tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post7706332869362868060..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: The Vileness of Guns and "Just Wars"Benjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-41629670788840775742013-09-16T14:32:16.532-04:002013-09-16T14:32:16.532-04:00Maybe, but can you prove it with some specific obj...Maybe, but can you prove it with some specific objections to this article?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-81982743805641431392013-09-16T14:10:57.488-04:002013-09-16T14:10:57.488-04:00DUDE, YOU'RE A MORON.DUDE, YOU'RE A MORON.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-7650794869341320202013-01-31T12:46:11.115-05:002013-01-31T12:46:11.115-05:00Sorry, what intruder are you talking about?Sorry, what intruder are you talking about?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-44924067272920542222013-01-31T12:13:06.883-05:002013-01-31T12:13:06.883-05:00Your "Intruder" poster should be credite...Your "Intruder" poster should be credited to its creator, I think it is Oleg Volk of http://olegvolk.net/blog/<br />just so your readers know.mikeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-51365262862023718872013-01-15T22:46:51.411-05:002013-01-15T22:46:51.411-05:00I always like with the news reports of so many sho...I always like with the news reports of so many shot dead in another country - how the presenter gives the practiced graven intoning, before slipping effortlessly into introducing the sports segment.<br /><br />I mean, I myself would probably use that as part of a definition of madness! Yet it's shown each night, country wide, without reaction.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-67261488266007139942013-01-15T08:32:12.348-05:002013-01-15T08:32:12.348-05:00Exactly, desensitization! That's part of the p...Exactly, desensitization! That's part of the problem I'm getting at. Guns tend to keep the targets too far from the shooters. Likewise, even though TV informs more people about the results of gun violence, it does so by making that violence seem remote, like it's happening on another planet. High technology in general seems to enhance the decadence of its users, because we become more attached to it as our extended body.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-39880828979250142822013-01-14T19:20:04.605-05:002013-01-14T19:20:04.605-05:00Well, there's the downside of attaching morali...Well, there's the downside of attaching morality to god. Short term gain in that some big dude enforces it all. Downside of attaching morality to a god, is when the god gets shelved, what's attached to it gets shelved as well. Shame it had to get attached to begin with, but I guess we had quite a few rough millenia to get through.<br /><br />I think contradictions in persons (of power) own values, where they conflict with their own values but are unaware of them contradicting their own values, is pivotal. Also desesitisation by distance - I wonder if the atomic bomb worked by teleporting people to a chamber, bound, where the american president had to shoot them personally one at a time after looking in the person in the eye, whether they would have managed to kill even a fraction of the population of Hiroshima or Nagasaki (particularly in terms of shooting crying children). Odd example, I know, but it certainly highlights how distance desensitises.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-80481397126149434282013-01-13T18:48:20.833-05:002013-01-13T18:48:20.833-05:00I think the responsibility for wars is usually pre...I think the responsibility for wars is usually pretty diffuse, so it's hard to blame specific individuals. Likewise, it would be hard for individuals to stop a war. Bush Jr.'s war against Iraq was protested by almost the whole world and it still went ahead. Then again, I think the majority of the protestors were motivated more by anti-Americanism and jealousy of the US's global top-dog status than by moral principles. <br /><br />As I say in "Oligarchy," the problem with the moral principles that make war evil is that postmodern secularists have little reason to take them seriously. If God is dead, traditional morality should be thrown into the grave with him, as Nietzsche said. The moral principles I'm more interested in are matters of aesthetic taste. So the ethical problem with war which can still interest a postmodern secularist is that war is cliched.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2868067646020077682013-01-12T18:43:58.146-05:002013-01-12T18:43:58.146-05:00Those who genuinely care about morality would be d...<i>Those who genuinely care about morality would be doing much more to avoid war in the first place.</i><br /><br />And your measure for whether they genuinely cared about morality is...whether a war occurs, isn't it?<br /><br />As I said above, there's no room for error there. If a war occurs, your measure is that it was desired. The person deliberately betrayed their principles. That's what I understand of your writing: - if they really cared, they'd have put more effort in. Effort enough to stop the war from starting. Because if you really care about something, you can do that thing. Just like all the commercials tell us. So likewise, if someone doesn't do something, if they don't stop war, it's because they desired it. That's the shadow of 'if they really cared about morality, they'd be doing much more to avoid war in the first place.'