Roger Ebert: hating terrorists = thinking like terrorists

[Cleon]

Agreed. But this is not racism, since "Arab" is not a race. But you knew that.

 

[Mercutio]

I confess, I have really enjoyed this thread. It has everything--thoughtful contributions, knee-jerk reactions, missattributions, denial...

Let me explain the "denial" bit. The rest, I hope, are self-explanatory.

As ReFLeX and LostAngeles both alluded, we are quick to see the worst in others, and slow to see that potential in ourselves. Art V., for instance, "reject the idea that terrorists are the same manner of creature as [he]." This is understandable, and even admirable. I think it is also wrong. We all have the potential to be the suicide bomber, or the torturer, or the guy who flies the plane into the building...or the firefighter who climbs the staircase to rescue trapped innocents, knowing he will likely not survive the attempt.

I think Art's (OP) "implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid" is incorrect (although, again, completely understandable). Our culture is one that assigns blame, and assigns it to autonomous individuals, rather than exploring the causal factors influencing the phenomena under investigation. The idea that something so abhorrent to us is within our capabilities is unacceptable. We must, even at the expense of the truth, distance ourselves from such a realization. (A thread over a year ago saw LuxFerum denying the findings of the Milgram experiment for much the same reasons--this is not an isolated phenomenon. http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=21353)

(Even Luke's "Did that make us like the Japanese and Germans? No. It was a means to override our natural revulsion at killing another human being that needed killing." is questionable. Why not "yes, it does make us like them, but for very different reasons"? We did dehumanize them, and they did dehumanize us. In that (if in nothing else) it did make us like them. It should not be impossible to admit that. "Alike in one aspect" does not imply "alike in all aspects". But we are, understandably, motivated to deny any similarity whatsoever.)

The important thing is not whether they are different from us or similar; the important thing is whether we can prevent such activities. In my opinion, if understanding "their" behavior means understanding that they are not different from us, that is more important than maintaining a difference at the expense of not understanding their behavior. We can hate an action, even if we see its potential in ourselves.

 

[jj]

And yet you don't have a single valid point to make about it. All you have is sarcasm, strawmen, personal attacks, villification of your opponents, hypocrisy, and innuendo about me being a Nazi. Godwin, anyone?

There is no substance to your position. Your position, from the start, is simply "I feel good about my position and bad about them". It's a subjective statement, an argument for moral relativism, and you didn't offer a tiny bit of argument to back up any of that.

So, there is nothing whatsoever to respond to. Now, let's look at your claims. I specifically deny that I used a straw man. Prove it. I cheerfully stipulate that I was sarcastic and contemptious about you, it completely mirrored your own attitude, and quite deliberately so. If you don't like how I said things, blame yourself, because I simply mimiced your own behavior.

As for your hiding behind Godwin's law, well, it's time that Godwin's law was on its way out, there are enough net.nazi's hiding behind it now that it's time for it to be revoked. No, I don't necessarily mean you're a nazi. You are, howoever, attempting to hide behind Godwin's law.

 

[President Bush]

... if understanding "their" behavior means understanding that they are not different from us, that is more important than maintaining a difference at the expense of not understanding their behavior. We can hate an action, even if we see its potential in ourselves.

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

 

[LostAngeles]

I confess, I have really enjoyed this thread. It has everything--thoughtful contributions, knee-jerk reactions, missattributions, denial...

Let me explain the "denial" bit. The rest, I hope, are self-explanatory.

As ReFLeX and LostAngeles both alluded, we are quick to see the worst in others, and slow to see that potential in ourselves. Art V., for instance, "reject the idea that terrorists are the same manner of creature as [he]." This is understandable, and even admirable. I think it is also wrong. We all have the potential to be the suicide bomber, or the torturer, or the guy who flies the plane into the building...or the firefighter who climbs the staircase to rescue trapped innocents, knowing he will likely not survive the attempt.

I think Art's (OP) "implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid" is incorrect (although, again, completely understandable). Our culture is one that assigns blame, and assigns it to autonomous individuals, rather than exploring the causal factors influencing the phenomena under investigation. The idea that something so abhorrent to us is within our capabilities is unacceptable. We must, even at the expense of the truth, distance ourselves from such a realization. (A thread over a year ago saw LuxFerum denying the findings of the Milgram experiment for much the same reasons--this is not an isolated phenomenon. http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=21353)


(Even Luke's "Did that make us like the Japanese and Germans? No. It was a means to override our natural revulsion at killing another human being that needed killing." is questionable. Why not "yes, it does make us like them, but for very different reasons"? We did dehumanize them, and they did dehumanize us. In that (if in nothing else) it did make us like them. It should not be impossible to admit that. "Alike in one aspect" does not imply "alike in all aspects". But we are, understandably, motivated to deny any similarity whatsoever.)

The important thing is not whether they are different from us or similar; the important thing is whether we can prevent such activities. In my opinion, if understanding "their" behavior means understanding that they are not different from us, that is more important than maintaining a difference at the expense of not understanding their behavior. We can hate an action, even if we see its potential in ourselves.

OK, and that was pretty much my response to responses to me. Thanks for saving me the time and typing Mercutio.

 

[Mycroft]

Agreed. But this is not racism, since "Arab" is not a race. But you knew that.

