Another one that hurts

Yes, of course I'm talking about name-calling. Not baseless name-calling, but any kind of name calling. I hope when people have been called racist or hypocritical in threads I moderate that I haven't missed it or let it go by. If you think that's okay at EvC Forum then you've picked up a misimpression. I'm strongly against it. From the Forum Guidelines:

10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

You're free to ignore me in this thread - I'm just a participant hoping that just noting a desire for civil discourse in this thread I started will have some effect. I have no moderator or enforcement power here.One little moderator note: one thing I noticed a few years ago is that when it's occasionally made clear that rule 10 will be enforced that members increasingly clamber about someone violating rule 10. Suddenly everything's a violation of rule 10. Moderators just have to stay consistent within their own criteria and judgement and ignore all the inevitable distractions and criticism.--Percy

How long ago were the Spanish-American, Korean, Vietnam, Nicaraguan, Granadan, etc., wars? Unmemorable and distant do not seem accurate characterizations. Or was the "" intended to indicate sarcasm, which would make it hard to understand as an appropriate response to what 1.61803 said. We're you trying to agree with him using sarcasm? I get the sarcasm, but I want to make sure I still get your point. Converse to 1.61803's point that your comfortable life derives from past abhorrent acts, you're saying that the discomforts in your life also derive from past abhorrent acts. In other words, our entire present derives from our abhorrent past (and, I assume, any other parts of our past). Did I get that right?If so, then I don't think 1.61803 would disagree with you, but I think he would feel you've missed his point. I believe he was saying that while the west might have "all manner of horrors" in its past that past moral transgressions do not forfeit the west's right to make moral judgments today. The west is saying that ISIS is behaving in a morally repugnant fashion, and I think 1.61803 is saying that we didn't lose the right to say that just because, for example, we treated the Indians badly or bombed Hiroshima.--Percy

Feel free to psychoanalyse as much as you wish. What ISIS is doing is evil and depraved, however, and they are responsible for those actions. My point remains that in my view, it is more effective in limiting their appeal to potential recruits, to emphasise that they are murdering, raping and torturing innocent people, including Muslims, than it is to characterise them as noble freedom fighters, forced by external pressures into reluctantly taking action. What is it with the constant reference to cartoons and fairytale monsters ? Once again, they are really beheading, raping, torturing and murdering innocent people. There is nothing cartoonish or fairytale-like about it.And you are prohibited from no such thing - certainly not by me. I happen to disagree with you as to an approach to lessening their appeal to potential recruits. I believe that many recruits romanticise ISIS as the embodiment of a struggle against an oppressor - I am of the view that it is a fair challenge to that view, to emphasise that ISIS itself is a brutal, amoral and revolting oppressor of innocent Muslims. You are certainly not prohibited from presenting arguments to the contrary.

Psychopathic is a personal diagnosis based on the behaviour of the individual and is, I think, a hereditary genetic condition. So I would have to say no they are not all psychopaths. A sociopath is someone who willingly harms others who do not threaten them and is caused more by upbringing. I would say that the willing members of ISIS are good candidates for the label of sociopath.Most important is the understanding that guilt can only be established on an individual basis. So the child executioner in the video is not as guilty as the guy holding the camera. That is difficult for me to imagine but I can't see how my position would include support for killing Western civilians. If the US started to bomb Canada I wouldn't go to Detroit and start shooting people on the street. I have overwhelming empathy for those who are caught up in the tide and I have little more than contempt for those who are willing participants.

Yeah it is pretty grim. Bombs are a repugnantly blunt instrument but not the same as shooting a female doctor who refuses to wear a niqab.

From today's New York Times: Also posted this over at Message 4484.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix message link.

Sounds entirely feasible.

quote:

---

Appealing to my better nature? I'm a villain! Here is My Card! "Eve L. Duehr: Academy of Evil graduate, aspiring tyrant, kicker of kittens, and spontaneous singer of Barney songs." I crossed the Moral Event Horizon while still in grade school and have never once looked back. And you think you can talk me out of my evil deeds? Ahahahahahahahahaa!

​

Thus, they are expected to Kick the Dog and never Pet the Dog. If they acted differently, they'd lose their Evil ranking. Especially ironic if the reason they fell was because they wanted freedom from constraints on their actions. Whatever action they as a good guy wanted to do is considered "bad", so they have to do other bad things as well now. After a while, they usually forget about whatever goal it was that turned them Evil in the first place.

---

I was just arguing against turning our image of our enemies into the above, courtesy of TVTropes. I'm glad we agree.

I'm seeing basically two camps forming here:1. Islamists are repeatedly demonstrating what murderous monsters they are.2. Islamists are a people being misrepresented by extremists and with whom we must be able to deal in the future.My father served in the Pacific in WWII (Seabees, master carpenter). He returned with strong hatred for the Japanese. Then in civilian life he had to do work on the homes of Japanese-American farmers, during which time he learned of our shared humanity.Yes, we do need to deal with the extremists. But at the same time, we still need to work out how to deal with the entire Islamic community in the long run. Because we will eventually end up having to live side-by-side. So how are we to do that?

The problem isn't with the vilification of the head choppers and puritans. We should despise and destroy those people. The problem is being able to single them out.

Personally I think arguments here have been caricatured on all sides.One recent analysis that I read and then lost, characterised ISIS fighters into three coarse groups1. Psychopaths, sociopaths and the otherwise mentally ill and just plain angry and disturbed people.2. Devout religious extremists fighting holy Jihad as requiered by their books.3. Tribal pragmatists using the other 2 groups to gain control of territory.The view was that group three would ultimately sell out (literally) the other two groups and gain control.Amongst all that there is the Sunni vs Shia civil wars, Arabs vs Persian problem, Islam vs other religions and Islam vs the West.Attempting to reduce this mess into simple blacks and whites is absurd, and I doubt anyone here has a real understanding of any of it. So it all collapses into stupid bickering over trivia and/or stereotyping into perceived extreme positions.I was hoping for something better.

Having this kind of mental image leads to... So yes - how we think of our enemies is important as it drives our policy decisions. There are lots of problems.

We all always hope for something better...but that last post of yours summed up the arguments rather nicely. POTM

Sure and how we should think of them is as head choppers and puritans. This is not a fabrication or propaganda. They really are killing non combatants deliberately. They really are throwing people from high buildings and executing women for their fashion choices. We should be motivated by these atrocities. We should be angry and dangerous in response.There are lots of problems and we should not mischaracterize the truth nor should we ignore our culpability. There are also such things as monsters and this idea about loving your enemy should be held in moderation.Holy should.

Wow, Adam Gadahn might have struggled to justify killing tens of thousands of strangers with such brevity. You are right, to call this propaganda would be a disservice, perhaps you would prefer 'war mongering masterpiece'? Naturally we should continue killing and bombing blindly because of how effective this has proven over the last century. War mongers and those infected with propaganda often seem to confuse 'know thy enemy' with 'love thy enemy'.

quote:

---

Of course the people don't want war...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

---

Just a spark of brightness to add to the discussions. After the London stabbing the other day, someone recorded a Londoner shouting at the attacker, who had been restrained by the police "You ain't no Muslim bruv !" He's thought to be a Muslim, but that's from context and partially from accent. This phrase has now started trending a lot on social media, and has been picked up by the mainstream press.It'll probably be a bit of a flash in the pan, but I hope it picks up more momentum and contributes to a loud shout of denial against the extremists.