<br /><br />And as I said above, this measure leads to the frightening occurance where if the person who measures this way accidentally starts a war or conflict themselves, since they granted themselves no way of redemption and face only condemnation, they start making excuses for what they did and how it was 'right'. Particularly the 'no holds bared' elements.<br /><br />It actually seems like war speach to me.<br /><br />On mistakes, it depends on what emperical method you use to determine what is a mistake. In the haze of no particular method, it hardly raises a definate flag to action.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-5234039488962014442013-01-12T10:39:01.289-05:002013-01-12T10:39:01.289-05:00Of course respecting a POW's human rights is t...Of course respecting a POW's human rights is the moral thing to do. My point is that the reasoning behind doing so in the middle of a war, when you're killing people with cluster bombs, tanks, and automatic weapons is perfectly absurd. The logic behind the Geneva Conventions is about reciprocity: we should treat foreign prisoners well so they'll do the same with ours. Meanwhile, the two sides are killing each other left and right! Killing each other intentionally! With billion-dollar war machines! Sometimes we don't see the absurdity of our thoughts or actions until we take a step back and get a little less familiar with what we're doing. That's objectivity. And objectively speaking, I don't think morality has any place in war. As soon as you say morality is relevant in war, you're contradicting yourself. Those who genuinely care about morality would be doing much more to avoid war in the first place. If it's down to war, all hope of civilized values is lost, we've betrayed our principles and now we've got to fight like animals, in which case no holds are barred.<br /><br />Regarding mistakes, I think you're right that many middle class people are partly responsible for propping up the wealthy CEOs and politicians, whether by buying their products or voting for them. But remember the crucial difference: a middle class voter wouldn't get in front of a camera and reduce her blunder by calling it a mere mistake. Alternatively, that vote might actually be a mistake because the voter typically knows nothing at all about any of the candidates and may even have ticked off the wrong name on the ballot.<br /><br />What annoys me is when a palpably vicious individual belittles the extent of her vices, when he gets caught, by calling the outcome of those vices a mere mistake. This is a misuse of language, but because of the magic of political correctness, people hardly think the matter over and tend to forgive any such evildoer. It's the magic word that opens the drawbridge.<br /><br />I agree that senators may not ask deep questions in their hearings, to protect those who are most responsible (unless they're looking for a scapegoat). My point was just the shallow one, about the word "grill" which has become a genuine meme. I didn't mean to imply that "grill" is less harsh than "boil" or "roast," although now that I think of it that may be part of the meme's usefulness: to excuse the senators for the mildness of their questions. After all, grilling only cooks the outside of the food, so maybe that's how the meme got started. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-74049750982597667262013-01-11T20:47:53.359-05:002013-01-11T20:47:53.359-05:00Well, I think whether one pulls back (ie, the end ...Well, I think whether one pulls back (ie, the end of morality) from, say, pushing for laws on the rights of prisoners (or that prisoners are taken at all) is also seperate from the question of the moral status of war.<br /><br />I think one is going to have to say that pushing for rights of prisoners is a moral thing, even under the shadow of the black cloud that is war. Even, indeed as one doesn't believe there should be prisoners to begin with. Which is rather like pushing for the rights of slaves, when one doesn't believe in slave status to begin with but will afirm the status simply as a means to the end of mitigating harm for the time being.<br /><br />Black clouds don't make for the end of morality. They do make for compromises (so as to reduce harm) which, granted, risk becoming ritualised as 'good' without any qualifier.<br /><br />I might seem off topic, but I do argue that war (the world events regarded as such, not some platonic idea of it) is not the end of morality.<br /><br />Not sure about the mistake micro rant. After all, if you are in charge whether these rich bastards have the capacity to make such large companies and stockpiles of resources and transactions, or you are in charge of whether satan has any power, isn't it a bit of a handball to blame them for using the powers you gave them? Oh, they 'exploited' those powers? Or did you design those powers badly and they just used what you gave them? What...that was just a mistake though? Okay, a little cutting edge there - I presume I can be a little cutting edge because this is rant territory. If not, I will withdraw on the matter as its a bit forward of me.<br /><br />Otherwise it seems god or senators only have a 'grill' function, because if they dig too deep the buck comes right back to them and they would be boiling themselves over the matter. Or worse, they'd grill even further and it'd come back to us, as citizens, that we'd boil ourselves for letting these guys continue the modern version of an old robber baron system. Oh wait, were powerless, it could only be a mistake on our part? Though I live in Australia so one could argue I'm not in exactly the same boat.