The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 18 of 20
Yeah, had my fill. But I agree, I hate to see mis-statements stand too, so I'll correct but not debate Drakon.
As far as further postings... I'm looking forward to some rational discussion!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
I disagree. We don't believe in things to further our own lives, we believe in them because from our perspective, they appear to be true. If you have a faction claiming the sky is red defeating a "sky is blue" faction just because they have nukes, than the sky won't magically be red. The nazis would have still been wrong if they had won. The Independents didn't have as much in the way of equipment and support, and lost, but that doesn't mean Mal's wrong in his beliefs. The good guys don't always win in the real world. Might doesn't make right. Likewise, look at Christianity. You don't convert to improve your life. You convert because you want to serve the true god, or die trying. All those Christian martyrs certainly didn't have their beliefs help out their lives any.
I agree that Might does not make Right. But I will argue the reverse is true. Right makes Might.
This is easiest to see in combat. The side with the better intellegence on opposition forces, deployment, logistics, positions, morale, etc., as well as his own, has a tactical advantage. The better you understand your opponent, the easier it is to defeat him.
The more accurate your theories of physics are, the more capable you become, the more things you can invent and build, to accomplish whatever goals you might have. The better your technology becomes.
Physics is a good stepping off point here for me to clarify what I mean here. We don't respond to the world "as it is" and this lack of perfect understanding has tripped up philosophers from the earliest days. Sometimes our perceptions of reality are wrong. We look around and we construct mental models of reality, and base our actions on those models.
This mental modeling is advantagous. Suppose you wanted to attach a rocket to the roof of your car. Think about it for a second, perhaps even Google the urban legend about a guy who actually did it. And got smeared all over the landscape as a result. Now, you can take this possibility, apply it to your own project and you might figure out that it would be a bad idea, and I probably should move on to something else. All without getting smeared all over the landscape yourself.
Now, whether you would, or would not, is secondary. If you think you might, if you figure the risk is too high, you won't do it. (In this case, whether you are right or wrong about the question becomes irrelevant since you ain't doing it.) Or alternately, you might rig up a remote control system to test it out, to get some more actual data, before climbing into the driver's seat. In any event, your decision is based on your internal model, rather than experience.
That is a good thing, because sometimes that experience can be being smeared all over the landscape. Its better to figure that out before hand, rather than, well, after its too late.
I've talked about the decision loop before, and here is where truth matters. The more accurate and true your model is, the more the consequences of your actions will concur with what you expect. And the fewer unexpected or unintended consequences will result.
Its not that the good guys have to win ALL the time. But I do think they win far more often than they lose. That the good are good because they are right, and that gives them an edge over the bad guys. Like I have said many times before, not all ideas are created equal.
There is another aspect at work here in that beliefs, like theories, ideas, opinions, and even memories, are memes. Memes cannot exist outside of a mind. That is their environment, and without which, they do not exist. (The very least you can say is that such ideas are separated from this physical shared reality with all the other humans on this rock.) So, unless the idea aids in supporting the mind it exists in, it ends up getting itself killed off. It dies when the brain dies.
Yes, we can transmit our ideas, via text, pictures and other forms of communications. But even such transmission requires a mind to understand it, decode it, that k
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is a question of whether the atrocites work or not. I don'tthink they do. I am seeing in the Iraqi blogs that Nick Berg's murder is backfiring on Zarqiwi, that he is losing support amongst Iraqis at least. Just as Abu Ghaib has hurt support for our efforts amongst the Arab nations in the region.
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Ok, I agree that the Guantanamo guys and the insurgents technically can be abused as much as we like. But don't you have to draw the line somewhere morally? Just because their atrocities work, does that mean that we should commit them. If beheading some bad Iraqi would safen Americans and help us win, would you be in favor? Where do you say "Dang, they're really fighting dirty. Hopefully we can still win despite that." If Saddam had used chemical weapons on us, would you have wanted us to do the same? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Again, I was addressing the legal issue. Morality and legality are not the same thing. Hopefully they are connected, but still, you can't throw the Geneva convention up in all this, because it does not apply.
If beheading a bad Iraqi would make us safer, yes. Go for it. I would insist that be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the bad guy, but that is more an epistemological issue than anything else.
