US politics - Yes country for old men

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

59 minutes ago, Darryk said:

You guys are going off on tangents. All I said was I have no respect for anyone who celebrates the death of US soldiers and suddenly we're having a history lesson.

No that's not all you said.  You said this:

 

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

@The Anti-Targ

 

Which other country's military's personnel are you talking about? American's main enemies over the past few decades have been terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and I certainly don't cry for any of their deaths.

I think soldiers are special because they're putting their lives on the line. Anyone who puts their life on the line, whether it be soldiers, policemen or firemen gets extra respect from me.

That what's people are responding to.  Some of us don't think that "putting their lives in the line" is anything special, or at least nothing to romanticize.  

And some of us just use the word "apologia" any chance we can get. 

 

 

By the way, great thread title

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn

[Darryk]

2 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Again, was that what I said?

You said that you think soldiers are special because they put their lives on the line. I pointed out that lots of people put their lives on the line in pursuit of evil. Therefore, putting one's life on the line should not automatically be worthy of respect.

 

Obviously I meant not terrorism. I don't have the time or energy to account for every caveat you might think of.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

And some of us just use the word "apologia" any chance we can get. 

I like the word apologia.  It encompasses much of what people here do (myself included) in not quite endorsing particular points of view but attempting to walk back claims those views are really bad.  It is pointing out nuance… and isn’t all that bad a thing to do.

Edited March 7 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Liffguard]

Just now, Darryk said:

Obviously I meant not terrorism. I don't have the time or energy to account for every caveat you might think of.

First, what is terrorism?

Secondly, even if we extend our special appreciation only to the uniformed armed personnel of legitimate states, does that include the invaders of Ukraine? Iraqi soldiers invading Kuwait?

[Darryk]

1 minute ago, Liffguard said:

First, what is terrorism?

Good grief.

I knew coming into this thread was a mistake.

[Liffguard]

Just now, Darryk said:

Good grief.

I knew coming into this thread was a mistake.

It's an honest question. Terrorism is a notoriously slippery concept to define properly. Is there a clear distinction between a terrorist and a guerilla fighter? Is a guerilla fighter necesserily less morally praiseworthy than a uniformed soldier? Is the difference between terorrisim and "legitimate" military violence in the choice of target? Is it in possessing the sanction of a recognised state? Is a terrorist who suicide bombs a civilian street to be condemned and a military pilot who drops a bomb on a civilian street to be praised?

All genuinely thorny questions IMO. Not as easy as praiseworthy soldiers and despicable terrorists.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I like the word apologia.  It encompasses much of what people here do (myself included) in not quite endorsing particular points of view but attempting to walk back claims those views are really bad.  It is pointing out nuance… and isn’t all that bad a thing to do.

The nuance is what gets obscured.  There's nothing nuanced about hearing A, which is two logical leaps away from B, and upon hearing A crying "that's B apologia!" It actually frustrates the ability to have a discussion about how they are different.  Particularly when B is something pretty bad.  Particularly when it's done in the format of leading questions that ascribe B to someone you're trying to have discussion with.  

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

First, what is terrorism?

Secondly, even if we extend our special appreciation only to the uniformed armed personnel of legitimate states, does that include the invaders of Ukraine? Iraqi soldiers invading Kuwait?

Or US and UK soldiers invading Iraq, and under false pretenses? 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

These past few months I keep getting reminded of the various lefty artists and intellectuals of earlier decades who rightly criticized US policies...but also blindly and blithely praised and protected the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, ad infinitum. And typically only acknowledged their errors much later in life, mostly to avoid embarrassment.

Anti-colonial arguments are obviously rooted in real concerns and real injustices, but among the left it has proven to be one of the most seductive paths to the dark side (to switch my pop fiction reference).

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

These past few months I keep getting reminded of the various lefty artists and intellectuals of earlier decades who rightly criticized US policies...but also blindly and blithely praised and protected the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, ad infinitum. And typically only acknowledged their errors much later in life, mostly to avoid embarrassment.

