Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly

The BBQ Pit
61

This is a poorly thought out position. It’s frankly undemocratic. It demands someone pass a virtue test before they can publicly state an opinion.

I’m pro-education, but I don’t have the aptitude to be a good teacher. I also recognise that it’s a difficult, stressful, underpaid and occasionally dangerous profession. I believe that both the UK and US governments should provide more incentives for people to become and stay teachers. Should my disinclination to become a teacher mean I should be shamed if I have a public opinion about education policy? What about someone who’s not a teacher and prioritises deficit reduction over further education spending? Should they be labelled a coward if they state their opinion publicly? What if that person is in the military?

Turn the situation around. What if someone decides to serve their country by becoming a teacher, rather than joining the military? Suppose that person also publicly supports the ongoing anti-terror military strikes in Africa. Will the OP state that this hypothetical teacher is a coward because they don’t quit teaching and join the military?

62

  1. No, not at all. Not even the tiniest little bit.

  2. Most of those 75% (if that’s accurate) have no idea they’re “unfit” - they haven’t tried to join. So my reasoning would still apply to most of them, if they supported any stupid and unnecessary wars, because their actions would show whether they intended to try and serve (or otherwise make sacrifices to contribute). In any case, what I’m suggesting is purely about discussion and argument, nothing more.

  3. That sounds good too, and I’m all in favor of it. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve been quite critical of the violent nature of our culture many times on this board.

63

It’s much more that this - coal and wood are resources. War is a fundamentally different kind enterprise than obtaining resources. Many or most wars are stupid and end up doing far more harm than good - this it’s reasonable to treat advocacy for war differently than advocacy for obtaining resources.

64

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. In fact, it’s directly contradictory - I want more opinions and more discussion, not less.

War is a fundamentally different enterprise than education. If you believe they’re comparable, then we live in such different universes that there’s no possibility of any discussion.

Depends on the details and situation. Teaching can certainly be a courageous decision.

65

I think it really sums up a militaristic culture that someone would post something like this let alone have several posters agree.
I would be unwilling to do the majority of jobs for all kinds of factors, with danger being just one factor.

If I am personally squeamish about blood, does that mean I am a hypocrite for suggesting we need doctors? Fear of water, life guards?

I’m not saying there’s no hypocrisy out there; clearly there are people eager to beat the war drum while it’s the faceless underclass actually doing the fighting and dying; not anyone they know. But the OP phrasing is ridiculous.

66

I’ll use any tool I can possibly think of to reduce the chance of stupid wars of choice. Yes, we’re in an absurdly militaristic and violent culture. We use military action a ton, and it usually kills a bunch of people for little or no gain. I wish that advocating for war, barring very rare circumstances like WWII or similar, was treated the same way as advocating for rape or child molestation. What I suggest could be a small but still real way of inching our society towards having more skepticism and more disgust for sending young people to kill and die when it’s not necessary.

67

iiandyiiii, if I may ask, what is the purpose of your proposed public shaming? You say the public shaming and humiliation of a person’s “[POST=21653004]personal character[/POST]” will “[POST=21652849]be an effective societal deterrent against unnecessary wars[/POST]” and will “[POST=21653367]help dissuade people from advocating for stupid, unnecessary wars[/POST]”.

At the same time you “[POST=21653293]have no interest in shutting anyone up – quite to the contrary, … [you] want to know everyone’s opinions[/POST]”. You “[POST=21653810]want more opinions and more discussion, not less[/POST]”. You recognize the fact that a person’s “cowardice” has [POST=21653007]no bearing[/POST] on the validity of their arguments. You admit that the public shaming and humiliation “[POST=21653004]shouldn’t influence your opinion about any particular case for or against any given war[/POST]”.

I must ask you, if the argumentum ad hominem is not intended to dissuade civilians from participating in public discourse, how will you effect your stated goal? How do you reconcile these statements?

~Max

68

I think (if my opinion were widely held) it could help shift, in a small bit real way, the common and jingoistic attitude that military action is a reasonable option in many or most foreign policy scenarios. If people knew that most of their fellow Americans believed they were cowards if they advocate for an unnecessary war, some of them might reevaluate their positions.

Yes, maybe some of them might just keep quiet, too. Which also helps my main goal of reducing the chance of stupid wars. I want everyone to speak up and converse, but I want fewer dumb wars (and fewer wars in general) even more than that.

69

I think you need a mapping app - Namin’ & Shamin’

You go to the site and put in someone’s name and address and it puts a little pin on their house. Once you’ve outed them, other people can search by geography, click on a pin and add their own shit.

If any entrepreneur wants to pick up on this, it might be a good paid subscription service. It wouldn’t have to be limited to chicken hawks, you could have separate maps for any kind of public shaming and humiliation people wanted to deliver. Because some shaming targets might not be on Facebook or Twitter or other social media, but people still need a way to get at them.

But anyway, back to the chicken hawk thing - how much research do you think a person should have to do before outing a gutless coward?

