Where's the link? December 4, 2010 12:55 PM Subscribe
The latest Wikileaks post claims someone sent an email without any apparent link to anything regarding the existence of that email. That is all.
Thanks for posting this. At the very least the title should be changed. He's not speaking for the State Dept.
posted by fixedgear at 1:00 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 1:00 PM on December 4, 2010
I thought that was considered thread-jacking, but ok. Overall, though, it is still a rather insubstantial post.
posted by Ardiril at 1:00 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ardiril at 1:00 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I emailed with fixedgear about this. The only way we'll edit a post this late in the game is if the OP says it's okay with them and we can do so in a way that doesn't make the post-being-discussed a totally different thread than the one everyone else wasn't replying to. As you might gather, I'm not paying that much attention to that thread, so if I'm missing the point of why this is here instead of there, my apologies.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:03 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:03 PM on December 4, 2010
Could we change the title to Columbia J school alum emails Alma mater to express his opinion?
posted by fixedgear at 1:06 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 1:06 PM on December 4, 2010
Talk to the OP and have them talk to us, we won't change a post without the okay from the OP.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:10 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:10 PM on December 4, 2010
I posted this here because, as you say, the thread has developed legs despite its lack of a substantiating link to the opinion expressed in the original post.
posted by Ardiril at 1:10 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ardiril at 1:10 PM on December 4, 2010
My feeling with this stuff is that clarifications in the thread are the right, and sufficient, solution to someone getting the details wrong in a post. Like Jess said, substantially changing the meaning of the post itself after people have already been talking about the post and about what's incorrect in the framing makes for a weird moving target and for a sense of retconning that makes a fresh read of it more confusing than necessary. We have made significant changes to the content of a post so rarely that I can't actually recall the last time we did it off hand.
Mefi isn't a news source. A post getting the details wrong may be annoying but the role of the site is not to disseminate facts or to stake out a journalistic role on the web; it's okay to just say "well, no, that's not right" within the thread for the benefit of the people actually bothering to read the thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:32 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mefi isn't a news source. A post getting the details wrong may be annoying but the role of the site is not to disseminate facts or to stake out a journalistic role on the web; it's okay to just say "well, no, that's not right" within the thread for the benefit of the people actually bothering to read the thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:32 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Source of email. Point is the OP, who says that English is not his first language, didn't even bother to link to the source. The title is 'Government reaction to Wikileaks, which is misleading.
posted by fixedgear at 1:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fixedgear at 1:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well, as we have all learned over the past few weeks, government is bad. So the misleading nature of the post doesn't matter anyway.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:13 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 2:13 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Could we change the title to Columbia J school alum emails Alma mater to express his opinion?
And then change J school to public policy school, since that's what SIPA is.
posted by naoko at 2:51 PM on December 4, 2010
And then change J school to public policy school, since that's what SIPA is.
posted by naoko at 2:51 PM on December 4, 2010
Doesn't matter since nothing is getting changed anyway.
posted by fixedgear at 2:58 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 2:58 PM on December 4, 2010
Has anyone emailed the OP? We can make changes if they are important if the OP asks us to. Have you guys all killfiled me or something?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:59 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:59 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Wow, what a crap post. It's mostly links to a bunch of homepages, and a few news links that I think are being discussed in the more substantial and still-active thread from last week.
posted by Gator at 3:12 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Gator at 3:12 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I did memail the OP, Jessamyn. His location says The Alps so maybe it's a time difference thing. It links back to the current open thread, Gator. Essentially the same stuff is being discussed in two places.
posted by fixedgear at 3:16 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fixedgear at 3:16 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
You see what happens?
posted by Dumsnill at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by Dumsnill at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2010 [10 favorites]
What a train wreck. People are out and out insulting people, saying that Bradley Manning "will be better remembered than some of the people posting on this thread."
That shit has got to stop. Argue all you want, but don't shit on people for no reason.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
That shit has got to stop. Argue all you want, but don't shit on people for no reason.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's cool guys , I just called Columbia to tell them to ignore the first email and they are going to shoot out a new email in the morning telling everyone to friend wikileaks on facebook.
posted by Ad hominem at 3:37 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 3:37 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
This MeTa thread just now came to my attention. Agreed that the linked Mefi OP was crap, but I'm beginning to wonder if the post I made in the thread (two hours before this MeTa thread was started, btw) is invisible or something. In it, I provided two links to sources I knew of, plus one related item regarding Boston U. No seems to have noticed the lack of a source link in the OP before I made that post, but three people have since, all of whom seem not to have noticed my post.
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
posted by Marla Singer at 3:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
posted by Marla Singer at 3:38 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah Marla, I read your links, and found the link fixedgear posted and one other by a blogger who says he was forwarded the email. Even if an alum called Columbia, and the email really did go out, it's not an official statement by the state department telling everyone to bury thier heads in the sand.
posted by Ad hominem at 3:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ad hominem at 3:43 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm a bit surprised that nobody is upset that Columbia gets a heads up and everyone else gets jack. If the call and email is real I'm sure other colleges got the same message and are just not forwarding it to everybody.
posted by Ad hominem at 3:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ad hominem at 3:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Its been a beautiful week, watching sad, sad people feebly attempting to frame a whistleblowing effort as somehow "evil". Shit, last time I checked there was massive popular support for slowing down the mad American dash for retarded international glory.
I've been gladdened to see people who should know better shitting themselves hard when someone manages the kind of radical action required. No, wait, it's not radical. No, wait, it is! Gee, I wish people could make up their minds. And when I say 'people' I mean 'people with a nice thick authoritarian streak that just about cuts their brain in half.'
This is just attacking people, not responding to them. Also -1 for dersins for calling the OP a "genius." Not called for.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:48 PM on December 4, 2010
That shit has got to stop. Argue all you want, but don't shit on people for no reason.
Not that I disagree, but callouts of this nature need to be here not there. Bitching everyone out for namecalling in the thread by pullquoting nasty remarks gets in the way of us being able to try to manage the conversation at some level.
And really, yeah, it's not a great post but by the time I saw it this morning there were people actively discussing it and I'm not personally reading any of the Wikileaks posts. We had to weigh the ups and downs of deleting it and getting people in MeTa hollering about how there hadn't been a Wikileaks post in days and leaving it and getting this sort of thread anyhow.
And yes, Joe Beese needs to stop making those "How does it sound if you say it about the Jews?" statements because they are toxic derails. Moving forward we'd appreciate if people would flag that sort of thing or bring it to our attention closer to when it's actually happening. By the time I saw dersin's comment it had been responded to by the OP and others. At that point we can't really remove it.
Just telling you how it's been going, not making excuses, but that's how it's been going.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:51 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Not that I disagree, but callouts of this nature need to be here not there. Bitching everyone out for namecalling in the thread by pullquoting nasty remarks gets in the way of us being able to try to manage the conversation at some level.
And really, yeah, it's not a great post but by the time I saw it this morning there were people actively discussing it and I'm not personally reading any of the Wikileaks posts. We had to weigh the ups and downs of deleting it and getting people in MeTa hollering about how there hadn't been a Wikileaks post in days and leaving it and getting this sort of thread anyhow.
And yes, Joe Beese needs to stop making those "How does it sound if you say it about the Jews?" statements because they are toxic derails. Moving forward we'd appreciate if people would flag that sort of thing or bring it to our attention closer to when it's actually happening. By the time I saw dersin's comment it had been responded to by the OP and others. At that point we can't really remove it.
Just telling you how it's been going, not making excuses, but that's how it's been going.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:51 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
I'm not clear as to why it's Columbia getting an unfair "heads up" when it's just one alumnus making a suggestion his or her school, which was then passed along by the school, unless there's something else I'm missing. Presumably other State Department employees are welcome to contact their own alma maters and recommend similar action, should they so chose. For what it's worth, the Fletcher School at Tufts (which also has a lot of alumni at State) has not sent out any such warning to its students, although there has been some discussion of the issue on the student listserv. I would be curious to know if Harvard Kennedy School, SAIS, Woodrow Wilson, GW and Georgetown's foreign affairs schools, etc. have made any comment,
posted by naoko at 3:55 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by naoko at 3:55 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Joe Beese needs to stop making those How does it sound if you say it about the Jews?" statements because they are toxic derails.
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:56 PM on December 4, 2010
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
posted by Joe Beese at 3:56 PM on December 4, 2010
Also -1 for dersins for calling the OP a "genius." Not called for.
Yeah. That was extremely lame of me. I got het up and jumped right over the dickishness line. My apologies.
posted by dersins at 4:02 PM on December 4, 2010
Yeah. That was extremely lame of me. I got het up and jumped right over the dickishness line. My apologies.
posted by dersins at 4:02 PM on December 4, 2010
One of the links said Georgetown got a call, and it seems Boston u got a call. But no word if manhattan community college got a call. That's how the "old boy's network works", there may be no BMCC alums in the state department, and now there might not be any. But that's way way beyond the scope of this discussion. If the calls went out, it's of course unofficial.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:03 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ad hominem at 4:03 PM on December 4, 2010
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
That second point amounts to name-calling at people with whom you disagree politically. Do you think that fosters a useful or debate, or do you think it's more likely to lead to name-calling back at you? And which of those two outcomes results in a better metafilter?
posted by dersins at 4:06 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
That second point amounts to name-calling at people with whom you disagree politically. Do you think that fosters a useful or debate, or do you think it's more likely to lead to name-calling back at you? And which of those two outcomes results in a better metafilter?
posted by dersins at 4:06 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Joe Beese needs to stop making those How does it sound if you say it about the Jews?" statements because they are toxic derails.