And one of the points I have attempted to make is that this is why Iraq has to succeed. Biological entities will fight for their survival and use every means available. We have nukes. We can get rid of the problem once and for all, like the Romans did to Carthage. I would prefer not to do that, to not have to write off that many people. Which is why we are doing what we are in Iraq.
I would prefer to live and let live. But that requires others do so as well. It goes back to reciprocity again. If they want to kill us, we have to kill them right back, or die. Death is not a viable option, but I leave the choice in their hands, knowing we are more capable of dealing it than they are.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is not what I have been reading. I read the charges in the report, cut to that section immediately. And I will note a couple of things.
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Ok, My Lai was definitely worse. But many, if not most of the abused weren't bad guys at all, just common criminals with no useful knowledge. Also, there was a lot of sexual and physical abuse. If I had a leg wound, I certainly wouldn't want someone beating on it with a baseball bat. I'm pretty sure I also read that all of the photographed abuse was done for fun, not for any interrogation purposes. It's the psychological truth that many people become sadists if you give them complete control over the well-being of others. Just look at the fox corporation.
[Note: A copy of it is here: http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army_15-6_Report_of_Abuse_of_Pris
oners_in_Iraq#ASSESSMENT_OF_DoD_COUNTER-TERRORISM_INTERROGATION_AND_DETENTION_OPERATIONS_IN_IRAQ_.28MG_MILLER.E2.80.99S_ASSESSMENT.29
1) soldier is accused of, or admitting to, having sex with a female prisoner. NOT RAPE, having sex. If the prisoner did not consent, then he would have been charged with rape, rather than having sex with an inmate.
2) The charges of sodomizing with a caylume lightstick (not flashlight) and broomhandle are made by a prisoner. While Major Tuguba finds their statement credible, I am willing to let a court marshall decide.
3) One prisoner had the words "I am a rapest" (sic) scrawled on him after the prisoner raped another prisoner. Yes there was a rape that happened, but it was one prisoner raping another. There is no evidence, according to the report, of guards raping prisoners, male or female.
4) While suspects of petty criminal offenses had been picked up and housed at the same prison, it is not clear that any of them were subjected to the abuse. In the report, it indicates that it was done to soften up the detainees for intelligence interrogations. And that would exclude the petty criminals.
There is a lot of sound and fury regarding this case. Again, it is difficult for me to get worked up about it. Those responsible are being tried and will get punished. This has started long before you or I ever heard about it, the investigation and punishment.
It does not reflect a 'standard of practice', it was and will be, a minor thing in the history of this war.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I agree that Might does not make Right. But I will argue the reverse is true. Right makes Might.
If you're talking about factual rightness, than yes, as your sensible arguments demonstrate. If you don't believe in phsysics, than you won't be very good at modern warfare. But you can't scientifically prove something like "There's only one god, and HE AIN'T NAMED ALLAH!!" or some such thing. I also think that believing in the real god wouldn't neccesarily help you win wars, though the Old Testament would disagree with me. Likewise, the moral decision to not use dirty weapons, or not to fight at all, certainly wouldn't help you, but does that make it wrong? There certainly aren't any more Jews who don't fight on Saturday, but I still think that true beliefs and effective ones aren't the same.
Quote:
If your beliefs end up getting you killed, then I don't see that as helpful, especially if what does the killing is, well, a far worse ideology. They win, and you are dead. And your ideas, your beliefs go with you.
Again, I don't think people believe things just because it'll help them live. Look at Jesus. He died, but his beliefs are more popular than ever. That's why you gotta write them down. That's why I often respect martyrs. They die with the hope of furthering their beliefs.
Quote:
Morality and legality are not the same thing. Hopefully they are connected, but still, you can't throw the Geneva convention up in all this, because it does not apply.
If beheading a bad Iraqi would make us safer, yes. Go for it. I would insist that be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the bad guy, but that is more an epistemological issue than anything else.
First of all, I never argued the Convention was being violated, the others were, as they think it does. I only argued on a moral ground, and as you said, they're not the same. I tend to agree with Mal, that morality's more important. I would also behead an Iraqi if he was a bad person and it would make us safer. Only I define "bad" in this case as meaning "immoral" not "having the guts to fight for his country." I guess it's a moot point, though, because it would almost never be worth it support-wise.
