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?
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.