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
That's a personal attack Joe. You are just calling someone by the name 'totalitarian.' Its Godwinning the thread. It just increases the level of bile and adds no 'point' at all. And it breaks the guidelines.
Disagreeing with people's arguments is just fine. But applying an epithet to them, or telling them how they 'really' think or that they don't care about little babies getting killed (Delmoi said that about me last week) isn't arguing or making a 'point.' Its just spitting venom.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:11 PM on December 4, 2010
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I would like to make the second point in some way, if possible.
That's a personal attack Joe. You are just calling someone by the name 'totalitarian.' Its Godwinning the thread. It just increases the level of bile and adds no 'point' at all. And it breaks the guidelines.
Disagreeing with people's arguments is just fine. But applying an epithet to them, or telling them how they 'really' think or that they don't care about little babies getting killed (Delmoi said that about me last week) isn't arguing or making a 'point.' Its just spitting venom.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:11 PM on December 4, 2010
On preview, what Dersins said.
Appreciate your mea culpa too.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:13 PM on December 4, 2010
Appreciate your mea culpa too.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:13 PM on December 4, 2010
Sorry, Marla, I did read your post and the three links provided. But it wasn't your job to fully flesh out a basically crap post. The link to the Atlantic story is essentially the same email that I received at work, down to the 'introducing classified materials into our unclassified network.' Notice how the guy calls his old school instead of emailing, because, y'know, emails get forwarded, but everyone likes a nice friendly phone chat.
posted by fixedgear at 4:15 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fixedgear at 4:15 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Just the "Jew" part? Or the "here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me" thing in general?
I do not want to have another MetaTalk conversation with you about this topic. You need to learn to dial it back in those sorts of threads without us telling you explicitly how to do it. The Jew allegory was only the most problematic and easily explicable [and most flagged] part of that thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:17 PM on December 4, 2010
I do not want to have another MetaTalk conversation with you about this topic. You need to learn to dial it back in those sorts of threads without us telling you explicitly how to do it. The Jew allegory was only the most problematic and easily explicable [and most flagged] part of that thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:17 PM on December 4, 2010
Surprised it wasn't a chat in the NYAC sauna,or smith and wollensky, maybe they aren't that tight.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:21 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ad hominem at 4:21 PM on December 4, 2010
here is how you sound like a totalitarian to me
Focus on the ideas, not the person.
"Here is how that idea sounds totalitarian to me."
posted by mediareport at 4:30 PM on December 4, 2010
Focus on the ideas, not the person.
"Here is how that idea sounds totalitarian to me."
posted by mediareport at 4:30 PM on December 4, 2010
Just asking, did a mod change my linking on my clearance guidelines comment? I had linked to the whole text, but when I saw it only one part was linked. If that is a preferred way of doing that I'd be glad to do it that way. Just let me know.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:08 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ironmouth at 5:08 PM on December 4, 2010
Yeah having a big block of hyperlinked text can be tough for readability and it sort of makes screenreaders choke [I don't even know if we have users who use them hoqever] so usually linking to a sentence or a header beats linking to eight paragraphs of text.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:12 PM on December 4, 2010
Sorry, Marla, I did read your post and the three links provided. But it wasn't your job to fully flesh out a basically crap post.
I'm just helpful like that.
posted by Marla Singer at 5:17 PM on December 4, 2010
I'm just helpful like that.
posted by Marla Singer at 5:17 PM on December 4, 2010
Question for the mods and whomever: What is the best way to deal with comments in a thread that are let's say problematic in that there is some measure of personal aggression (totally realizing that I have made comments that fall in this category:
1. Flag and ignore
2. Flag and calmly post a comment that describes one's objection
3. Flag and start a metatalk
I am honestly not sure which of these routes to pursue. I am also a relative n00b, so nobody eat me.
posted by angrycat at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010
1. Flag and ignore
2. Flag and calmly post a comment that describes one's objection
3. Flag and start a metatalk
I am honestly not sure which of these routes to pursue. I am also a relative n00b, so nobody eat me.
posted by angrycat at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2010
jessamyn : And yes, Joe Beese needs to stop making those "How does it sound if you say it about the Jews?" statements because they are toxic derails.
Sorry, but I think many of us considered it a perfectly appropriate comment. You, of course, get the final vote on these matters, but you can't call it a black-and-white toxic derail while ignoring the original post.
If saying something about one group would cause offense or outrage if you said the same thing about the Jews - You might just have an offensive statement regardless of the target group.
Or to put it another way...
rtha : Joe Beese, if an analogy takes that much explaining, then it's a really bad analogy. Give it up.
Except, it doesn't take that much explaining. I think we all "got" it the first time, and he only had to explain it because a few people didn't want to get it.
posted by pla at 5:27 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Sorry, but I think many of us considered it a perfectly appropriate comment. You, of course, get the final vote on these matters, but you can't call it a black-and-white toxic derail while ignoring the original post.
If saying something about one group would cause offense or outrage if you said the same thing about the Jews - You might just have an offensive statement regardless of the target group.
Or to put it another way...
rtha : Joe Beese, if an analogy takes that much explaining, then it's a really bad analogy. Give it up.
Except, it doesn't take that much explaining. I think we all "got" it the first time, and he only had to explain it because a few people didn't want to get it.
posted by pla at 5:27 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
If saying something about one group would cause offense or outrage if you said the same thing about the Jews - You might just have an offensive statement regardless of the target group.
You also might have a statement that is absurd to the point of farce, and when leveled as an accusation against those who disagree with you becomes patently offensive.
posted by kafziel at 5:30 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
You also might have a statement that is absurd to the point of farce, and when leveled as an accusation against those who disagree with you becomes patently offensive.
posted by kafziel at 5:30 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
I am honestly not sure which of these routes to pursue
ignore
calmly post a comment that describes one's objection
start a metatalk
I'm a nOOb too and hardly know what the flag is other then to bring an issue to a mod without commenting first?
posted by clavdivs at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2010
ignore
calmly post a comment that describes one's objection
start a metatalk
I'm a nOOb too and hardly know what the flag is other then to bring an issue to a mod without commenting first?
posted by clavdivs at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2010
If saying something about one group would cause offense or outrage if you said the same thing about the Jews - You might just have an offensive statement regardless of the target group.
Sure, and if that's the only way you can get your point across that something might be offensive, you may not be trying hard enough to make yourself understood. You can easily silence a otherwise-friendly discussion about gender by saying "That sounds like something a rapist would say" and then claim plausible denial that you wren't actually calling that person a rapist, but it's dirty pool and not a good way to get your point across. If people don't understand why these sorts of problematic statements aren't okay, there's a whole community of people here to help them understand.
angrycat: I personally lean towardss flag and make a singular mild comment indicating the objection you have. MetaTalk is a terrific option as well. The key is to disengage personally and if you can't do it in any other way than just ignoring it, ignore it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Sure, and if that's the only way you can get your point across that something might be offensive, you may not be trying hard enough to make yourself understood. You can easily silence a otherwise-friendly discussion about gender by saying "That sounds like something a rapist would say" and then claim plausible denial that you wren't actually calling that person a rapist, but it's dirty pool and not a good way to get your point across. If people don't understand why these sorts of problematic statements aren't okay, there's a whole community of people here to help them understand.
angrycat: I personally lean towardss flag and make a singular mild comment indicating the objection you have. MetaTalk is a terrific option as well. The key is to disengage personally and if you can't do it in any other way than just ignoring it, ignore it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Flag it and it write a non nasty comment calling them out. We are sort of community blog here, so I think calling out of personal attacks is generally good, in that it sets a more positive tone.
If it's really nasty or personal, I hit up the mods via the contact form (linked at bottom of every page).
Then I do an interpretative dance on the inhumanity of it all.
posted by nomadicink at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2010
If it's really nasty or personal, I hit up the mods via the contact form (linked at bottom of every page).
Then I do an interpretative dance on the inhumanity of it all.
posted by nomadicink at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2010
In general I think replace Group A with Group B is a sound and logical argument, even though it is hated around here. In general, I agree with much of what Joe says around here. The comparison Joe used in this case was just stone cold stupid though.
The difference being that between 1939 and 1945, you would have been keeping secrets on behalf of fighting war crimes rather than supporting them.
Local leaders People everywhere should understand that if you harbor Al Qaeda leaders Jews we... may kill the people we seek or... your kids, your wife, you inlaws, cousins etc. This is the price you will pay based on your bad judgement.
If we want to make this comparison between then and now, it would be more appropriate to compare to people harboring Nazis, not to people harboring Jews. The Nazis and Al-Qaeda both committed serious crimes against humanity, and more crimes against humanity have been committed in stopping them. At some level, the people who committed the original atrocities take some of the blame for what happens after. The Jews committed no such crime prior to the Holocaust. I know Joe is aware of this, I'm justing pointing it out to highlight why the analogy is flawed.
The US is doing what it is doing in an attempt to respond to an attack that attempted to decapitate the financial, military, and legislative bodies of the nation. They are making SERIOUS errors in the process, but the fear that is driving the madness is real. It is not on the same moral ground as unprovoked genocide both because it was provoked and because there is real effort to minimise innocent casualties, way more effort than in 1939-1945.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:44 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
The difference being that between 1939 and 1945, you would have been keeping secrets on behalf of fighting war crimes rather than supporting them.
If we want to make this comparison between then and now, it would be more appropriate to compare to people harboring Nazis, not to people harboring Jews. The Nazis and Al-Qaeda both committed serious crimes against humanity, and more crimes against humanity have been committed in stopping them. At some level, the people who committed the original atrocities take some of the blame for what happens after. The Jews committed no such crime prior to the Holocaust. I know Joe is aware of this, I'm justing pointing it out to highlight why the analogy is flawed.