Quote:
Biological entities will fight for their survival and use every means available
Not quite true. They value some things more than life. Certainly wild animals will protect their young over their own lives. Likewise, male chimps and baboons will die to protect their genetically-similar clans, as will many humans. Likewise, humans will die for abstract ideological ideas, like religion. I think it's better to die than be tortured to death, or having to commit atrocities. Also, if their was a good enough cause, I'd die to advance it. Many Japanese soldiers thought it was better to die than surrender. It may not have one them the war, but it helped somewhat.
Quote:
One prisoner had the words "I am a rapest" (sic) scrawled on him after the prisoner raped another prisoner. Yes there was a rape that happened, but it was one prisoner raping another. There is no evidence, according to the report, of guards raping prisoners, male or female.
I also don't think I accused any guards of rape. Only sexual abuse, which definitely happened.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza, I just wanted to continue with the question of Hitchen's review of the movie, in which the central tennet (I think) is the role of the Saudis in George W Bush's foreign policy.
It's clear to me that the Saudis do not "determine" US foreign policy, however, they may influence it in areas of vital interest (to them).
So I guess the first thing to look at is- which Saudis is Bush in contact with and what are their vital interests?
Obviously, the point of contact is the Royal Family which controls all the oil. Their vital interests are to stay in power, to keep revenues flowing into their coffers, and to grow the value of their investments.
Without having specifically researched Saudi politics, my understanding is that the whole thing is complicated by the presence of the Wahhabis in Mecca and Medina. The Saudi Royal Family and the Wahhabis are going in opposite directions. The Wahhabi version of Islam promotes a religion of austerity, a fierce desire to convert or destroy the unfaithful, military control of the territory, and the sacredness of Mecca.
Ever since the Royal Family took control of the peninsula, they have been keeping the Wahhabis at bay by a combination of intermarriage, payoffs, and license to operate in other countries. Over the years, the Wahhabis have gotten stronger because they've used the money to set up madrasses throughout the Mideast and eastern and northern Africa. AT this point, I think the Royal Family realizes that they have a tiger by the tail.
The point is that the House of Saud didn't see Taliban as a "clone". The Taliban was a creation of Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia. Nor did they see al Qaida as a good thing, although they were willing to tolerate is as long as it restricted its activities to foreign countries (i.e the USA, Kenya, Afghanistan etc.) However, the presence of foreign (i.e. USA) troops in Saudi Arabia is a huge problem for the Royal Family and it may cause them to fall from power. Their chief interest at this point is to get all foreign troops out of Saudi Arabia and keep them out. Their refusal to allow our troops into Saudi Arabia was not so much support for Afghanistan and Iraq as it was fear of a politically unstable situation at home.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
Another part of their equation is not to lose their investment value. I believe the price of oil is still pegged to the US dollar, although the Saudis were talking about pegging it to the Euro instead. As long as oil is prices in dollars, and as long as the House of Saud has a large portion of its revenues and investments in US dollars, the Royal Family has no interest in pulling the rug out from under the US economy. We saw that once before during the rumor that the Saudis were going to peg their oil to gold and/or a "market basket" of currencies. Gold went up to $800/oz, the dollar plumetted, and the Saudis kind of took in on the chin. In other words, it would be very unwise for them to use the economic threat because that is a two-edged sword. I would be more concerned if I saw the Saudis undertake a gradual shift away from dependence on the US economy.
I'm not sure how the House of Saud views Iraq. Although Saddam and Saudi Arabia nominally shared religions (Sunni Islam) Iraq itself launched SCUD missiles against Saudi Arabia in 1991. It's possible that the Royal Family welcomed the invasion of Iraq (as long as they kept their own hands clean) knowing that US troops would be "around" if their own country became unstable without having to tolerate actual troop presence in their own countny. It's also possible that they didn't necessarily fear that the invasion would create a stable Iraq with increased oil exports- likely they had a more realistic view of what would happen afterwards (as opposed to the American view that we would be viewed as liberators and showered with rose petals). In fact, the House of Saud probably would have had more to fear, competition-wise, from the Russian and French contracts with Saddam that were about
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey all. Finally got more than a few minutes of time for myself this weekend.