<br /><br />Hey, if it's engaging - just pitching an interestingly complicated scenario :) You'd think I'd do it on my own blog, but I find I can't think of these things until I engage someone elses position - and then I do it in their comments! :o Hope it entertains! :)Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-6571777917276380132013-01-11T10:16:59.424-05:002013-01-11T10:16:59.424-05:00You might want to check out my little article on m...You might want to check out my little article on mistakes, at:<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/08/dictionary-of-micro-rants-mistakes.html<br /><br />A Just War Theory isn't so much about how to practically avoid war; rather, it's about whether a war is theoretically just or not. Whether war can actually be ended is a separate question from the moral status of war.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-18683334025610473812013-01-10T18:20:08.917-05:002013-01-10T18:20:08.917-05:00Well I don't want to say wars are caused mainl...Well I don't want to say wars are caused mainly by good things? So yes, they are caused by mistakes, in what I'm saying.<br /><br /><i>But surely most wars are caused by greed, hubris, desperation, fear, and other such primitive motives.</i><br /><br />I don't understand - are you refering to some built in incapactiy to avoid falling to these primitive motives?<br /><br />Otherwise, isn't falling to these primitive motives <i>a mistake?</i><br /><br />Or are you gunning to somehow expunge greed, hubris, desperation and fear somehow? It's not that we attempt to resist falling to them (and fail at times), but that they are to be expunged entirely somehow?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-31332853045141254302013-01-09T10:30:40.762-05:002013-01-09T10:30:40.762-05:00Thanks for your thoughts on the article, Callan. I...Thanks for your thoughts on the article, Callan. I agree that moral people can make mistakes, but do we really want to say that wars are caused mainly by mistakes? This word "mistake" can be amusingly overused, as I say in my Dictionary of Micro Rants entry. Maybe WWI is the best example of a war caused by a mistaken idea of the benefits of international treaties. But surely most wars are caused by greed, hubris, desperation, fear, and other such primitive motives. We're much too primitive to be preoccupied with morality unless our life happens to be relatively uneventful, which is the case for most of us.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-80932288096427722642013-01-08T23:30:20.682-05:002013-01-08T23:30:20.682-05:00But the problem is that if we were serious about m...<i>But the problem is that if we were serious about morality, we wouldn't have wars in the first place because we'd be more creative in finding peaceful resolutions.</i> <br /><br />Two key points, I think.<br /><br />1. Failure happens. It does not matter how 'serous' you are about morality. In fact it's frightening if you are serious about morality, but then fail in regard to it - either you will utterly torment yourself because you leave no space for failure at it, or worse, you become a monster as you, in the face and threat of mind warping potential guilt and self condemnation, 'realise' you didn't fail at all - and the failure becomes a new twisted belief system (ANY sort of twist to avoid utter self condemnation! No one can stand such a thing (or those who do self inflict it then suicide)).<br /><br />2. Failure has spewed out into the world already - if you take it peace is what we really want under all the other urgings (and let's ignore the existance of sociopaths for the moment). What do we do with this failure - with these fires? Just wait for them to go out? What if a moral warefare code drops the body count by a few (ie, we don't just kill prisoners, for example) and this in turn slows the number of enraged people who are prepared to kill? Fire retardant?<br /><br />The rules for 'civilised warfare' are semi bogus - I'd imagine most of them come from someone with a gut feeling about atrocity in war, but an inability to analyse that gut feeling - thus the true purpose of that gut feeling isn't put into the rules of war and then other people simply take it as an advocation of war, if you just 'do it right'.<br /><br />As I say, failure occurs. Shit will spill. You need a policy not just on avoiding spilling it to begin with, but what happens when you fail to avoid spilling it. A policy on mopping it up.<br /><br />No ones so perfectly serious about morality as to be invulnerable to failure.<br /><br />For those pacifists who think they are that serious, I think the critique you mention is a valid one.<br /><br />That any particular code of 'civilised warfare' that is written up might be twisted by some for their own personal glory and personal gain through war, twisted to advocate for the existance of war, this has happened and this could happen again and saying this is a risk is an entirely valid critique.<br /><br />Also that some rules for 'civilised warfare' aren't at all about putting out the fire but rather about getting on with business in an efficient and profitable manner, that's an entirely valid critique as well.<br /><br />But I don't think all are, or have to be. Some could be written to simply be clean up protocols. Protocols for failure, not glory.