The US is doing what it is doing in an attempt to respond to an attack that attempted to decapitate the financial, military, and legislative bodies of the nation. They are making SERIOUS errors in the process, but the fear that is driving the madness is real. It is not on the same moral ground as unprovoked genocide both because it was provoked and because there is real effort to minimise innocent casualties, way more effort than in 1939-1945.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:44 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Replacing group A with group B for purposes of analogy is a valid tactic. The bigotry of anti-gay-marriage proposals can often be thrown into relief merely by substituting "gay" with "black," for instance.
As for the specific example Joe chose and the way he used it... all I'm going to say is that he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction he got (and he probably wasn't).
posted by Marla Singer at 6:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
As for the specific example Joe chose and the way he used it... all I'm going to say is that he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction he got (and he probably wasn't).
posted by Marla Singer at 6:22 PM on December 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
Replacing group A with group B for purposes of analogy is a valid tactic. The bigotry of anti-gay-marriage proposals can often be thrown into relief merely by substituting "gay" with "black," for instance.
Indeed it is, when it's an apt analogy. Sometimes the analogy is ridiculous, and instead of a valid tactic it's an attempt to poison any future debate.
posted by kafziel at 6:28 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Indeed it is, when it's an apt analogy. Sometimes the analogy is ridiculous, and instead of a valid tactic it's an attempt to poison any future debate.
posted by kafziel at 6:28 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Focus on the ideas, not the person. "Here is how that idea sounds totalitarian to me."
That was how it sounded totalitarian to me.
I read the words that humanfont wrote and I thought "Just change the names and this sounds like the kind of dialogue you'd give to a movie Nazi."
-----------
23. INT - MAJOR STRASSER'S OFFICE - NIGHT
STRASSER
Strasser leans back in his desk chair and smiles coldly at Renault, slowly bending his riding crop.
People everywhere should understand that if you harbor Jews, we may kill the people we seek or...
(pauses for effect)
your children. Your wife. Your in-laws. Cousins.
(chuckles)
Etcetera.
24. REACTION SHOT - CLOSEUP
Renault has difficulty suppressing his horror at this Nazi ruthlessness.
STRASSER (v.o.)
This is the price you will pay based on your bad judgement.
-----------
If I wanted to focus on the person, I would have posted that in the blue and asked "Do you realize how much like a Nazi you sound?"
Instead, I focused on the ideas. I simply substituted the names and said, in effect, "How does it sound to everyone now?"
If other people wanted to focus on the ideas, they could identify the specific historical circumstance that makes it morally different when we exhibit this attitude towards the lives of the defenseless civilians whose country we are occupying than when the Germans exhibited it.
Instead, they focused on the person:
Joe, do you actually expect people to take you seriously when you compare members of a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of civilians with holocaust victims? Because, really, that sounds kind of unhinged to me.
If I wanted to focus on the person, I would have replied "I don't give a fuck if you take me seriously."
Instead, I focused on the idea, explaining as clearly I could my 3-point justification for making the comparison.
If other people wanted to focus on the idea, they could have identified which of my three comparisons was invalid and why.
Instead, they focused on the person:
Joe Beese, if an analogy takes that much explaining, then it's a really bad analogy. Give it up.
---
Joe, it wasn't so much STFU as it was, Joe, you've crossed the line again. You know what the line is. You are arguing with an analogy that manages to be both incredibly complicated and very offensive at the same time. ...
---
Seriously, he's saying "you guys suck" and that's it. He's not presenting argument at all.
----------
Enough with 'ridiculous" and "absurd to the point of farce". I am not impressed by the dignity of your sniffing.
Identify which of the three comparisons I made between Nazi military behavior and ours is factually incorrect. Or identify the specific historical circumstance that makes the comparison misleading.
Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:56 PM on December 4, 2010
That was how it sounded totalitarian to me.
I read the words that humanfont wrote and I thought "Just change the names and this sounds like the kind of dialogue you'd give to a movie Nazi."
-----------
23. INT - MAJOR STRASSER'S OFFICE - NIGHT
STRASSER
Strasser leans back in his desk chair and smiles coldly at Renault, slowly bending his riding crop.
People everywhere should understand that if you harbor Jews, we may kill the people we seek or...
(pauses for effect)
your children. Your wife. Your in-laws. Cousins.
(chuckles)
Etcetera.
24. REACTION SHOT - CLOSEUP
Renault has difficulty suppressing his horror at this Nazi ruthlessness.
STRASSER (v.o.)
This is the price you will pay based on your bad judgement.
-----------
If I wanted to focus on the person, I would have posted that in the blue and asked "Do you realize how much like a Nazi you sound?"
Instead, I focused on the ideas. I simply substituted the names and said, in effect, "How does it sound to everyone now?"
If other people wanted to focus on the ideas, they could identify the specific historical circumstance that makes it morally different when we exhibit this attitude towards the lives of the defenseless civilians whose country we are occupying than when the Germans exhibited it.
Instead, they focused on the person:
Joe, do you actually expect people to take you seriously when you compare members of a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of civilians with holocaust victims? Because, really, that sounds kind of unhinged to me.
If I wanted to focus on the person, I would have replied "I don't give a fuck if you take me seriously."
Instead, I focused on the idea, explaining as clearly I could my 3-point justification for making the comparison.
If other people wanted to focus on the idea, they could have identified which of my three comparisons was invalid and why.
Instead, they focused on the person:
Joe Beese, if an analogy takes that much explaining, then it's a really bad analogy. Give it up.
---
Joe, it wasn't so much STFU as it was, Joe, you've crossed the line again. You know what the line is. You are arguing with an analogy that manages to be both incredibly complicated and very offensive at the same time. ...
---
Seriously, he's saying "you guys suck" and that's it. He's not presenting argument at all.
----------
Enough with 'ridiculous" and "absurd to the point of farce". I am not impressed by the dignity of your sniffing.
Identify which of the three comparisons I made between Nazi military behavior and ours is factually incorrect. Or identify the specific historical circumstance that makes the comparison misleading.
Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:56 PM on December 4, 2010
Marla: Follow-up links in long threads tend to drown in the noise.
posted by Ardiril at 7:03 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ardiril at 7:03 PM on December 4, 2010
Marla: Follow-up links in long threads tend to drown in the noise.
What?
What?
posted by Marla Singer at 7:24 PM on December 4, 2010
What?
What?
posted by Marla Singer at 7:24 PM on December 4, 2010
Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted.
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
When the opposite is actually true: many critics of the current US policy are holding it to higher standards than anyone else, and then complaining when the US has the same failings as any group of people would in similar situations.
Also, look up what "occupying a country" means. I don't think actual imperialists occupying countries let them have their own governments and vote and such. The US does enough bad stuff, you don't really need to exaggerate.
posted by gjc at 7:25 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
When the opposite is actually true: many critics of the current US policy are holding it to higher standards than anyone else, and then complaining when the US has the same failings as any group of people would in similar situations.
Also, look up what "occupying a country" means. I don't think actual imperialists occupying countries let them have their own governments and vote and such. The US does enough bad stuff, you don't really need to exaggerate.
posted by gjc at 7:25 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think actual imperialists occupying countries let them have their own governments and vote and such.
"Afghan presidential elction, 2009 - Perceived U.S. Interference" gets 5 whole subsections.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:33 PM on December 4, 2010
"Afghan presidential elction, 2009 - Perceived U.S. Interference" gets 5 whole subsections.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:33 PM on December 4, 2010
Oh, almost forgot...
[[ Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted. ]]
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America are, by definition, examples of American Exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:41 PM on December 4, 2010
[[ Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted. ]]
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America are, by definition, examples of American Exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:41 PM on December 4, 2010
Identify which of the three comparisons I made between Nazi military behavior and ours is factually incorrect. Or identify the specific historical circumstance that makes the comparison misleading.
You can be factually correct and still be derailing and/or troll-seeming. Please do not turn this thread into Ask Joe Beese, people are welcome to chat with you over email.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
You can be factually correct and still be derailing and/or troll-seeming. Please do not turn this thread into Ask Joe Beese, people are welcome to chat with you over email.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:46 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America are, by definition, examples of American Exceptionalism.
Not logical. Someone could equally believe in the inherent goodness of the US, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, and Iceland, and in the inherent badness of Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Andorra.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:49 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Not logical. Someone could equally believe in the inherent goodness of the US, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, and Iceland, and in the inherent badness of Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Andorra.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:49 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
How could anyone think that Andorra was bad? Now Monaco, those bastards....
posted by fixedgear at 8:03 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 8:03 PM on December 4, 2010
I don't think actual imperialists occupying countries let them have their own governments and vote and such.
Then you probably have some history to read.
posted by blucevalo at 8:13 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Then you probably have some history to read.
posted by blucevalo at 8:13 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Please do not turn this thread into Ask Joe Beese
That was not my choice.
people are welcome to chat with you over email
Yes, just as I invited people to do 12 minutes before this thread was taken over for the purpose of being seen telling me "don't shit on people with no reason".
If people feel "shat on" for having the areas of resemblance between their rhetoric and Nazi rhetoric pointed out, what can I tell you?
posted by Joe Beese at 8:25 PM on December 4, 2010
That was not my choice.
people are welcome to chat with you over email
Yes, just as I invited people to do 12 minutes before this thread was taken over for the purpose of being seen telling me "don't shit on people with no reason".
If people feel "shat on" for having the areas of resemblance between their rhetoric and Nazi rhetoric pointed out, what can I tell you?
posted by Joe Beese at 8:25 PM on December 4, 2010
Identify which of the three comparisons I made between Nazi military behavior and ours is factually incorrect. Or identify the specific historical circumstance that makes the comparison misleading.
