My point was that you were claiming that the goal was to humiliate people.
The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars.
Just because I said “means towards an ends” does not have anything to do with justification of evil, or even justifying it at all. Just clarifying that that is not the goal, as you were insisting it was.
A screw is a tool, a means to an end to hold a piece of drywall to a stud. If it is an evil screw, it is not justified by its job. But the fact that it has a job to do does not make it evil.
Ahh, I was unaware of rules like this. I thought I was just a guy laying out an idea, and then expanding my thoughts when some other things were brought up. You know, kind of like a discussion – an exchange of ideas and thoughts. But if these are the rules, then congratulations once again!
I’d certainly consider situations like this on a case-by-case basis, as I said as early as post #22.
Thank you for your thoughts! I agree with your last sentence.
What I said was that I’m not making any more assumptions than you. I made some rather reasonable assumptions based on the words you said and the rather realistic assumption that you aren’t quitting your job because you’ve been convinced by my argument. Are you saying you’ve made no, absolutely zero, assumptions whatsoever about the gutless cowards you want to shame?
I wasn’t aware you were making this argument. Are you saying that it’s hypocritical for someone who opposes unnecessary wars of choice to work for the US military as a civilian or on active duty?
I probably am making some assumptions about public figures like Trump and Bolton (i.e. that they’re lying about why they avoided service as younger men), but I’m not sure about any assumptions I’m making about the hypothetical hordes of unnamed cowards. If you think I have, please let me know.
Seriously? You’ve already responded to another post of mine in this thread where I made that specific accusation. Could you tone down the “ironically stupid” tactic? It’s bleeding into the non-ironic.
OK, please explain these two quotes to me. I support a particular military effort - exactly how much of my charity time and money do I need to devote to supporting the military (apparently paying my taxes isn’t enough) to justify not calling me a coward? And can you tell me what form that charity time and money would be in to “support the military”? I still want to be able to volunteer with Search and Rescue, building hiking trails, and cancer research.
Clause B paragraph 4 of the unwritten rules of internet debate clearly state that if you make a proposal, then any consideration of feedback or criticism to change or improve the proposal means that you have lost the internetz.
Well, how much do you think is necessary to support the wars you support? It’s up to you. If you hear that there are people out there that think that those who advocate war without being willing to support it themselves are not being well thought of, will you get angry at them because you don’t think that they will think well of you because you advocate a war you will not sacrifice for?
It’s not up to me, it really is up to you. Shame is not something given, it is something taken. If you would feel shame after advocating for war because someone asks what you are doing to support it, then you know that you are not doing enough.
Whatever form you find best suites your abilities to assist in the war that you want your country to wage.
Great, that sounds like that would free up other able bodied individuals to assist in other parts of the war effort.
Well, we all want things, but part of sacrifice is not getting what we want. Nothing wrong with building hiking trails, but if you want to ask others to go to war, maybe you would feel better knowing that you were doing something that is less of a luxury
Vets get cancer too.
…
It was hard to unpack the assumptions that are made in those questions, I doubt I will go through that effort again, and I would appreciate it if you would make the assumption that I am debating in good faith, and that the goal is reducing support for unnecessary wars, and that we are discussing the effectiveness and practicality of using “shame” as a method of doing so, as well as being open to determine the effective scope and uses of it. The assumption that I want to use this as some sort of way of abrogating free speech or humiliating my opponents does not have any relevancy to the discussion.
OK, I’m good then. Since I think voting, paying your taxes, and following the law is enough support for having an opinion on anything.
Again, I’m good.
Vets hike a lot. Many use hiking and nature as a way of recovering from PTSD, and others just like to hike. You could use this line of reasoning about literally anything, since vets do all sorts of things.
My belief is that your argument relies on faulty logic. I’m all for avoiding unnecessary wars; I think we’re in complete agreement there. What I’m saying is that the idea of shaming people who disagree with you because they don’t meet an ill defined and fundamentally subjective criteria about “support” is deeply flawed. It presumes to have privileged knowledge, insight into complex motivations, and the moral high ground when none of those things are apparent.