Say there’s a woman in your neighborhood and sometimes you’re out in your yard when she’s walking her dog. And you know she’s a Trumpie because when she walks by, you say “Mornin’” and she says something like “Where’s the fuckin’ emails?” So one morning when she walks by she says “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!”

So you ask her “Would you go in the service if we got into it with Iran?” And she says “Hell no, I was in the service and I got groped.” Now, you don’t have any particular reason to believe she was ever in the service or got groped in the service, other than her say so. And pretty much every other thing you’ve ever heard her say is Alex Jones-level bullshit.

Does she get a pass for the alleged groping or do you go to Namin’ & Shamin’ and pin her house?

How about the guy up the street, known Trumpie. You know this because when he’s on his lawn tractor, he cups his hands around his mouth and yells “FUCK OBAMA, FUCK HILLARY!” when you walk by. As Trumpies are wont to do. One day instead of “FUCK OBAMA, FUCK HILLARY!” he yells out “WE SHOULD TURN IRAN INTO A GODDAMN PARKING LOT!” So you ask him “Would you go in the service if we got into it with Iran?” And he says, “Hell man, I’m in the reserves!” But he doesn’t offer any proof and you watch him for the next few months and he’s always around. And you stalk his socials and there’s no evidence he’s in the reserves.

Pin or no pin?

Also, just want to make sure - all this naming and shaming can be done anonymously, correct?

70

A really wise woman once said to me “It’s always easy to spend other people’s time and money”, and that’s been a guiding principle of my life ever since. If you’re a boss, it’s so easy to add a half-hour task to someone else’s daily workload and not think that’s a big deal–but someone adding half an hour to your daily workload is a Big Damn Deal; if you run an organization, it’s so easy to ask everyone else to chip in money for something you want to do, but beyond the pale when someone else demands the same amount for something you don’t particularly support.

So it’s galling that some people are as willing to throw away other’s lives as casually as a bad boss throws away your day off but takes the day himself. There’s nothing more narcissistic than “I think this cause is worth YOUR life, but not MY life”. Now, I don’t know how to actually enforce this, but it’s a tendency people should be actively aware of. As a teacher, I remind myself DAILY not to spend other people’s time and money too casually. I really do. I would hope that the powers that be think at least as hard about spending lives.

71

Then this is the fundamental disagreement between you and I. I consider it more important that everyone speak up and converse than risking a dumb war. To me, liberty is more important than security. If we as a society cannot control misguided war hawks without stifling public debate, we have already failed our goals as a nation. That is my opinion.

~Max

72

Anonymous “naming and shaming” would be contrary to the spirit of what I’m advocating for. As would casual or flippant “naming and shaming”. This post appears to be an attempt at satire or something and thus I’m not really sure how to respond. Suffice to say I’m not in favor of any of this.

73

If you cannot convince your neighbor that an act is unreasonable, how can you convince him of his own [DEL]cowardice[/DEL] unreasonableness? The only way you justify his [DEL]cowardice[/DEL] unreasonableness is by acknowledging that the act is unreasonable. My time is limited, and I prefer to spend it debating on the merits.

~Max

74

I agree with you – and I’m not advocating for anything that would harm or effect liberty in any way at all. There are few things I think are more important than preventing dumb wars, but free speech is one of them.

The possibility of individuals calling other individuals cowards does not conflict, in any way whatsoever, with free speech. It might affect the desire some have to say certain things, but that has nothing to do with free speech, unless that desire is curtailed by government force or threat of force.

75

I favor all possible approaches. I’ve known folks who were convinced of their wrongness on an issue by “debating on the merits”, and I’ve known folks who re-evaluated their position only when they realized that others thought it was utterly monstrous (and used harsh, insulting language to make this clear).

76

Thanks, this is a good description of the attitude I’m trying to convey with regard to advocacy for military action and war. Another good way to sum up my position, without the exceptions, nuance, and detail in my earlier posts, is the following:

“War is disgusting (including “little” wars and military actions), and barring a few rare circumstances, if you advocate for war or military action, you are disgusting.”

77

It is not only the government who can curtail free speech. Don’t you believe that the public shaming and humiliation you propose will have a chilling effect on public discourse? Healthy civilians will be afraid to come forward with their opinions, not because their opinions are wrong, but because society will shame and humiliate them for not joining the military.

~Max

78

Well then, how ARE you gonna do it?

79

And I, in turn, know folks who will never voice their opinion if they believe it will be met with vitriol and public shaming.

Surely there must be a middle ground? I’ve got it. In public debate, stick to the merits. Convince as many people as you can. In private debate, preferably among friends, let them know how you really feel.

~Max

80

Yes it is. IMO, of course. I’m suggesting speech, and nothing more than speech. It’s impossible that speech alone can “curtail free speech”.

This already occurs for many issues – folks generally are afraid to publicly advocate for legalization of rape or child molestation because “society will shame and humiliate them”. Same goes for bringing back slavery, or committing genocide, or many other things considered “beyond the pale” by most of society. Barring rare circumstances, I want advocacy for military action to join that category.