Anti-colonial arguments are obviously rooted in real concerns and real injustices, but among the left it has proven to be one of the most seductive paths to the dark side (to switch my pop fiction reference).

How is it a path?  How do you know that anti-colonialism is the culprit?

 

Eta: also, might be helpful to name some names.  There are plenty of artists and writers and intellectuals who had staunch anti-colonial views and managed to not do that.  

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How is it a path?  How do you know that anti-colonialism is the culprit?

 

Eta: also, might be helpful to name some names.  There are plenty of artists and writers and intellectuals who had staunch anti-colonial views and managed to not do that.  

Norm Chomsky flat out defended Pol Pot.  

[Phylum of Alexandria]

44 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How is it a path?  How do you know that anti-colonialism is the culprit?

This comment feels like trolling to me.

If you're seriously asking: The earlier support for communist regimes always focused on the exploitation of Western colonial powers. And indeed, that was a huge focus of communist propaganda, their whole rationale for a global communist movement: for the oppressed to rise up against their oppressors and claim power. Even for people who weren't explicitly communist, it was hard not to sympathize with and indulge that moral narrative. (and indeed, as I said, it was rooted in real concerns and real injustices).

With respect to Gaza, I have noticed that the most strident positions, including the sick fuck who killed himself, frame the conflict in terms of Israel being an oppressive colonizing force. That's why I made the connection. And I'm guessing that's why y'all are quick to minimize and paper over this dude's extremism, because you're mostly sympathetic to that moral narrative. Or at least something close to it.

If you have some other opinion on the matter, please share your thoughts. These threads are not well suited for the Socratic technique of interrogation, even when delivered in good faith.

Edit: You edited your comment to ask for some examples.  I recently wrote this short piece for a pop culture blog, concerning Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, both staunch supporters of Joseph Stalin.

https://www.tnocs.com/free4all-part-4-take-this-hammer/

They were the ones most prominently on my mind. But there's also Foucault and Sartre, the Black Panthers who embraced Maoism. People like Chomsky were also common: those who think the uprisings are a good thing, and then back away when the new regime inevitably falls into despotism. It would be an easier practice to find someone who was anti-colonial who wasn't in some way minimizing or sympathetic to extremist violence and communistic revolution overseas.

Edited March 7 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Norm Chomsky flat out defended Pol Pot.  

He did, although he at least changed his course once the regime proved despotic. People like Michel Foucault, not so much.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

If you're gonna compare American soldiers to 9/11 terrorists then you're a frigging lunatic, simple as that.

I feel sympathy for Russian soldiers since they're being forced to fight by a tyrannical dictator but I care more about US soldiers, sorry.

You might not belive it, but for many  the usa soldiers  ARE the terrorists, just ask the survivors of us drone bombings, and a long long list of simillar or worse "terrorists" attacks

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

and the justification of evil.

Now thats fucking funny

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

You might not belive it, but for many  the usa soldiers  ARE the terrorists, just ask the survivors of us drone bombings, and a long long list of simillar or worse "terrorists" attacks

Your thoughts on Norm Chomsky’s defense of Pol Pot?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Now thats fucking funny

Not at all. Dude was a sick fuck who rationalized Hamas' murder of innocents. That's evil.

It's not the only evil around, but it's evil.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Your thoughts on Norm Chomsky’s defense of Pol Pot?

Dont give a fuck. Actions taken by the usa goverment and military could and should be viewed as terrorist in nature

[Conflicting Thought]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Not at all. Dude was a sick fuck who rationalized Hamas' murder of innocents. That's evil.

It's not the only evil around, but it's evil.

So are we aloud now to speak on the genocide taking place in gaza and the west bank?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Dont give a fuck. Actions taken by the usa goverment and military could and should be viewed as terrorist in nature

Indeed.  On some occasions you are correct.  Why don’t you give a fuck about Norm Chomsky defending genocide?