I think nearly everyone wants to eliminate unnecessary military conflict. Volunteering for the military or volunteering your time at a VA hospital or any other arbitrary criteria shouldn’t be a benchmark to determine ridicule if that person draws the line in a different place than you do. If you go down that route, I will dismiss anything you have to offer in the dialog because you’re just promoting vitriol and name calling.
This is another part of the fundamental disagreement – whether one believes that vitriol and name calling should ever be utilized. I think, in limited circumstances, they can be useful tools – Nazis (and Nazi-supporters) can be called Nazis; abusers of women or children can be called abusers of women or children; cowards can be called cowards; etc. YMMV, but I think this is a tool that is very frequently misused but still can be useful and effective in limited circumstances.
And if you agree that you truly believe that doing that is enough to support the wars that you want, then great.
On the taxes front, however, I see that we are not paying enough taxes to fund our govt as is. If you want a war, are you willing to see your tax rates go up to fund it?
You can certainly have an opinion on anything. The question isn’t whether you can have an opinion, it is whether or not you can, in good conscience, express that opinion in public, knowing the consequences that will come if your opinion is favored, and whether you are willing to accept the burden of those consequences, or if you will allow others to shoulder it.
Great, so if someone goes in public, and says that anyone who advocates for the war without sacrificing anything of their own for it is a piece of shit, you will not be offended or ashamed?
Hadn’t thought of that, good point.
That is actually what I said earlier.
I still believe that you do not fully grasp the actual argument and proposal of using “shame” as a tool to decrease public support for unnecessary wars.
Simply adding the “meme” to the public sphere that advocacy for war without support for that war is shameful doesn’t mean that I get to define subjective criteria. If anyone is criticizing you directly, it would be friends or family who do know what you advocate, and do know what you do to support what you advocate, not me, a random internet guy who doesn’t know you from Adam.
The hope would be that the message would be internalized. That when you start considering beating the drum for war, you take stock of what you are doing to support the treasury and lives that are being expended. Some will step up and do more to support our military and returning troops. Some will rethink their position on the war. And some will whine and complain that someone said something mean to them on the internet.
I don’t know about that. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t be staring at a potential Iran war here. I see many in public and in civilian life beating that war drum. I wouldn’t mind throwing a mute on that percussion.
That is correct, and agrees with my argument.
Right, and here we are back at the reason for this proposal, where you “presume to have privileged knowledge, insight into complex motivations, and the moral high ground”.
I am promoting giving people a reason to think twice about their advocacy for unnecessary conflict. I am sorry if some feelings are hurt along the way if people are upset when they are asked to support what they advocate, as that is not the goal.
There are, in my mind at least, two parts to this proposal. What we have talked about fairly extensively here is about private civilians who advocate for war, but there is also the question of elected officials, political appointees, and public figures who advocate for war.
Do you have any problem with public figures who advocate for war being publicly called out and asked what sacrifices they have made in support of the war?
If you take the story that Nugent told about his draft dodging as true, and he called for war with Iran, would publicly criticizing him be acceptable, in your opinion?
I hate to quote myself, but we’ve talked about the private side of this rather extensively, and I would actually be very interested in your opinion on this:
Taking active steps to avoid the draft is a perfectly legitimate subject of criticism; public or private. I would extend that to calling someone a hypocrite or supporting their decision, depending on the scenario.
But it has little to do with someone not volunteering for the military. Public figures shouldn’t be required to make arbitrary sacrifices in order to justify their political leanings, any more than private citizens.
And I forgot to add, even if they are hypocrites they might be correct in their stance on any particular military situation. Being an asshole doesn’t mean you’re not right.
It’s that time of the decade again – many Americans, in office, in public life, online, and even a few on the Dope, are advocating that America should go to war. I’d just like to reiterate the sentiment that, if you are American, and believe we should go to war right now, and you’re roughly between 18 and 50 years old and you’re not already in the US military, or ready to enlist (or you don’t have a damn good reason why you shouldn’t), then you are personally a yellow-bellied, gutless, sniveling worm of a coward.