Your comparisons were shallow and silly, whether they were factually correct or not. The groups have to share the same relevant characteristics in order for the comparison between governmental treatment of each to matter at all. I believe, for instance, that "we should lock up murderers," even if replacing the group "murderers" with the group "Jews" would make it offensive.
In other news, the Nazis (1) wore pants, (2) used a 12-month calendar, and (3) ate chicken. As do we all. See, I can make lists, too.
posted by palliser at 8:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
Your comparisons were shallow and silly, whether they were factually correct or not. The groups have to share the same relevant characteristics in order for the comparison between governmental treatment of each to matter at all. I believe, for instance, that "we should lock up murderers," even if replacing the group "murderers" with the group "Jews" would make it offensive.
In other news, the Nazis (1) wore pants, (2) used a 12-month calendar, and (3) ate chicken. As do we all. See, I can make lists, too.
posted by palliser at 8:31 PM on December 4, 2010 [5 favorites]
We should kill soy plants Jews and turn the remains in to soap and candles.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:57 PM on December 4, 2010
We should kill soy plants Jews and turn the remains in to soap and candles.
So in other words, you can't compare suspected al Qaeda to Jews because one is human and one isn't.
Got it.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:13 PM on December 4, 2010
So in other words, you can't compare suspected al Qaeda to Jews because one is human and one isn't.
Got it.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:13 PM on December 4, 2010
I apologize for making a silly comparison between two things that are not at all alike.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:19 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:19 PM on December 4, 2010
That was not my choice.
It is always your choice to engage or re-engage. It's a choice you seem to make in the affirmative an awful lot. It would be nice if you would do less of that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:26 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
It is always your choice to engage or re-engage. It's a choice you seem to make in the affirmative an awful lot. It would be nice if you would do less of that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:26 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
*sigh*
Joe, I'm far, very far, from believing in anything close to American exceptionalism, and overall I'm very much on you're side, but even I think it was a poorly constructed analogy. I will try to explain why as clearly as I can.
We all know that Nazis killed civilian Germans who harbored Jews, and and I think we all agree that was bad. But to use that as a template onto which to construct an analogy, the groups you're mapping onto have to be roughly congruent. (Is that the word I want? Sorry, I'm getting really tired.) And unfortunately, in this case they just aren't, and it renders the analogy nonsensical, even for people like me who agree with you.
I'm going to draw it out to see if I can help show where the problem is:
[Nazis (evil)] --- oppressing both ---> [German civilians (innocent)] and [Jews (innocent)]
[American military (evil)] --- oppressing both---> [Afghan civilians (innocent)] and [Al Qaida (evil)]
You're assuming that people are finding fault with your analogy on the left hand side, that it doesn't map correctly for them because Nazis=bad while America=good in their minds. That's not the problem. The problem is that Jews and Al Qaida don't map correctly.
What made the Nazis evil wasn't the fact that they were willing to kill innocent civilians to get to the Jews; it's the fact that that they were going after Jews in the first place. In order for your analogy to hold, the discussion would have to be one where America was persecuting innocent group A and was willing to shrug off the deaths of yet another innocent group B. Al Quaida, not being innocent, doesn't fit the bill for A or B, which is why you're getting all these objections.
posted by Marla Singer at 9:37 PM on December 4, 2010 [8 favorites]
Joe, I'm far, very far, from believing in anything close to American exceptionalism, and overall I'm very much on you're side, but even I think it was a poorly constructed analogy. I will try to explain why as clearly as I can.
We all know that Nazis killed civilian Germans who harbored Jews, and and I think we all agree that was bad. But to use that as a template onto which to construct an analogy, the groups you're mapping onto have to be roughly congruent. (Is that the word I want? Sorry, I'm getting really tired.) And unfortunately, in this case they just aren't, and it renders the analogy nonsensical, even for people like me who agree with you.
I'm going to draw it out to see if I can help show where the problem is:
[Nazis (evil)] --- oppressing both ---> [German civilians (innocent)] and [Jews (innocent)]
[American military (evil)] --- oppressing both---> [Afghan civilians (innocent)] and [Al Qaida (evil)]
You're assuming that people are finding fault with your analogy on the left hand side, that it doesn't map correctly for them because Nazis=bad while America=good in their minds. That's not the problem. The problem is that Jews and Al Qaida don't map correctly.
What made the Nazis evil wasn't the fact that they were willing to kill innocent civilians to get to the Jews; it's the fact that that they were going after Jews in the first place. In order for your analogy to hold, the discussion would have to be one where America was persecuting innocent group A and was willing to shrug off the deaths of yet another innocent group B. Al Quaida, not being innocent, doesn't fit the bill for A or B, which is why you're getting all these objections.
posted by Marla Singer at 9:37 PM on December 4, 2010 [8 favorites]
It took me forever to type out the above post, so I missed a few comments above it. It's not my intention to keep the discussion going if the mods want it to end. Joe (or anyone else) feel free to MeMail me in response, although I probably won't reply until tomorrow. It's past my bed time.
posted by Marla Singer at 10:05 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Marla Singer at 10:05 PM on December 4, 2010
Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted.
Really? Now you will tell us what you will accept and not accept for answers? I'm certain upon reflection, you would agree that you should retract those comments.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 PM on December 4, 2010
Really? Now you will tell us what you will accept and not accept for answers? I'm certain upon reflection, you would agree that you should retract those comments.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 PM on December 4, 2010
Here's the other problem, Joe, you totally insult people, and play emotional games and then you dramatically "withdraw" from the thread. Why not just stop saying such crap to people in the first place, instead of adding this extra drama?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 PM on December 4, 2010
posted by Ironmouth at 10:09 PM on December 4, 2010
Al Quaida, not being innocent
You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you think - as most do - that it makes a difference that the deaths we cause are "unintentional" - despite being the inevitable consequence of unleashing our war machine.
I am quite confident that it makes no difference to the relatives of those killed.
I am equally confident that you have no explanation of why you have more of a right than they do to say whether it makes a difference or not that does not depend on American Exceptionalism.
Joe, you totally insult people, and play emotional games and then you dramatically "withdraw" from the thread. Why not just stop saying such crap to people in the first place, instead of adding this extra drama?
I withdrew from the thread to keep the "how dare Joe Beese say that?" comments and my "this is how" replies from derailing the thread any more than they already had.
I invited you to MeFi mail me or anyone else you like your reasoned thoughts about why I suck. But that must have seemed an insufficient audience for you because 10 minutes later you took over this thread to do your bitching here.
"Adding this extra drama"? Give me a break.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:19 PM on December 4, 2010
You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you think - as most do - that it makes a difference that the deaths we cause are "unintentional" - despite being the inevitable consequence of unleashing our war machine.
I am quite confident that it makes no difference to the relatives of those killed.
I am equally confident that you have no explanation of why you have more of a right than they do to say whether it makes a difference or not that does not depend on American Exceptionalism.
Joe, you totally insult people, and play emotional games and then you dramatically "withdraw" from the thread. Why not just stop saying such crap to people in the first place, instead of adding this extra drama?
I withdrew from the thread to keep the "how dare Joe Beese say that?" comments and my "this is how" replies from derailing the thread any more than they already had.
I invited you to MeFi mail me or anyone else you like your reasoned thoughts about why I suck. But that must have seemed an insufficient audience for you because 10 minutes later you took over this thread to do your bitching here.
"Adding this extra drama"? Give me a break.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:19 PM on December 4, 2010
Joe, you totally insult people, and play emotional games and then you dramatically "withdraw" from the thread. Why not just stop saying such crap to people in the first place, instead of adding this extra drama?
I withdrew from the thread to keep the "how dare Joe Beese say that?" comments and my "this is how" replies from derailing the thread any more than they already had.
I invited you to MeFi mail me or anyone else you like your reasoned thoughts about why I suck. But that must have seemed an insufficient audience for you because 10 minutes later you took over this thread to do your bitching here.
"Adding this extra drama"? Give me a break.
you never answered the question--why not focus your responses on facts, figures and arguments, rather than calling people names?
and, for the record, I called out a bunch of people on both sides of the argument, including dersins. Not just you.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:28 PM on December 4, 2010
I withdrew from the thread to keep the "how dare Joe Beese say that?" comments and my "this is how" replies from derailing the thread any more than they already had.
I invited you to MeFi mail me or anyone else you like your reasoned thoughts about why I suck. But that must have seemed an insufficient audience for you because 10 minutes later you took over this thread to do your bitching here.
"Adding this extra drama"? Give me a break.
you never answered the question--why not focus your responses on facts, figures and arguments, rather than calling people names?
and, for the record, I called out a bunch of people on both sides of the argument, including dersins. Not just you.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:28 PM on December 4, 2010
Al Quaida, not being innocent
You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you think - as most do - that it makes a difference that the deaths we cause are "unintentional" - despite being the inevitable consequence of unleashing our war machine.
No. Where are you getting this from? Did you see the diagram I made for you? Killing civilians is bad when we do it, killing civilians is bad when they do it. We're bad, and they're bad. The point is that the Jews (in the context of Nazi Germany) didn't kill anyone at all -- they're an innocent party onto which you've mapped a guilty/bad/evil party in the construction of your analogy, and that's where the logical problem stems from. I can't believe you're not getting this. I might just have to give up.
posted by Marla Singer at 10:57 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you think - as most do - that it makes a difference that the deaths we cause are "unintentional" - despite being the inevitable consequence of unleashing our war machine.