Drakon, for the most part I agree with the sentiment of your post. Just wanted to clarify a few details. (Also, on an unrelated note, would you mind splitting up the link you posted in one of your responses to ltnowis? It’s so long that it has changed the margins of the entire thread.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
But I think you had demonstrated the point very clearly. After making your case for the "Bush lied" meme, you went on to give a very spirited and I must say, descent defense of Kerry against the charge of "flip flopping". You apparently still reject my defense, and to be honest, I am not certain I would accept your defense either. Its not that neither of us is listening to the other, its just that we each find the other's case weak, compared to our own.
Actually my intent was not to explicitly defend Kerry on the charge of flip-flopping. My intent was more to outline problems I saw with the charge of flip-flopping in general. I see a parallel with the charge of lying. They are easy labels to throw around, and do get thrown around because they make good sound bites, but I rarely see the charges presented with enough background information to allow for an informed decision. I put some blame on the shoulders of the media who, for the most part in my opinion, have stopped being journalists. I do a lot of what should be their work myself (researching old quotes, or statements, or voting records) to determine whether a charge of lying or flip-flopping is justified in my opinion (And that’s just the first step because then I want to know “why?”). And even then it’s only my opinion, albeit an informed one, and a judgment call based on the sum of the evidence because I can’t get inside the politicians head. It’s rare, in my experience, for a politician to confirm that they did lie, or flip-flop.
It’s even rarer for some supporters of particular politicians to agree to a charge. I remember being frustrated to no end talking to die-hard Clinton supporters because they just would not admit that he lied. If we could’ve only gotten past that, then we could’ve judged the lie on importance and relevance and whether or not it was a big deal. I feel that same frustration in talking to some die-hard Bush supporters today (off-topic: I really don’t personally know any die-hard Kerry supporters. That’s probably a function of incumbency. During the 2000 election I didn’t know any die-hard Gore or Bush supporters. During the 1992 election I didn’t know any die-hard Clinton supporters. During the 1996 election I didn’t know any die-hard Dole supporters. But then again, I do know people who were at one time die-hard Perot, Nader, or Dean supporters. I define “die-hard” to be a person with a very binary view of the world: “my candidate is always right and the best thing since sliced bread” kind of a person).
Politicians lie and they change their vote. I’m more interested in why they lie, what they hope to accomplish with the lie, or why they changed their vote. In the specific case of lying, I’ve found a good indicator to be the repetition of very specific phrases. If a politician is questioned and keeps giving the exact same response then I’ve found they are usually skating a very thin line. They’re not technically lying but they are shading the truth. I’m reminded of the whole “imminent threat” brouhaha a while back. Politicians claimed they never used that phrase to describe Hussein, and they were right. But they used words like urgent and immediate and dangerous and other words that give a similar impression. If you look at what they were trying to accomplish with their statements whether they used immediate or imminent or urgent or another word was unimportant. But they are technically correct when they later claimed that they never used the word imminent to describe the threat posed by Hussein to this country. So whenever I hear the exact same phrase from people during interviews my anten
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym
Soupcatcher- maybe I didn't catch it the first time, but why are you so interested in demonization?
So this is going to be long and rambling. But you asked
To fully explain why I’m interested in this topic I’m going to have to go into a little background detail on my interest in politics in general. But before I do that I wanted to comment on the rest of your post.Quote:
Originally posted by Signym
I believe that this is happening because people feel that more is at stake. 9-11 really shook people up. And Cheney globalized the issue, literally, to the point where some people believe that the issue is "ultimate survival".
On the flip side, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld quickly instituted some pretty heavy-duty changes to rights vis a vis dentention and privacy. The Patriot Act was already waiting in the wings for an incident like 9-11, leaving the oppostion to believe that much of this was pre-planned. They may not be as afraid for their personal safety as they are afraid of the USA changing from a democracy to something else.
Both of these are significant concerns that play on people's deepest fears and will naturally cause polarization.
However one categorizes the response (polarization, demonization, prejudice, dehumanization) amybe the quesiton should be- what cna we do about it, if anything?