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-46275684676631757262013-01-06T10:06:17.094-05:002013-01-06T10:06:17.094-05:00Well, I don't think my theory here explains ev...Well, I don't think my theory here explains everything about the American love of guns. It's just an overlooked factor. "Decadence" means "moral degeneration, decline; the act or process of falling into an inferior condition or state; deterioration; unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence."<br /><br />Now, the poorest Americans surely don't participate *directly* in the monetary benefits of the country's great wealth: as we all know that wealth has gone disproportionately to the top 1% since the 1970s. However, we also know that the US is a so-called melting pot, meaning that all Americans share in the American Dream and thus aren't easily attracted to the idea of a progressive backlash against their plutocrats. The American Dream is the mechanism by which even poor Americans are *indirectly* corrupted by their country's hyperpower.<br /><br />So here's how I'd speak of decadence among the poor masses: the country has (or at least had) too much power for its own good, and that differentially corrupts the rich and the poor (following the implications of the Iron Law of Oligarchy). The rich are corrupt and decadent in the old European way, as you say, while the poor suffer from a moral corruption, thanks to their sharing in the American Dream. Even the poor think they're entitled to some form of indulgence, and guns fulfill that need; even a pauper can feel like a nobleman when he holds a gun. And as Thomas Frank explains, the poor are especially blind to the source of their woes, to the fact that their country is a stealth oligarchy whose rulers exploit the values of the poor to maintain economic inequality through both political parties, but especially through the Republican leaders.<br /><br />I'd compare the poor Americans' frustration with that of the majority in the Muslim world who don't share in their nations' oil wealth and have to suffer the indignity of being ruled so openly by corrupt dictators or oligarchs. The Muslims seem to express that frustration by supporting religious extremism as an alternative to the secular form of corruption with which they're also familiar.<br /><br />But notice a key difference. The US is much more powerful than all of the Muslim countries combined. That seems to translate to different forms of manliness: the end of Muslim corruption takes the form of the terrorist's suicide bombing (martyrdom). Granted, this derives from an interpretation of their religion, but again this interpretation is favoured over other possible cherry-pickings, because of the current state of Muslim societies. So the weaker nations have a more egalitarian ideal of manliness (the terrorist as a sort of David against Goliath, the heroic everyman proving his worth by toppling the giant), although they're forced to distort this ideal because of their economic and political problems.<br /><br />That is, the Muslim world is humiliated and so corrupted by its poverty, whereas the US is corrupted by its hyperpower. Poor countries don't celebrate the inequality of their social structures, whereas wealthy ones might (thanks to the shared American Dream, for example). And one way of celebrating severe economic inequality is with the love of guns, as my article explains.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-60199483212852351932013-01-06T00:02:34.183-05:002013-01-06T00:02:34.183-05:00"To return to the initial mystery, then, the ..."To return to the initial mystery, then, the reason Americans love guns more than most other modern societies is that the US is still the most powerful, privileged, and thus decadent of those countries, and decadent folks who’ve grown accustomed to their privileges are like spoiled children; they want immediate, pain-free results or they’ll throw a temper tantrum."<br /><br /><br />Let me ask you what exactly you mean by "decadence," then. If you mean the general standard of living, then the US is actually less decadent than some European nations, especially once you remove the outlying top 5-10% of income earners. With all due respect, I don't exactly understand how you're going from decadence to love of guns. It seems to me it has much more to do with our martial history and emphasis on individual power and liberty, which you gesture at in the beginning of the article, than with our current position in the global power structure. After all, gun ownership in America has been falling fairly steadily since at least the early 1970s, even as we have (I assume) become more decadent over time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-86029002517396732242013-01-05T19:46:04.038-05:002013-01-05T19:46:04.038-05:00I think you're right that the US's warped ...I think you're right that the US's warped brand of Christianity has made Americans more violent, but this only raises the prior question of why Americans chose or actively distorted that religion. After all, Jesus was a pacifist. I believe, then, my explanation of gun violence, in terms of the country's position in the global power hierarchy is the deeper one here, since only such a cynical country would entertain what Marx would call the superstructure of such a laughable religious ideology, an ideology that obviously rationalizes the country's secular, anti-Jesus activities. <br /><br />Mind you, I don't blame all of this on the guns themselves. What I say is that objects like guns are not morally neutral and that some people will be attracted to certain objects because of their prior virtues or vices. Put quite provocatively, guns attract decadent sissies, but guns don't make people sissies in the first place (although our environment can reinforce certain tendencies). What makes a population decadent is its corrupting concentration of power. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-75940573130926811042013-01-05T15:04:22.111-05:002013-01-05T15:04:22.111-05:00I suspect that the widespread adherence of America...I suspect that the widespread adherence of Americans to a perverted form of Christianity is more responsible for this country's love of guns than any machine-caused dehumanization.<br /><br />Having talked to many Americans, both in real life and on teh Interwebz about religion and politics, it's very clear to me that a significant portion of us in this country, whether consciously or not, view the world in terms of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, filtered through the lens of American Christianity, where everything is judged to be supportive of one side or the other of this conflict. For these people, then, every aspect of society is thus assigned a role in this drama, and reality is made subordinate to it. Where you or I, then, would see institutions and systems, made up of many components, and animated by a variety of forces, these people see only the hand of God or Satan at work.<br /><br />Furthermore, among some people, there is a very real desire (probably fueled by feelings of inadequacy due to our decadent lifestyle) to "prove" one's manhood through combat, and so Americans invent all these threats that they need to protect themselves against, as a result of their subconscious desire to involve themselves in combat. Notice how this would also play into the above metanarrative: the prospect of indulging one's desire to prove his manhood or toughness while at the same time fighting the forces of darkness (and thus gratifying base animal instinct while also pursuing the "higher," "noble" objective) is simply too potent a combination for these people to resist.<br /><br />I should also note that this view is far more common among middle-aged and older Americans. Younger Americans, raised in less religious households, and in the absence of (visible) war, don't seem to be as inclined toward this worldview.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234846958193327264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34744601979888979352013-01-01T09:40:02.338-05:002013-01-01T09:40:02.338-05:00I think I know what you're saying abut war. Th...I think I know what you're saying abut war. This is the criticism of pacifism, that the pacifist takes the high road of nonparticipation which will only lead to more wars and even let the bad guys win. But the problem is that if we were serious about morality, we wouldn't have wars in the first place because we'd be more creative in finding peaceful resolutions. So the rules for "civilized" warfare are bogus. Thus we discovered that even the US, which is supposed to be a beacon to the world, tortured people. The reasons the US or any other modern nation doesn't torture in the medieval sense, pulling out body parts and so on, are that this wouldn't help in the war effort nor would it be publicly tolerated in a Western society and so it would have no entertainment value. And the reason it wouldn't be tolerated is that we're squeamish, feminized, and decadent. Morality has nothing to do with it, you see. The facts that we're preoccupied with sex and that we go to war show that we're animals, that we're not as rational, free, or noble as we'd like to believe. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-12305619695723487522012-12-31T23:26:29.724-05:002012-12-31T23:26:29.724-05:00Sounds like the very trigger to simply keep waring...Sounds like the very trigger to simply keep waring? War is the end of morality?<br /><br />The very inability to take morality over to war is what essentially drives its mass murderings.<br /><br />It seems a 'wash your hands of the whole business, because this killing lark cannot be right, not even one bit!' and so retract any sense of right and wrong from war. The thing it needs the least, once it boils over the lip of the pot.<br /><br />Perhaps war needs to be leashed, to be turned around from the parade of victory and glory into the lament of failure, by folk who consider the morality of it gravely, even if it gets their hands dirty by some level of advocation - rather than wash hands of it, and remain in the safety, yet not dealing with the world, of non advocation?<br /><br /><br />Also in regard to comics, I found the responce in another blog to the Batman video games (arkham city) interesting, in how the blogger thinks 'what weird code of honor do you need to have to decide that it wouldn't be justified to shoot back if your enemies are shooting at you?', even though in the game Batman, with a modicum of skill, can non lethal take down every opponent. In other words, to that blogger the only thing that matters is if they shoot at you - never mind if you can KO the lot of them and keep them alive. Once your shot at, no matter how strong you are, kill them all. It's perfectly justified and so doesn't need thinking about, to his mind, it's 'weird' to not shoot back.<br /><br />http://tobolds.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/non-lethal-violence.htmlCallan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.com