No. Where are you getting this from? Did you see the diagram I made for you? Killing civilians is bad when we do it, killing civilians is bad when they do it. We're bad, and they're bad. The point is that the Jews (in the context of Nazi Germany) didn't kill anyone at all -- they're an innocent party onto which you've mapped a guilty/bad/evil party in the construction of your analogy, and that's where the logical problem stems from. I can't believe you're not getting this. I might just have to give up.
posted by Marla Singer at 10:57 PM on December 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
Identify which of the three comparisons I made between Nazi military behavior and ours is factually incorrect. Or identify the specific historical circumstance that makes the comparison misleading. Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted.
Certainly. Here:
2. The US government claims that al Qaeda is a threat to its existence - despite al Qaeda's lack of economic, political, or military power. The German government claimed that Jews were a threat to its existence - despite the Jews' lack of economic, political, or military power.
Al Qaeda (qua Osama bin Laden and his ideological associates) has caused considerable injury to the US and its allies by paramilitary means, September 11 2001 being the most spectacular - but far from the only - example. It is theorized that the 4th plane which crashed into a field on that day was intended to have hit the capitol, home of Congress. That constitutes a direct threat to the existence of the US government, quite aside of the civilian suffering and commercial costs which threaten a government indirectly. Could they threaten the US so severely again? Most unlikely; but then a 4-plane suicide hijacking didn't seem like a likely prospect either, until it took place. Ongoing US persecution of Al Qaeda is predicated not on an immediate existential danger, but on its history of persistent antagonism and skill in asymmetrical warfare.
Jewish people in and around Germany in the 1930s did not stage attacks upon the German government or even hold a coherent position towards it. They were members of a peaceful ethnic group by heredity, rather than being members of violent ideological one by choice.
No 'inherent goodness' required, or indeed any moral characterizations at all. Adamantly opposing US policy because you consider it to be morally deficient is a legitimate viewpoint, albeit one I don't share. But it doesn't lend your contention that Al Qaeda are just like German Jews a shred of validity.
(Al Quaida, not being innocent) You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what parallel injury the Jews in Germany had inflicted on the government of the time, then. Because while your goal was to show how you consider the US government to be just like the Nazis, I'm still not seeing what basis you have for saying that Al Qaeda are just like the Jews.
posted by anigbrowl at 11:14 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Certainly. Here:
2. The US government claims that al Qaeda is a threat to its existence - despite al Qaeda's lack of economic, political, or military power. The German government claimed that Jews were a threat to its existence - despite the Jews' lack of economic, political, or military power.
Al Qaeda (qua Osama bin Laden and his ideological associates) has caused considerable injury to the US and its allies by paramilitary means, September 11 2001 being the most spectacular - but far from the only - example. It is theorized that the 4th plane which crashed into a field on that day was intended to have hit the capitol, home of Congress. That constitutes a direct threat to the existence of the US government, quite aside of the civilian suffering and commercial costs which threaten a government indirectly. Could they threaten the US so severely again? Most unlikely; but then a 4-plane suicide hijacking didn't seem like a likely prospect either, until it took place. Ongoing US persecution of Al Qaeda is predicated not on an immediate existential danger, but on its history of persistent antagonism and skill in asymmetrical warfare.
Jewish people in and around Germany in the 1930s did not stage attacks upon the German government or even hold a coherent position towards it. They were members of a peaceful ethnic group by heredity, rather than being members of violent ideological one by choice.
No 'inherent goodness' required, or indeed any moral characterizations at all. Adamantly opposing US policy because you consider it to be morally deficient is a legitimate viewpoint, albeit one I don't share. But it doesn't lend your contention that Al Qaeda are just like German Jews a shred of validity.
(Al Quaida, not being innocent) You mean their massacring of civilians to achieve their political aims. That thing which is "terrorism" when they do it and "advancing the cause of civilization" when we do it.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what parallel injury the Jews in Germany had inflicted on the government of the time, then. Because while your goal was to show how you consider the US government to be just like the Nazis, I'm still not seeing what basis you have for saying that Al Qaeda are just like the Jews.
posted by anigbrowl at 11:14 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
Marla SingerWhat made the Nazis evil wasn't the fact that they were willing to kill innocent civilians to get to the Jews; it's the fact that that they were going after Jews in the first place. In order for your analogy to hold, the discussion would have to be one where America was persecuting innocent group A and was willing to shrug off the deaths of yet another innocent group B.
You have got to mean that as deliberately obtuse... Right?
Joe's analogy holds because, either way, we'll willingly kill innocents to get at our target. Seriously, how does that depend on the target to make us pretty goddamned evil?
I don't even know if it gives us enough moral high-ground to call the Nazis more evil, except insofar as they had more success in their nominal goal than we have.
Yes, you nicely illustrated unequal terms in the analogy - Except, you don't need the last term to make the point. The target simply doesn't matter.
But if you don't get why going door to door and dragging suspected "Taliban sympathizers" out into the streets for interrogation counts as a bad thing, well, not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
posted by pla at 5:23 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
You have got to mean that as deliberately obtuse... Right?
Joe's analogy holds because, either way, we'll willingly kill innocents to get at our target. Seriously, how does that depend on the target to make us pretty goddamned evil?
I don't even know if it gives us enough moral high-ground to call the Nazis more evil, except insofar as they had more success in their nominal goal than we have.
Yes, you nicely illustrated unequal terms in the analogy - Except, you don't need the last term to make the point. The target simply doesn't matter.
But if you don't get why going door to door and dragging suspected "Taliban sympathizers" out into the streets for interrogation counts as a bad thing, well, not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
posted by pla at 5:23 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
pla, the problem is that Jews weren't doing things like crashing into the Twin Towers and trying to blow up planes with civies.
That's why it doesn't scan to compare Jews to Al Queda.
posted by angrycat at 5:52 AM on December 5, 2010
That's why it doesn't scan to compare Jews to Al Queda.
posted by angrycat at 5:52 AM on December 5, 2010
Joe's analogy holds because, either way, we'll willingly kill innocents to get at our target. Seriously, how does that depend on the target to make us pretty goddamned evil?
So we're just supposed to sit there while they hijack planes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands and nearly decapitating the government?
If Al Qaeda hadn't done that, we wouldn't be attacking anyone. They shot first.
Secondly, the government attempts to minimize civilian casualties and if they could, would only kill the bad guys. Al Qaeda seeks to maximize civilian casualties and deliberately hides amongst civilians so as to deter attacks on them.
Metafilter: Al Qaeda are the good guys.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:24 AM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
So we're just supposed to sit there while they hijack planes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands and nearly decapitating the government?
If Al Qaeda hadn't done that, we wouldn't be attacking anyone. They shot first.
Secondly, the government attempts to minimize civilian casualties and if they could, would only kill the bad guys. Al Qaeda seeks to maximize civilian casualties and deliberately hides amongst civilians so as to deter attacks on them.
Metafilter: Al Qaeda are the good guys.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:24 AM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
Because while your goal was to show how you consider the US government to be just like the Nazis, I'm still not seeing what basis you have for saying that Al Qaeda are just like the Jews.
Of course, I never said anything of the kind. This is the strawman you and others have manufactured to avoid - until now - the least effort at addressing what I did say.
dersins started this by saying, on two different occasions, in effect: "Good thing you secret-loving surrender-monkeys weren't around when we were fighting the Nazis."
I replied, in effect: "Except we're the Nazis now".
Then humanfont played "Ask Joe Beese" to the effect of "How can you say we're the Nazis?!"
I replied, in effect, that World War II was a legitimate war for us to have fought while the "War on Terror" is not.
humanfont then made his post with the movie-Nazi dialogue - explaining that al Qaeda had "declared war on us".
As Chomsky points out: The twin faiths of that Amrican Exceptionalism are: 1) America has a God-given right to use violence to achieve its ends, and 2) No one is allowed to use violence against us - even in self defense.
Of course, not being a government, al Qaeda is incapable of "declaring war" on anyone. They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil. An open-air stadium filled to the top and spilling over with the burned, blasted, and tortured bodies of human beings who had memories, hopes, and affections until they became an inconvenience to our limitless greed.
They had fathers and brothers and cousins. They see the archfiend responsible for this atrocity boasting in his memoir of having enthusiastically orderded torture - secure in the knowledge that his successor will insure that he is never brought to justice. And they see the American people entirely approving of thus butchery - except for a few "conscientious liberals" like yourself who mumble blandly about "War is bad and we shouldn't do it" - as if chastising a kindergarten student for stealing someone's crayon.
They want us dead? Why the fuck wouldn't they?
I comment, in effect: "See, humanfont, how much like a Nazi you sound?"
Amanojaku says, in effect: "Wut? How can you compare al Qaeda to the Jews?" Followed later by "It's a crummy analogy".
I explain specifically on what basis I compare them. At no point do I say anything remotely in the vicinity of their being "just alike".
dersins, not bothering to address the specific (and limited) basis on which I compared them, says no one can take me seriously since I'm "unhinged".
I further explain on what basis I compare them. At no point do I say anything remotely in the vicinity of their being "just alike".
dersins, again not bothering the specific (and limited) comparisons, again calls me "unhinged".
angrycat, also not bothering to address the specific (and limited) comparisons, says I've "crossed the line" with my "incredibly complicated and very offensive" analogy.
humanfont clarifies that he's not a Nazi. He doesn't recommend that we deliberately execute random villagers where al Qaeda is located. But he wants the village elders to know that random villagers will in fact be killed if our plans are frustrated so... you know, choose acoordingly.
Ironmouth whines that I'm "not presenting argument at all".
At that point, to keep the thread from being derailed further, I tell people to MeFi Mail me if they want to argue further.
Instead, Ironmouth takes over this thread to have a public platform from which he can accuse me of creating "extra drama".