The stakes definitely feel like they have gone up since 9-11. I think you are right that fear feeding into anger is behind the polarization, demonization, etc. I fall into the second category you mentioned, I’m more afraid of making fundamental changes to our country, in an effort to make ourselves feel safer, than I am afraid of terrorists. We would be extremely safe in a state of permanent martial law. But that’s not the U.S. I love. Frankly, we just have too much inertia for anyone from the outside to destroy us as a country. The only way that would happen would be through occupation and we’re just too big militarily and geographically for any one country to take us on. Granted, terrorists are not representing countries. It’s a completely asymmetric threat. But the only successful terrorist attack on our home soil by a terrorist group that wasn’t from this country took tremendous resources (time and money and personnel). How many terrorist groups have billionaires backing them? Cut off the money and all these groups can do is jump around and scream at us and threaten all they want. But they’ll be doing it from halfway around the world. That’s why I was so pissed that we diverted from the effort in Afghanistan of rooting out Osama and went into Iraq. But I’ll try not to rant
.I agree that the bigger question is: what can be done about demonization? The least that I can do is not engage in the practice. The next level up from that would be to identify demonization and call people on it on an individual case by case conversational basis. Aside from that, I’m not sure where to go.
So that said, why is this topic important to me…
Up until fairly recently I considered myself apolitical. I vote in every election I am eligible because it’s important to me but I am not affiliated with any party and I really don’t pay attention to platforms. I research all the measures and candidates and vote with my gut based on some general guidelines but I never thought about the big picture: what are the advantages and disadvantages of our system of government and stuff like that. Two things have changed that.
The first is 9-11. I see this as a test for our country. We will get through this crisis. But how we respond to this crisis will weigh on how our country is seen by the future. If we take the path of “well, it’s been a good 225+ year run, but we really can’t face this threat without making significant changes to our founding principles” then I feel that we will have failed this test.
The second is due to my interest in science fiction. I love time travel/alternate history stories – specifically where
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You bring up a lot of intersting points. I LOVE the idea of having logicians in the background identifying flaws!
I have just a few minutes ofr a couple of ideas, but I'll have to finish this up later.
The basis of demonization, and one of our species' great strenghts (and fatal flaws) is the ability to find greater meaning in a word than the totality of our individual experience. We can talk about "the Jewish banking conspiracy" and give it greater weight than our life's experience with Jews. Even a physically integrated mix can be goaded to look on each other with suspicion within months, given a steady stream of propaganda.
Words alone can raise our pulse and blood pressure, cause us to fight to the death, make us cry. Given that they are so powerful, you'd think that rhetoric and logic would be a REQUIRED part of the school curriculum. Instead, they teach "history". (It's a little like the current approach to science. Along with teaching "How many molecules in a mole" science teachers should teach the scientific method.)
So I think an important part of reducing "demonization" would be to change the school curriculum.
The other point that you bring up in trust in the opposition, and the strength of opposing parties.
I think what you're saying is that systems with two opposing drivers are more stable than systems with only one driver - for example, heating and cooling something at the same time achieves better temperature regulation than just heating (or cooling) alone.
That might work with single variable (temperature). However, in a multi-variable society, where fiscal, foreign, and domestic policy don't line up neatly (I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal) you may need more than two parties to adequately represent most views.
But w/out getting hung up in the number of parties, I think what you are saying is that people need to trust the PROCESS of opposition, and not respond to opposition as a threat that needs to be eliminated.
Hmmm... I'm falling alseep at the keyboard. Later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you're saying is that systems with two opposing drivers are more stable than systems with only one driver - for example, heating and cooling something at the same time achieves better temperature regulation than just heating (or cooling) alone.
That might work with single variable (temperature). However, in a multi-variable society, where fiscal, foreign, and domestic policy don't line up neatly (I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal) you may need more than two parties to adequately represent most views.
But w/out getting hung up in the number of parties, I think what you are saying is that people need to trust the PROCESS of opposition, and not respond to opposition as a threat that needs to be eliminated.
Yeah, that is basically what I'm saying in regards to the process of opposition. I like your temperature control example. I have a tendency to reverse-anthropomorphosize human problems and think in terms of technical solutions. I have to constantly remind myself that there are no realistic control volumes that can be drawn around most problems involving humans (damn those pesky people
). A good solution would be to have more than two viable political parties in this country. Most people I talk to on a regular basis do not fit well into either party. But there is a lot of inertia against third, fourth, etc. parties gaining national acceptance. So I try to focus more on working within the structure that we currently have.Getting too tired to type...
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME