That was 80% Finn, and 20% NDD.
“Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.” -MLK
The only criticism I have of the quote above, is hate and violence can only be mitigated, never eradicated, but that’s just common sense, and I’m sure King knew this. Regardless, he lived and died by these words, because his conviction was so great on this very principle. It’s not hard to imagine how much uglier things would have escalated had he eschewed this notion as non-sense in favor of more cowardly acts of retaliation and promoting rioting. He would’ve died, probably sooner rather than later, but the repercussion of acts of violence against the monstrous atrocities racist whites at the time had sown for so long, would’ve made it all pointless (regardless if you think it would’ve been warranted, in terms of vengeance or justice). You mention muddying the waters with the principals of VbV, but there are real world scenarios where it’s demonstrably true. Almost crystal clear IMHO. That’s what I meant by “cutting your losses.” Did it eradicate racism and hate? Violence and riots? Of course not. But I don’t think anyone can argue his example of modern martyrdom for peace made the world a far better place in the long run.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make, here? The world is certainly not black and white, but maybe it’s not nearly as gray as you think either.
Not at all.
He set up a deliberate analogy between Nazism as an ideology that should have been discredited, and Bin Laden who should be discredited and the whole of Islam.
That was his explicit formulation, that we were able to “dis” the Nazis who were the leaders of Nazism, because Nazism was discredited, but that we weren’t able to “dis” Bin Laden because Islam as a whole is not a discredited ideology and Bin Laden is one of the leaders of Islam as a whole.
It’s a clear, unambiguous claim that we can’t “dis” a Jihadist because he’s a leader for Islam as a whole rather than for his splinter sect of extremist Muslims. And it clearly sought to conflate Jihadism with Islam in general, Bin Laden’s leadership position within AQ with leadership of the Muslim community in general, and Nazism as an ideology that should be discredited with Jihadism as an ideology that should be discredited while at the same time conflating Jihadism with Islam in general.
Do you contend that NDD wasn’t saying that Nazism and Jihadism are both ideologies that should be discredited? Are you contending that he did not conflate Jihadism with Islam in general? Are you contending that he did not conflate Bin Laden’s leadership role in a Jihadist organization with a leadership role for Muslims in general? Are you contending that these facts do not show that NDD "just compare[d] Nazism as a discredited ideology with Islam? "
You’re welcome to point out where I’m actually wrong.
I didn’t party, or rollick, or run around waving flags, or any such thing. I felt a grim satisfaction. It isn’t justice, because it does not balance out all the lives he helped destroy, so vengeance is close enough for now. But I understand why people would celebrate his death. I absolutely refuse to chastise or condemn them for being human.
Do you feel any guilt when an exterminator kills vermin? It’s all the same to me.
No, not too complicated at all.
Just made up almost out of whole cloth, and completely missing the actual point that **NDD/b] was making.
You’re still stupid.
What you said, and which I took to be a response in part to my own post, was this:
You didn’t say anything about grim satisfaction. You said specifically that you were happy and that his suffering would do you good. I was responding to that - I agree that it would be a dumb thing to do to criticize anybody for feeling satisfied.
I don’t know what you mean by calling it “human” to feel the way you were describing in your first post, but I don’t agree that it’s so universal that there’s nothing about it that’s worth trying to change.
And yet you can’t respond to let alone comprehend the facts of the matter, but you’re attempting to handwave them away and claiming that somehow I made up NDD’s own words. I had hoped that you’d at least have something other than vomit, but I keep having to remind myself never to underestimate the synergy of idiocy and aggravation.
No, I discussed the actual point he was making, ya know, the one where he conflates Nazi leadership with Bin Laden as a Muslim leader and Nazism as an ideology with Islam as a whole rather than Bin Laden’s faction of Jihadists. You could have even responded to that, had you understood it.
Tough break there.
Brilliant factual refutation.
And your point is? The one that made you ask NDD, “What the fuck is wrong with you?”?
I didn’t see NDD passing any judgment on Islam. The comparison he made was of the the RealWorld political circumstances that dictated different treatment for different mass murderers.
I don’t understand your “What the fuck is wrong with you?” comment."
That comparing Bin Laden as a ‘Muslim leader’ (rather than a leader of only his splinter-sect) with the actual leadership of the Nazi party, and Nazism with Islam as a whole rather than Bin Laden’s splinter-sect is Bad Thing. I’m not sure how exactly I could have been clearer. What confused you?
Perhaps an analogy or two would help:
-It’s the difference between saying “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Baruch Goldstein because there are a lot of Jews who still support their faith.” And “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Baruch Goldstein because a small but violently ideological splinter group of Jews might have taken that as an affront and engaged in retaliatory violence.”
-It’s the difference between saying “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Scott Roeder because there are a lot of Christians who still support their faith.” And “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Scott Roeder because a small but violently ideological splinter group of militant Christians might have taken that as an affront and engaged in retaliatory violence.”
It’s the problem talking about a leader of a political movement and equating them with a leader of a religious splinter group. It’s the problem with likening Nazi leaders’ role in their political movement with terrorists’ roles in Islam as a whole rather than their religious splinter groups.
It’s fucked up.
Nope, I still don’t think your response to NDD had a valid point. He didn’t posit OBL as a major leader of Islam. He just made an observation about political power.
As has been said, you’re reading too much into it.
Yes, he did. That was exactly the parallel he set up:
The leaders of Nazism are compared with Bin Laden as a leader, the reaction of people to their leaders being “dissed” is compared with the relation Muslims as a group to Bin Laden being ‘dissed’, and the actual splinter-sect who respected and followed Bin Laden is conflated with Islam as a whole.
This isn’t complicated.
Well, I’d be interested to know if anyone else, sees it that way. Not that majority opinion = correct, but when it comes to interpreting a written remark that doesn’t require specialist knowledge, big majority opinion usually = correct.
You might have a point if **NDD **implied that OBL’s body should have been subjected to degradation’s similar to executed Nazis, but I don’t see that he did.
The equivalence isn’t required to be based on Osama deserving treatment similar to the Nazi leadership’s corpses.
The equivalence is between the negative reaction of people who might have followed Nazism before it was discredited upon seeing their leaders dissed, and their reaction to and Islam-as-a-group to seeing Bin Laden dissed. That’s the salient fact, that the comparison wasn’t between the Nazis’ followers and Bin Laden’s followers, but the Nazis’ followers and Muslims as a whole.
Again:
-It’s the difference between saying “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Baruch Goldstein because there are a lot of Jews who still support their faith.” And “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Baruch Goldstein because a small but violently ideological splinter group of Jews might have taken that as an affront and engaged in retaliatory violence.”
-It’s the difference between saying “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Scott Roeder because there are a lot of Christians who still support their faith.” And “We could have dragged Hitler’s body through the streets by his ankles because, despite his status as a Nazi leader, Nazism was discredited. However, we couldn’t have done the same thing to Scott Roeder because a small but violently ideological splinter group of militant Christians might have taken that as an affront and engaged in retaliatory violence.”
*-It’s the difference between "At the time Nazism was a discredited ideology, so we could dis the leaders and get away with it. Currently, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, and most Muslims take their faith seriously. President Obama thought it would be unwise to anger them needlessly, especially when we need the support of as many as possible to protect us from the others. " and “At the time Nazism was a discredited ideology, so we could dis the leaders and get away with it. Currently, Bin Laden’s followers are a small but dangerous population. President Obama thought it would be unwise to grant them a rallying cry.”
*
Do you really not grok the difference?
Absolutely.
I wonder what kind of studies have been done to figure out what this is about? Because I’m definitely fascinated by gore, although not in association with revenge. I have exactly zero interest in seeing any particular person’s viscera, I’m just fascinated by it in a general way.
Seeing it up close a few times will cure you of that. The fascination wears off pretty quick like.
Again, understood it fine. Just disagree with your interpretation, because it completely (and apparently willfully) ignores the actual point that he was making.
But i guess this is just (another) one of those occasions where everyone else is wrong and you are the only one who grasps the truth.
I don’t really see any of that in his post, to be honest. I think you’re imputing a lot of stuff to that post that, at best, is not readily apparent.
He created an analogy, comparing how Nazis would have responded to their leaders being “dissed” with how Muslims as a group would react to Bin Laden’s corpse being disrespected. The analogy falls apart if Muslims don’t look at Bin Laden in the same manner that Nazis looked at their leaders. It’s predicated on that equivalence.
The accurate analogy would have been Nazis with Jihadists (or, at least, those Jihadists in Bin Laden’s camp), not Muslims as a whole. Instead, NDD compared Nazis as a group with Muslims as a group, and Nazis’ reactions to their leaders being mistreated to Muslims as a group’s reaction to Bin Laden being mistreated.
Acting as if “Nazi Leaders is to followers of Nazism” is analogous to “Bin Laden is to Muslims as a group” is fucked up. The analogy itself and the conflation between Jihads and Muslims as a group is what’s at issue.
Nope, you’re still neither addressing let alone understanding what I’ve actually said. Of course it directly addresses exactly the point he was saying, which was that the reaction of Nazis to their leadership’s treatment is analogous to Muslims, as a group’s, reaction to Bin Laden’s treatment. That’s why NDD didn’t say that mistreating Bin Laden’s remains would anger Bin Laden’s followers, but Muslims as a group.
You could actually address the facts any time now. Or maybe a few more bandwagon fallacies and ad hominem fallacies will really bolster your claims.
I don’t think the leadership aspect is a necessary part of the analogy. Merely being a member of the group is sufficient for the analogy. Some people (such as bin Laden himself) have a vested interest in portraying the West as being deliberately hostile to Islam as a whole. The treatment of bin Laden’s serves as a counter-balance to this message: by not desecrating his corpse, we made it clear that it was not his faith that made him our enemy. When it came to the Nazi war crimes tribunals, however, there was no such need to make that distinction: there was no need to send a message to other Nazis that we weren’t opposed to them, because we were explicitly dedicated to the destruction of their political movement.
At least, that’s how I read the analogy.
Even if it wasn’t, there’s still the same problem with: “Nazi war criminals are to Nazis in general as a group” is analogous to “Bin Laden is to Muslims as a group.”
This thread, after all, was about people who wanted to see pictures of Bin Laden’s corpse. NDD’s comments were about people who saw the Nazis’ corpses, not about people who wanted to anti-religiously desecrate Bin Laden’s corpse. We could have shown pictures of his corpse and given him a full Islamic funeral, they’re not mutually exclusive.
And the analogy that was set up was specifically about how the Nazi leaders could be disrespected because their ideology had been discredited, but [other person] couldn’t be disrespected because [other ideology] is still quite popular.