I will not post again in this thread. If anyone wants to me to answer something, they can ask me in MefI Mail and I will reply likewise.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:31 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Of course, I never said anything of the kind. This is the strawman you and others have manufactured to avoid - until now - the least effort at addressing what I did say.
dersins started this by saying, on two different occasions, in effect: "Good thing you secret-loving surrender-monkeys weren't around when we were fighting the Nazis."
I replied, in effect: "Except we're the Nazis now".
Then humanfont played "Ask Joe Beese" to the effect of "How can you say we're the Nazis?!"
I replied, in effect, that World War II was a legitimate war for us to have fought while the "War on Terror" is not.
humanfont then made his post with the movie-Nazi dialogue - explaining that al Qaeda had "declared war on us".
As Chomsky points out: The twin faiths of that Amrican Exceptionalism are: 1) America has a God-given right to use violence to achieve its ends, and 2) No one is allowed to use violence against us - even in self defense.
Of course, not being a government, al Qaeda is incapable of "declaring war" on anyone. They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil. An open-air stadium filled to the top and spilling over with the burned, blasted, and tortured bodies of human beings who had memories, hopes, and affections until they became an inconvenience to our limitless greed.
They had fathers and brothers and cousins. They see the archfiend responsible for this atrocity boasting in his memoir of having enthusiastically orderded torture - secure in the knowledge that his successor will insure that he is never brought to justice. And they see the American people entirely approving of thus butchery - except for a few "conscientious liberals" like yourself who mumble blandly about "War is bad and we shouldn't do it" - as if chastising a kindergarten student for stealing someone's crayon.
They want us dead? Why the fuck wouldn't they?
I comment, in effect: "See, humanfont, how much like a Nazi you sound?"
Amanojaku says, in effect: "Wut? How can you compare al Qaeda to the Jews?" Followed later by "It's a crummy analogy".
I explain specifically on what basis I compare them. At no point do I say anything remotely in the vicinity of their being "just alike".
dersins, not bothering to address the specific (and limited) basis on which I compared them, says no one can take me seriously since I'm "unhinged".
I further explain on what basis I compare them. At no point do I say anything remotely in the vicinity of their being "just alike".
dersins, again not bothering the specific (and limited) comparisons, again calls me "unhinged".
angrycat, also not bothering to address the specific (and limited) comparisons, says I've "crossed the line" with my "incredibly complicated and very offensive" analogy.
humanfont clarifies that he's not a Nazi. He doesn't recommend that we deliberately execute random villagers where al Qaeda is located. But he wants the village elders to know that random villagers will in fact be killed if our plans are frustrated so... you know, choose acoordingly.
Ironmouth whines that I'm "not presenting argument at all".
At that point, to keep the thread from being derailed further, I tell people to MeFi Mail me if they want to argue further.
Instead, Ironmouth takes over this thread to have a public platform from which he can accuse me of creating "extra drama".
I will not post again in this thread. If anyone wants to me to answer something, they can ask me in MefI Mail and I will reply likewise.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:31 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Good lord. The target doesn't matter, unintentional versus intentional doesn't matter. My four-year-old has a more finely tuned moral comprehension. I think I'll go talk to him instead.
posted by palliser at 6:43 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by palliser at 6:43 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
And yet this thread started so simply, about a crap post with crap links and a crappy title.
posted by fixedgear at 6:56 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fixedgear at 6:56 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
pla
Joe's analogy holds because, either way, we'll willingly kill innocents to get at our target. Seriously, how does that depend on the target to make us pretty goddamned evil?
Agreed, that makes us pretty goddamned evil, which is why that *part* of the analogy works fine for me, although it doesn't, of course, for people who think America can do no wrong.
Yes, you nicely illustrated unequal terms in the analogy - Except, you don't need the last term to make the point. The target simply doesn't matter.
This is where I'll just have to disagree and say [in Morbo voice] ANALOGIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! All of your elements need to line up, or you're going to have a communication problem. Which I think is what we're having right now.
But if you don't get why going door to door and dragging suspected "Taliban sympathizers" out into the streets for interrogation counts as a bad thing, well, not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
Yeah, that's me alright. Shoot 'em all and let God sort em out, that's what I always say. [hamburger] You're hell-bent on labeling me as an evil, baby-murderer-excusing Nazi poopyhead, and there's nothing I can do about that, so happy trails to you.
posted by Marla Singer at 6:59 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Joe's analogy holds because, either way, we'll willingly kill innocents to get at our target. Seriously, how does that depend on the target to make us pretty goddamned evil?
Agreed, that makes us pretty goddamned evil, which is why that *part* of the analogy works fine for me, although it doesn't, of course, for people who think America can do no wrong.
Yes, you nicely illustrated unequal terms in the analogy - Except, you don't need the last term to make the point. The target simply doesn't matter.
This is where I'll just have to disagree and say [in Morbo voice] ANALOGIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! All of your elements need to line up, or you're going to have a communication problem. Which I think is what we're having right now.
But if you don't get why going door to door and dragging suspected "Taliban sympathizers" out into the streets for interrogation counts as a bad thing, well, not much anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
Yeah, that's me alright. Shoot 'em all and let God sort em out, that's what I always say. [hamburger] You're hell-bent on labeling me as an evil, baby-murderer-excusing Nazi poopyhead, and there's nothing I can do about that, so happy trails to you.
posted by Marla Singer at 6:59 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Even if an alum called Columbia, and the email really did go out, it's not an official statement by the state department telling everyone to bury thier heads in the sand.
Exactly.
Washington Post:
Exactly.
Washington Post:
"Career counselors at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs urged students not to post links to the documents or make comments on social media Web sites, including Facebook or Twitter.posted by ericb at 7:08 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
'Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government,' said an e-mail the office said it sent to students on the advice of an alumnus who works for the State Department.
But the employee's warning, 'does not represent a formal policy position,' State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Saturday.
'This sounds like an overly-zealous employee,' Crowley said in an e-mail. 'Our focus is advising current employees not to download classified documents to an unclassified network. While we condemn what WikiLeaks has done, we cannot control what is done through private Internet accounts.'"
I replied, in effect, that World War II was a legitimate war for us to have fought while the "War on Terror" is not.
On what basis? Both wars can be justified by the crimes of the other side. The Axis with unprovoked attacks and invasions, and genocide. Al Qaeda with repeated international terrorist attacks, including one that was meant to decapitate the military, economic, and legislative heads of the United States.
I don't see why it matters if they are a nation state or not, we have fought ongoing battles with pirates, for example, since the nation was founded.
If you have any serious concerns for the death of innocent civilians, the US committed way worse crimes and atrocities in WWII than in the War on Terror. It isn't even remotely close.
I'd really like someone to explain the "the target doesn't matter" mindset because I see nothing but reciting it like a mantra of faith.
If a state with the death penalty accidentally kills the wrong guy, after doing their best to have a fair trial and investigation that isn't as bad as a guy murdering his wife in cold blood so he can marry his mistress.
Circumstances matter.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:16 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
On what basis? Both wars can be justified by the crimes of the other side. The Axis with unprovoked attacks and invasions, and genocide. Al Qaeda with repeated international terrorist attacks, including one that was meant to decapitate the military, economic, and legislative heads of the United States.
I don't see why it matters if they are a nation state or not, we have fought ongoing battles with pirates, for example, since the nation was founded.
If you have any serious concerns for the death of innocent civilians, the US committed way worse crimes and atrocities in WWII than in the War on Terror. It isn't even remotely close.
I'd really like someone to explain the "the target doesn't matter" mindset because I see nothing but reciting it like a mantra of faith.
If a state with the death penalty accidentally kills the wrong guy, after doing their best to have a fair trial and investigation that isn't as bad as a guy murdering his wife in cold blood so he can marry his mistress.
Circumstances matter.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:16 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Joe Beese, I don't particularly want you to answer anything so I won't MeMail you. I'll just say, for whatever good it might do, that I generally agree with your political take on things—I'm as big an opponent of American exceptionalism as you'll find (and I think it would be a fine thing if America lost most of its clout in the world and became just another country that had to take its neighbors seriously) and I think Obama is a disastrous president—and yet I cringe when I see your name on a comment and expect, usually rightly, that it will be off-puttingly antagonistic and wrong-headed in a way that is obvious to everyone but you (and apparently pla). I'm sure you will dismiss me as smugly as you dismiss everyone else who fails to see the brilliance and wisdom of your throwing Nazi comparisons around, but for what it's worth, there's a data point: one potential comrade thinks you're doing the cause more harm than good.
posted by languagehat at 7:18 AM on December 5, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 7:18 AM on December 5, 2010 [10 favorites]
Let me try it this way, if the level of action necessary to be compared to Nazis is "kills innocent civilians in pursuit of war" than everybody on every side of every war ever shares that comparison. This renders the comparison meaningless. Nazi comparisons, if they are to be used at all with any power, should be restricted to the areas in which the Nazis were more unique.
If the comparison hinges on the idea that some wars are just and some aren't, so sometimes it is okay to kill civilians, you would have to better explain why action against Hitler was justified but action against Al Qaeda is not beyond "Al Qaeda is not a nation."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:27 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
If the comparison hinges on the idea that some wars are just and some aren't, so sometimes it is okay to kill civilians, you would have to better explain why action against Hitler was justified but action against Al Qaeda is not beyond "Al Qaeda is not a nation."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:27 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil.
Except that isn't true. First, al Qaeda started in the late '80s and was opposed to Westerners in Saudi, not Iraq.
Second, we took over Iraq in 2003, 9/11 was in 2001.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:44 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Except that isn't true. First, al Qaeda started in the late '80s and was opposed to Westerners in Saudi, not Iraq.
Second, we took over Iraq in 2003, 9/11 was in 2001.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:44 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Marla Singer : Yeah, that's me alright. Shoot 'em all and let God sort em out, that's what I always say.
My apologies... I meant that in the abstract, not to you personally; and as a sort of general response to comments like...
...this:
pallise : My four-year-old has a more finely tuned moral comprehension. I think I'll go talk to him instead.
Good idea, go get the li'l tyke - Perhaps he can show you the forest hidden by all those pesky trees.
To summarize:
Killing innocents as your goal - Bad.
Killing innocents on the way to your goal - Bad.
The truth of latter doesn't depend on the truth of the former.
Or... How many unintentional kills does it take to morally equal one intentional one?
furiousxgeorge : If the comparison hinges on the idea that some wars are just and some aren't, so sometimes it is okay to kill civilians, you would have to better explain why action against Hitler was justified but action against Al Qaeda is not beyond "Al Qaeda is not a nation."
Fair point, but this doesn't involve the whole war, just individual events within it. The war against both Hitler and Osama, I would call justified. I would, however, also call Dresden no less a war crime than I would our torturing prisoners.
everybody on every side of every war ever shares that comparison.
Bulls-eye! Except, not so much "meaningless" as "part of the problem".
posted by pla at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2010
My apologies... I meant that in the abstract, not to you personally; and as a sort of general response to comments like...
...this:
pallise : My four-year-old has a more finely tuned moral comprehension. I think I'll go talk to him instead.
Good idea, go get the li'l tyke - Perhaps he can show you the forest hidden by all those pesky trees.
To summarize:
Killing innocents as your goal - Bad.
Killing innocents on the way to your goal - Bad.
The truth of latter doesn't depend on the truth of the former.
Or... How many unintentional kills does it take to morally equal one intentional one?
furiousxgeorge : If the comparison hinges on the idea that some wars are just and some aren't, so sometimes it is okay to kill civilians, you would have to better explain why action against Hitler was justified but action against Al Qaeda is not beyond "Al Qaeda is not a nation."
Fair point, but this doesn't involve the whole war, just individual events within it. The war against both Hitler and Osama, I would call justified. I would, however, also call Dresden no less a war crime than I would our torturing prisoners.
everybody on every side of every war ever shares that comparison.
Bulls-eye! Except, not so much "meaningless" as "part of the problem".
posted by pla at 7:46 AM on December 5, 2010
So, I've been thinking that I kind of live in the anti-universe. Things have been all topsy-turvy. Black is white. Day is night. That kind of thing.
And I come in here and...
AL QAEDA?! is defensible as a group of INNOCENTS?! WHUT.
Well, that seals it. Anti-universe. I hope those lovely folks at CERN get this turned around. In the meantime, I think I'll drink some tea.
posted by sonika at 7:49 AM on December 5, 2010
And I come in here and...
AL QAEDA?! is defensible as a group of INNOCENTS?! WHUT.
Well, that seals it. Anti-universe. I hope those lovely folks at CERN get this turned around. In the meantime, I think I'll drink some tea.
posted by sonika at 7:49 AM on December 5, 2010
sonika : AL QAEDA?! is defensible as a group of INNOCENTS?!
No. Fail.
posted by pla at 8:03 AM on December 5, 2010
No. Fail.
posted by pla at 8:03 AM on December 5, 2010
everybody on every side of every war ever shares that comparison.
Bulls-eye! Except, not so much "meaningless" as "part of the problem".
Yes, agreed, everybody. Now the question is, with all those choices for comparison wars, many of which fit the analogy with the US better, why were Nazis, with all that associated baggage, the comparison that was made?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:08 AM on December 5, 2010
They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil.
Except that isn't true. First, al Qaeda started in the late '80s and was opposed to Westerners in Saudi, not Iraq.
Second, we took over Iraq in 2003, 9/11 was in 2001.
Gulf War I, remember? Oh so long ago? Oil wells flaming under the night sky?
posted by fixedgear at 8:12 AM on December 5, 2010
Except that isn't true. First, al Qaeda started in the late '80s and was opposed to Westerners in Saudi, not Iraq.
Second, we took over Iraq in 2003, 9/11 was in 2001.
Gulf War I, remember? Oh so long ago? Oil wells flaming under the night sky?
posted by fixedgear at 8:12 AM on December 5, 2010
My apologies... I meant that in the abstract, not to you personally
If no offense was intended, then none is taken. Cheers.
posted by Marla Singer at 8:15 AM on December 5, 2010
If no offense was intended, then none is taken. Cheers.
posted by Marla Singer at 8:15 AM on December 5, 2010
furiousxgeorge : Now the question is, with all those choices for comparison wars, many of which fit the analogy with the US better, why were Nazis, with all that associated baggage, the comparison that was made?
I can't speak for Joe, but for the most obvious answer - In any given group of people, some will invariably try to defend their team for doing bad things in the name of a good goal. You can, however, get most people to agree that the Nazis counted as the bad guys from just about any angle.
So if you can get someone to agree with "The Nazis count as the bad guys (in part) because they did X", and you can, with a simple substitution, replace "The Nazis" with "Your Team" - One might hope that your opponent will see their error.
In practice, that rarely works out well, largely for the reasons we saw here - Either someone takes the analogy too far, and instead of reading it as "X = bad", they see "Jews = bad"; or they won't take it far enough and complain that you can't fairly compare 6 million innocent bystanders to "only" 600k innocent bystanders (by which I refer to Iraqi civilians, and in no way mean to call the Taliban "innocent bystanders").
posted by pla at 8:30 AM on December 5, 2010
I can't speak for Joe, but for the most obvious answer - In any given group of people, some will invariably try to defend their team for doing bad things in the name of a good goal. You can, however, get most people to agree that the Nazis counted as the bad guys from just about any angle.
So if you can get someone to agree with "The Nazis count as the bad guys (in part) because they did X", and you can, with a simple substitution, replace "The Nazis" with "Your Team" - One might hope that your opponent will see their error.
In practice, that rarely works out well, largely for the reasons we saw here - Either someone takes the analogy too far, and instead of reading it as "X = bad", they see "Jews = bad"; or they won't take it far enough and complain that you can't fairly compare 6 million innocent bystanders to "only" 600k innocent bystanders (by which I refer to Iraqi civilians, and in no way mean to call the Taliban "innocent bystanders").
posted by pla at 8:30 AM on December 5, 2010
> No. Fail.
I think she was referring to Ironmouth's comment and Joe Beese's:
Metafilter: Al Qaeda are the good guys.
... al Qaeda is incapable of "declaring war" on anyone. They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil.
She failed recognize to, though, the element of time travel involved in this. Ironmouth posted his characterization of Joe Beese's comment several minutes before he made it. And Joe Beese's explanation of Al Qaeda's antipathy towards the United States requires Al Qaeda to have gone backwards in time to conduct several attacks on the United States in response to, or in anticipation of, the United States' invasion of Iraq which hadn't happened yet, and which in turn was justified in part by Iraq's alleged involvement in the same attacks.
Very strange things can happen in hyperbolic arguments on metafilter.
The anti-argument is the argument moving backwards in time.
(or something)
posted by nangar at 9:03 AM on December 5, 2010
I think she was referring to Ironmouth's comment and Joe Beese's:
Metafilter: Al Qaeda are the good guys.
... al Qaeda is incapable of "declaring war" on anyone. They are merely people who hate us and wish us dead for our having killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq to steal their oil.
She failed recognize to, though, the element of time travel involved in this. Ironmouth posted his characterization of Joe Beese's comment several minutes before he made it. And Joe Beese's explanation of Al Qaeda's antipathy towards the United States requires Al Qaeda to have gone backwards in time to conduct several attacks on the United States in response to, or in anticipation of, the United States' invasion of Iraq which hadn't happened yet, and which in turn was justified in part by Iraq's alleged involvement in the same attacks.
Very strange things can happen in hyperbolic arguments on metafilter.
The anti-argument is the argument moving backwards in time.
(or something)
posted by nangar at 9:03 AM on December 5, 2010
I can't speak for Joe, but for the most obvious answer - In any given group of people, some will invariably try to defend their team for doing bad things in the name of a good goal. You can, however, get most people to agree that the Nazis counted as the bad guys from just about any angle.
And here we see it all boiled down. People almost all agree the Nazis are bad guys because of GENOCIDE. Using the comparison in the way Joe did is leveraging the hatred people have for the Nazis because of the Holocaust to vilify the U.S. for something far less serious.
People still respect Alexander the Great or Napoleon even though they went around the world killing innocent people, but not Hitler. The comparison to Nazis was made instead of Napoleon for emotional impact, not any logic.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:07 AM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
I think she was referring to Ironmouth's comment and Joe Beese's:
Yes, that.
She failed recognize to, though, the element of time travel involved in this.
Man, anti-universes AND time-travel. Seriously, I hope the Hadron Collider is up to the challenge here because my own personal mind is totally blown.
posted by sonika at 9:07 AM on December 5, 2010
Yes, that.
She failed recognize to, though, the element of time travel involved in this.
Man, anti-universes AND time-travel. Seriously, I hope the Hadron Collider is up to the challenge here because my own personal mind is totally blown.
posted by sonika at 9:07 AM on December 5, 2010
angar : I think she was referring to Ironmouth's comment and Joe Beese's
Oh my. Apologies owed, and offered, Sonika.
Guess I need to go play in the snow for a while.
posted by pla at 9:14 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh my. Apologies owed, and offered, Sonika.
Guess I need to go play in the snow for a while.
posted by pla at 9:14 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Gulf War I, remember? Oh so long ago? Oil wells flaming under the night sky.
But we didn't take any oil, and Iraq set Kuwait's oil fields on fire, remember? Because, as you may recall, Iraq invaded Kuwait, was ordered to leave by the UN, and many Arab countries joined the US in throwing them out of Kuwait, after which we left Iraq alone.
Talk about up is down.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:29 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
But we didn't take any oil, and Iraq set Kuwait's oil fields on fire, remember? Because, as you may recall, Iraq invaded Kuwait, was ordered to leave by the UN, and many Arab countries joined the US in throwing them out of Kuwait, after which we left Iraq alone.
Talk about up is down.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:29 AM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
angrycat: I personally lean towardss flag and make a singular mild comment indicating the objection you have. MetaTalk is a terrific option as well. The key is to disengage personally and if you can't do it in any other way than just ignoring it, ignore it.
Thank you -- this is really helpful. I'd had the impression that flagging was stepping over some sort of line, so it's good to hear that it doesn't have the annoyance factor I thought it had.
posted by angrycat at 10:40 AM on December 5, 2010
Thank you -- this is really helpful. I'd had the impression that flagging was stepping over some sort of line, so it's good to hear that it doesn't have the annoyance factor I thought it had.
posted by angrycat at 10:40 AM on December 5, 2010
I'd had the impression that flagging was stepping over some sort of line
Flagging is what we, as mods, prefer if you're just trying to draw our attention to things. Anywhere on the site besides AskMe, we view them in the aggregate [i.e. we're not likely to check out a single flag in MeFi, for example] so your flag will combine with others' flags and we can see where problem areas are. The only ways flagging is problematic from our perspective are
- You are flagging something because of your own metrics and not the site guidelines. We had someone who use to flag people swearing as "offensive" Okay, but we're unlikely to do anything about it, so it seemed odd to bring it to our attention
- You're flagging a user because you dislike them even though they're not doing anything that is problematic from a site level, though they may be being annoying generally
- You flag a shitton of comments in a row. Once you've flagged three or four comments in a thread, we'll go check it out once we've seen that there is stuff getting flagged. Flagging 20 comments just adds noise and adds to our workload. I'll often email people if I see them doing that because there's no way they would know that.
- You flag stuff in threads from several years ago. Flagging is supposed to be for stuff that needs our attention currently. People being lulzy in old AskMe threads isn't a huge problem. Obviously if someone posted some old spammy comments that you found, or something outing someone's personal information, we'd like to know it.
- Something is being discussed in MeTa and you go back and flag a ton of stuff in the thread. By the time something is in MeTa, we've got our mod eyes on it, so extra flags probably won't do much.
Email is good if there's something that needs like RIGHT NOW attention [someone outing someone's personal info, someone on an angry tear fucking up a thread, something badly broken] and MeTa is good if there's a community issue or some issue that would benefit from either having a side argument brought here, or community members discussing a topic about the site that isn't relevant to the original thread. We're pretty tolerant of people mixing some of this stuff up and we realize it's a site with a long history that not everyone is privy to or used to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:52 AM on December 5, 2010
Flagging is what we, as mods, prefer if you're just trying to draw our attention to things. Anywhere on the site besides AskMe, we view them in the aggregate [i.e. we're not likely to check out a single flag in MeFi, for example] so your flag will combine with others' flags and we can see where problem areas are. The only ways flagging is problematic from our perspective are
- You are flagging something because of your own metrics and not the site guidelines. We had someone who use to flag people swearing as "offensive" Okay, but we're unlikely to do anything about it, so it seemed odd to bring it to our attention
- You're flagging a user because you dislike them even though they're not doing anything that is problematic from a site level, though they may be being annoying generally
- You flag a shitton of comments in a row. Once you've flagged three or four comments in a thread, we'll go check it out once we've seen that there is stuff getting flagged. Flagging 20 comments just adds noise and adds to our workload. I'll often email people if I see them doing that because there's no way they would know that.
- You flag stuff in threads from several years ago. Flagging is supposed to be for stuff that needs our attention currently. People being lulzy in old AskMe threads isn't a huge problem. Obviously if someone posted some old spammy comments that you found, or something outing someone's personal information, we'd like to know it.
- Something is being discussed in MeTa and you go back and flag a ton of stuff in the thread. By the time something is in MeTa, we've got our mod eyes on it, so extra flags probably won't do much.
Email is good if there's something that needs like RIGHT NOW attention [someone outing someone's personal info, someone on an angry tear fucking up a thread, something badly broken] and MeTa is good if there's a community issue or some issue that would benefit from either having a side argument brought here, or community members discussing a topic about the site that isn't relevant to the original thread. We're pretty tolerant of people mixing some of this stuff up and we realize it's a site with a long history that not everyone is privy to or used to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:52 AM on December 5, 2010
But we didn't take any oil, and Iraq set Kuwait's oil fields on fire, remember? Because, as you may recall, Iraq invaded Kuwait, was ordered to leave by the UN, and many Arab countries joined the US in throwing them out of Kuwait, after which we left Iraq alone.
I remember it well, I was a brand-new buyer of food for Uncle in 1990. What I meant was that their rage goes back way before 2003 or 9/11. It's all about our failed foriegn policy coming to haunt us. When they were busy fighting the Russians Dan Rather was embedded (before that was even a word) with the mujahideen and they were our buds. Afghanistan became Russia's Viet Nam and now it's ours.
posted by fixedgear at 11:39 AM on December 5, 2010
I remember it well, I was a brand-new buyer of food for Uncle in 1990. What I meant was that their rage goes back way before 2003 or 9/11. It's all about our failed foriegn policy coming to haunt us. When they were busy fighting the Russians Dan Rather was embedded (before that was even a word) with the mujahideen and they were our buds. Afghanistan became Russia's Viet Nam and now it's ours.
posted by fixedgear at 11:39 AM on December 5, 2010
Afghanistan became Russia's Viet Nam and now it's ours.
The graveyard of empires (one can hope).
posted by Marla Singer at 11:55 AM on December 5, 2010
The graveyard of empires (one can hope).
posted by Marla Singer at 11:55 AM on December 5, 2010
Afghanistan became Russia's Viet Nam and now it's ours.
I... uh... wasn't Vietnam our Vietnam?
posted by Justinian at 1:11 PM on December 5, 2010 [7 favorites]
I... uh... wasn't Vietnam our Vietnam?
posted by Justinian at 1:11 PM on December 5, 2010 [7 favorites]
Vietnam 2.0, of course.
posted by nomadicink at 1:26 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by nomadicink at 1:26 PM on December 5, 2010
So America are like the Nazis had the Nazis just stuck to slaughtering communists.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:41 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by Space Coyote at 1:41 PM on December 5, 2010
* Ugh I'm not sure what I was going for with that last comment and it is too glib, confused hamburger. Sorry, everybody.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by Space Coyote at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010
Yes, as soon as I hit post I realized it was a little garbled. What I was going for is that we (USA) seem to need to learn the same lesson over and over, but it's just not sinking in.
posted by fixedgear at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2010
> wasn't Vietnam our Vietnam?
"One, two, many Vietnams."
posted by languagehat at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2010
"One, two, many Vietnams."
posted by languagehat at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2010
Oh, almost forgot...
[[ Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted. ]]
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America are, by definition, examples of American Exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:41 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
Wow, and I thought I was obtuse. Whether you call it American Exceptionalism or a belief in the inherent goodness of America, it is the strawman. You are assigning a belief to your opponents that (almost) nobody (worth paying attention to) subscribes to.
I don't think anyone was saying that civillians killed by Americans were any less dead than those killed by anyone else. It's always bad. But its worse when you are doing it on purpose.
If someone wants to make the argument that killing innocents while on a mission of defensing freedom isn't quite as bad as killing civilians while perpetrating evil, debate THAT. Taking "not quite as bad" and turning it into "inherent good" is pretty much the definition of creating a strawman.
posted by gjc at 3:47 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
[[ Please note: Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America will not be accepted. ]]
There's your strawman right there. You assume that people you disagree with are american exceptionalists.
Answers requiring a belief in the inherent goodness of America are, by definition, examples of American Exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:41 PM on December 4 [+] [!]
Wow, and I thought I was obtuse. Whether you call it American Exceptionalism or a belief in the inherent goodness of America, it is the strawman. You are assigning a belief to your opponents that (almost) nobody (worth paying attention to) subscribes to.
I don't think anyone was saying that civillians killed by Americans were any less dead than those killed by anyone else. It's always bad. But its worse when you are doing it on purpose.
If someone wants to make the argument that killing innocents while on a mission of defensing freedom isn't quite as bad as killing civilians while perpetrating evil, debate THAT. Taking "not quite as bad" and turning it into "inherent good" is pretty much the definition of creating a strawman.
posted by gjc at 3:47 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Afghanistan became Russia's Viet Nam and now it's ours.
I think is was Alexander the Great's Afghanistan which became the Arab Muslim's Afghanistan which became the Mongol's Afghanistan (twice) which became Britain's Afghanistan (twice) which became the Russian's Afghanistan which is now the American's Afghanistan.
posted by unliteral at 6:38 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
I think is was Alexander the Great's Afghanistan which became the Arab Muslim's Afghanistan which became the Mongol's Afghanistan (twice) which became Britain's Afghanistan (twice) which became the Russian's Afghanistan which is now the American's Afghanistan.
posted by unliteral at 6:38 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
America is Afghanistan's Kitos War.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:43 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:43 PM on December 5, 2010
after which we left Iraq alone.
I don't think imposing 12 years of sanctions and enforcing a no-fly zone over more than half the country really counts as leaving alone.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:20 PM on December 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't think imposing 12 years of sanctions and enforcing a no-fly zone over more than half the country really counts as leaving alone.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:20 PM on December 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:58 PM on December 4, 2010 [1 favorite]