It’s no secret I’m on the misanthropy spectrum, but as such a person you could say that about, I wanted to ask this ever since hearing this conveyed in response to recent events which sees three spheres of influence now arguably possessing the potential to deliver on such promises. Like… what’s the deal?
I mean, cultures generally don’t declare war, but leaderships of countries do.
I don’t expect people to abandon their culture because their home country’s current government is doing messed up stuff.
But I will hate on people who support governments that declare unjust wars. But that’s hating people for their politics, which I think has always been fine.
cultures generally don’t declare war, but leaderships of countries do.
Yeah, that’s what I meant. In the context of discrimination though you tend to speak of them in terms of cultures.
Yes and that’s bad. Don’t discriminate based on culture.
Don’t hate on people with a russian accent, hate on the people posting pro russia murdering people news stories.
Cultures don’t declare war. Governments do. Conflating cultures and governments is what Nazis do.
Verbal technicality in this case since the topic is discrimination. When someone from a nation is treated a certain way, often they’ll speak in terms of culture instead of nation and it catches on in these conversations.
It’s a technicality that makes a difference, though.
If someone is advocating for genocide or whatever and accuses you of discrimination for saying “how 'bout not, tho”, they’re just making up bullshit to push their reprehensible agenda.
Meanwhile, it’s totally possible to be from a country that does bad shit while abhoring said bad shit (and also appreciating the cuisine and music or whatever of their community.) There would be no benefit whatsoever to punishing such an individual.
I don’t think you can know anything about a person based on their perceived affiliation to a culture. Wars, nuclear or otherwise, aren’t fought by cultures or even countries, but by groups of powerful individuals within those things, and people are all different and have infinitely varying thoughts about things that their governments do, or that other people they share a group affiliation with do. I think it’s best to target any resentment about a specific event at the actual people who took part in making it occur, and not at people who happen identify with the same culture as the hypothetical nuclear perpetrators. The latter doesn’t make any sense to me, unless the goal is to come up with a pre-justification for cruelty or discrimination, which often has a secondary practical purpose beyond just “I’m upset about that nuclear war”.
I mean if someone felt dysphoria about their nation but couldn’t escape it that would be one thing, but that’s not even the biggest concern, as you have people further up the scale who will stand by their homeland or former homeland for whatever reason in a nepotistic sense, and in a world where people often boast and judge over one’s national or heritage background, there is apparently growing discussion over whether the fact someone’s realm of origin pushed the big red button is a cue that national sphere can be looked down upon.
I disagree with you here. I just don’t think it makes any sense. People are too complex and varied.
I myself don’t really identify wholly with the assertion, I’m just saying it has become a topic in regards to fighting escalation/consequentialism with more consequentialism and that it inspired the OP.
Hey guys, is it okay if I don’t hate Jewish people, I just hate people who do Jewish things or otherwise associate themselves with Jewish culture or identity? I mean, if they just stop being Jewish then I won’t hate them anymore!
No. No that’s not okay either.
That would imply nuking people is “a Jewish thing”. Do we really want to go there?
Sadly some people here beat them to it.
There’s a difference between being against a group for trivial and/or subjective things and being against active participants in a player on a world stage that we can now say is the reason another player on the world stage no longer exists.
And I already mentioned (several times, unless one trusts their biases so much they won’t take my word for my own opinions) I wasn’t implying myself in the OP except to say it irks my misanthropic side and I might express that some other way.
This seems to be a question aimed at validating a position you hold, so what is your position on your question, OP?
Slightly neutral, lean towards a much less severe response but still keeping one’s eyes open. I am a second-hand witness to this debate, I am seeing it a lot though because nuking a territory is seen as an act of escalation/consequentialism that puts a nation’s misdeeds and status amongst other peoples on a whole other level in a world where all peoples are supposed to be equal, and people have been saying “wait, if [insert government here] is going to go THAT far and go above and beyond what others are going to do and be so indiscriminate as to wipe cities off the face of the Earth, can we be indiscriminate too and treat anyone from there as anathema and a form of pressure as long as cancel culture is acceptable”.
I remember in school one of our history lessons we had to write an essay about was the US almost nuking Vietnam/Korea in their respective wars (can’t remember which one, sources even differ) and Americans being so upset that close to a million protestors camped outside the White House, ready to storm it. You know, back when storming the white house was considered a big deal.
To reframe it, could you say why you think it would be okay to discriminate against a person you don’t know because they share a cultural (and not necessarily political) association with a country they may or may not be a member of? And more specifically, what positive outcome there would be from that discrimination as opposed to protesting the actions and decision makers involved?
I’ve clarified a few times here, it’s not a stance I have, just one I’ve seen and saw as tempting enough to ask about. Their logic goes, if A) nuclear assault is a step above normal warfare, and B) normally all countries/ethnicities/cultures are equal and not below one another on the basis that that we all have equal potential both good and bad, and C) we live in a world that found a way to justify witch hunts, the red scare, and cancel culture, then D) a country that does engage in nuclear strikes would (according to the logic) mark a civilization as being humanly lower than other peoples and thus it wouldn’t be unfair to have a cancellation-or-red-scare-style approach to it and use it as a force of consequentialism against the nation in question having engaged in nuclear assault in order to bring a downpour of shame upon the nation that carried it out.
My problem with it is exactly what yours is, though I don’t disagree with doing something about those directly connected to the act.
Oh, another russian puppet.
Get lost Russia, we’re going to support Ukraine for how long time ig takes.
Edit: my answers seems to not being showing up. Maybe my instance isn’t handling it or something, we’ll see later.
I’m not a Russian puppet. I pride myself in being one of the first supporters of Ukraine for this very reason (and hardcore too). Still do.
deleted by creator
That’s just a bunch of words. Doubtful too (there will be lots of refugees… I’m anti war… My best friends who I’ve been staying with have declared their home a micronation ???) Where are you declaring f anything.
I sent 100€ the 24 of February, two days after the Russian major aggression on Ukraine, to help. I’m not rich but I figured that if I’d help, the best way was right away.
Doubtful too (there will be lots of refugees… I’m anti war… My best friends who I’ve been staying with have declared their home a micronation ???)
I don’t understand, what’s so questionable about these things?