|
the same tone, the same direction, the same problem. Let me say in advance that these were alkl responses to challenging and worthy arguments, and that I respect those I argued against. It is only for the purpose of space that I do not post their words to me. One can easily access that thread and examine them, in any case.
1)
You sound like the various factions of the former Yugoslavia right before the war. You sound like the radio propagandists that led the Hutus to murder the Tutsis.
You sound, in short, like nobody I want to be associated with. You think it's you who are aggrieved, to be sure, but you're talking the language of genocide, and I repudiate it wholly. Everyone who agrees with such tripe should be ashamed.
2)
"The other guy is ungovernable, unreasonable, and should die."
That's how simple it is. That a poster on DU is saying what amounts to the same thing is bad enough. That so many are heaping praise on such garbage is even worse. Garbage, fascism, genocide. This rhetoric is of the essence of all three. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The OP, on the other hand, needs to reflect on what he or she is saying here very seriously.
3)
But be very clear eyed about what kind of fight you want. The OP wants a genocidal fight, that's clear enough. He or she wants extermination.
Are these our options? Appeasment or extermination? I don't think so. In fact, I think that choice is nothing but another rhetoric of fascism masquerading as a choice. And you're doing it.
These are fascist rhetorics from start to finish. And it's despicable.
4)
And it was rants like this that led Bosnians of different religions (their own "Great Divide") to murder each other's neighbors and coworkers in the streets, and to shell each other's children. This sort of rhetoric has no future but calamity, death, atrocity, mass graves, bloodshed. Such rants always implicitly call for precisely that, whatever they may say explicitly.
We must reject such sentiments on their face. The original poster should be shamed for his or her disgusting rant, not widely praised. Never forget - as a slogan of holocaust remembrance doesn't just mean never forget the fact of the Holocausyt. It also means never forget the styles of human engagement that made the Holocaust possible. Dehumanization, the dream of a conflict-free polity, these are the styles of engagement that we're meant to oppose when we remember the Holocaust, yet these are precisely the styles of engagement of the original poster. It is the most disturbing fascist tripe I've ever seen on these boards. Sickening and scary that so many would sign on to that.
5)
I think your post is couched in the kind of language that leads to genocide, that makes genocide possible. Instead of shouting with caps and telling everybody that they are WRONG, perhaps you should go back and read your initial post and reflect on the way you are representing your opponents, from the plain folks who believe in the Republican platform to the most cynical power-hungry neo-con Congressperson. You hack them to pieces, rhetorically, by dehumanizing them and wishing for a conflict-free polity. It is a short leap to hacking them to pieces, actually, in the flesh and blood. It is totalitarian in its essence. Read it again carefully, and keep in mind that woman at the laundromat, or that man on the bus, or the commissioned officer, or the sixteen year old kid - keep in mind those who may believe in the other platform, truly believe it, and see what happens to them if your logic is put into practice. Hold their faces in your mind as you conduct this experiment, Make them real faces, real eyes, real flesh and blood. Do it.
You know, I've heard a lot of nonsense from the right wing about how the Balkans represent the failure of a multicultural society - usually in the course of arguing against multiculturalism in the university curriculum. But the Balkans don't represent the failure of a multicultural society. The Balkans represent the failure of monoculture, or the desire for monoculture. If the men who could look into those real faces, those real eyes, that real flesh and blood at Srebeniza could live with multiculturalism, they would never have fired a shot, never had laid a truncheon blow on a Muslim, never have kicked, punched, slapped. If they could live with the humanity of the other, in its radical difference, they would never have killed a one. Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down cannot live with difference, the radical difference of the other. He is far from a virtuous exemplar. He's a murderer at Srebeniza, Warsaw, Darfur, Kilgali, My Lai. And that is what I mean by the logic of genocide in your posts.
Now, I would by no means argue that one should lie down and take a beating. I'm against that, more than I'm willing to say here. But the option is rarely lie down or kill. Rarely. Sometimes, but rarely. And this is dangerous ground. And even when it comes to that, one can approach it without the fierce hatred you propose. One must enter even such circumstances with openness, even with love. You may have to kill that which seeks to kill your own difference, but you shouldn't kill difference itself in the process. And that, too, is what I mean by the logic of genocide in your posts.
This has nothing to do with you, or me, or thick skin, or the quality of your character, or any other such diversions you may lend to the discussion. This has to do with the history and quality of the rhetoric you're deploying - which you are both conscious of and taken up by, as the surfer is both at the mercy of and responsible to the wave. And you do have to answer for it. As to whether other people will listen to me, I am not primarily concernbed with that. I will put my position on your rhetoric out there, if only because its spiralling insanity demands a counterweight - some tether to the world of people, of faces, of eyes, of flesh and blood that would keep us from the abyss. You say nobody is listening. I suspect otherwise, but I'll let you portray the matter as you please - it is of little concern to me. Now, as for your final line, it's shocking to me that so much bluster could be followed by the ignore function. I have never hit ignore on anyone, because I find such postures cowardly in the extreme. I meet any argument lodged against me anywhere, and stop up my ears never. If that's how you roll, it's a surprise how blustery and blathery you've been in this thread about - ahem - standing up. But I suppose it is your option. Cheers.
6)
It is the logic of genocide that you are embracing. That's clear, and you have no response to it. There is no "reading too much into" it about it. I've laid out my criteria for the logic of genocide elsewhere and you can take them or leave them, find them displayed in your original posting or not. It's not about interpretation. It's about whether you dehumanize the other, and whether you desire a political monoculture (your own, of course). If these two conditions appear (and they do), then you are performing the logic of genocide. Whether you "support" genocide makes absolutely NO difference. This logic, this way of thinking, this way of engaging other human beings is what makes genocide possible long before a drop of blood is spilled.
|