, at least, is less to call out people, and more to make them think. Less to shame them in public, and more give their friends and acquaintances the tools to shame them in private.
If someone is set back by this, then they may think, “Hey, I am asking others to sacrifice, so I should step up my game and contribute something of my own.” Or, even better, IMHO, is, “Hey, that is quite the sacrifice that I am asking people to make, more than I am willing to make myself, maybe I will rethink my support for this war.”
Public figures and politicians can, IMHO, be called out in public. Their record on what they have done and what they call for is out there for all to see, and they put themselves into the spotlight to be judged and criticized.
9% of the homeless are veterans, and wars of choice are probably not going to help that figure.
Maybe we should start a thread on “How to discourage public support for unnecessary wars of choice.”
And I’ll get my pretty pink princess pony (pony pony pony) about the same time as we get world peace.
[quote=“CarnalK, post:495, topic:834250”]
I’m not calling you a liar, I’m saying it’s massive bullshit to extrapolate from some honorable martial artists you know that we should trust random people trained in violence to be wise in their violence usage.
I’ll happily admit to selection bias. I worked my way through it seems half the bars in Cincinnati while trying to pay for college. (Never as a bartender, I was still too socially anxious for that, but as the best bar back any of them had ever had). I got passed around by word of mouth, and mostly dealt with the better run ones.
As for this, it was not me forgetting to mention, as I did, indeed, mention.
I am not extrapolating anything, I am saying specifically that a bouncer who can perpetuate violence effective but restrains that violence is far more effective than a bouncer who uses violence irresponsibly, no matter the skill.
Like it or not, the US has been the bouncer for Club Earth since WWII. On the whole, I’d say we did more good than harm, but we certainly have done some harm. This proposed invasion of Iran would be solidly in the harm column, IMHO. We are becoming less effective and more irresponsible with our use of force.
I’m not saying that the US is a great bouncer, and I fear that we are becoming a worse bouncer. My point in all of this is that we should be that bouncer. That should be our ideal.
So, it seems as though you have answered your question, that of why someone who is anti-unnecessary war should join the military apparatus. When you are talking about sparing violence, if you want utilities to be restrained, who would you rather have involved in the military apparatus, Edward Gallagher or iiandyiiii?
Since I assume iiandyiii will follow orders like a good boy, it matters little to me that we have an antiwar cog in the machine that effectively functions like any other cog. I remain rather strongly of the opinion that an antiwar person working for the U.S. military is not letting his morals get in the way of a paycheck.
You really are of the opinion that there is no discernable difference between Edward Gallagher or iiandyiiii in the way they would carry out a mission?
And, once again, it does come down to civilian leadership. If we have a warmongering public that elects warmongering leaders, we will be at war more often than if we have a more reserved public that elects more reserved leaders.