I'm pretty sure Arab is a race.

But either way it's splitting hairs. Bigotry is bigotry and pejorative terms are pejorative terms no matter what the classification of the group you’re directing them too.

 

[Mark]

In saying that, you are implying that in condoning hatred of terrorists, I am encouraging us to be "just like them". And by implying that, you are further implying that the salient feature of the terrorists is that they hate their enemies, and other details, such as the fact that they're murdering scumbags, are irrelevant. This is exactly the attitude about which I am complaining.

Actually, I wasn't referring directly to you at all. I was referring to anyone who encourages the U.S, to use torture, or violate Geneva Conventions, ignore our own laws, etc. in this war on terror.

You can hate 'em all you want. Just don't encourage us to become like them.

 

[luchog]

Let me explain the "denial" bit. The rest, I hope, are self-explanatory.

Very eloquently put.

I see this sort of thing a lot, between a lot of different groups. Demonization of one's opponent is a natural human trait, regardless of the context. Pointing out to someone just how similar they are to their "enemy", both in action and mindset, is invariably met either with a chorus of denials, or a qualified acceptance -- "That doesn't matter, he's wrong and I'm right!"

We are who we are, not only because of our genetic inheritance, but also due in large part to an accident of birth.

 

[hammegk]

... We are who we are, not only because of our genetic inheritance, but also due in large part to an accident of birth.

So very true. Now, why do so many pc'libs in the USA want to sell theirs? Misery loves company?

 

[Mercutio]

So very true. Now, why do so many pc'libs in the USA want to sell theirs? Misery loves company?

So many? How many, exactly? Could it be that you are falling victim to another of our cognitive biases, and notice the examples that confirm your belief while ignoring examples that disconfirm?

Or, of course, I could be the one with the biased perception. Do you have a source to back up your claim?

 

[CplFerro]

Roger Ebert talked about an email about one of his reviews, in which a reader complained that he was "trying to humanize these animals [terrorists]". Ebert said that he replied "By calling them animals, you're thinking exactly the way they think about you". So considering someone to be subhuman scum because they're murdering bastards is the same as considering someone to be subhuman scum because of their nationality? What is it with this Leftist extreme moral relativism? Sure, there are problems with America. And some of the terrorists' point are valid. But the idea that there is something hypocritical about calling them monsters, yet denying that we are, is just absurd. The implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid, is simply perverted.

Calling a murderer subhuman implies that the mere act of refraining from murder makes one human.

I can't reasonably call the terrorists subhuman, without calling anyone who can't understand Dante subhuman. We're the ones watching the world starve, or helping invade, burn, and loot it ourselves, not the terrorists, after all. The terrorists' mistake and their referenced opponents' mistake come from the same source: thinking that proper definitions of human come from the popular opinions of their respective "glorious civilisations."

I applaud Ebert for popping that moral relativism with a pin.

 

[punchdrunk]

As ReFLeX and LostAngeles both alluded, we are quick to see the worst in others, and slow to see that potential in ourselves. Art V., for instance, "reject the idea that terrorists are the same manner of creature as [he]." This is understandable, and even admirable. I think it is also wrong.

I don't doubt the potential exists for all of us, but that doesn't abrogate responsibility for our actions, and ultimately it's actions upon which we should judge people.

We all have the potential to be the suicide bomber, or the torturer, or the guy who flies the plane into the building...or the firefighter who climbs the staircase to rescue trapped innocents, knowing he will likely not survive the attempt.

If we cannot call a suicide bomber subhuman, then we cannot call the firefighter a hero. If nothing is condemnable, then nothing is commendable.

I think Art's (OP) "implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid" is incorrect (although, again, completely understandable). Our culture is one that assigns blame, and assigns it to autonomous individuals, rather than exploring the causal factors influencing the phenomena under investigation. The idea that something so abhorrent to us is within our capabilities is unacceptable. We must, even at the expense of the truth, distance ourselves from such a realization.

But accepting the realization doesn't mean we stop believing it abhorrent.

The important thing is not whether they are different from us or similar; the important thing is whether we can prevent such activities. In my opinion, if understanding "their" behavior means understanding that they are not different from us, that is more important than maintaining a difference at the expense of not understanding their behavior. We can hate an action, even if we see its potential in ourselves.

Agreed. If by labeling a person you lose some ability to understand him/her, then you are doing yourself and others a disservice. But I feel comfortable calling a terrorist subhuman because I still wish to understand the essence (can't think of a better word) of a terrorist. You may say my judgement is still colored, to which I would respond, with your moral relativism, your judgement is not adequately equipped.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Gurdur]

....If we cannot call a suicide bomber subhuman, then we cannot call the firefighter a hero. If nothing is condemnable, then nothing is commendable.

Doesn't really follow at all -- there is no great equivalence in weight of the terms "subhuman" and "hero".
"Subhuman" carries a huge amount of baggage, consciously and unconsciously.
There is nothing logically or pragmatically against being able to call people heros but not calling people "subhuman".

 

[punchdrunk]

There is nothing logically or pragmatically against being able to call people heros but not calling people "subhuman".

Would you reword this please? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

 

[Elind]

Roger Ebert talked about an email about one of his reviews, in which a reader complained that he was "trying to humanize these animals [terrorists]". Ebert said that he replied "By calling them animals, you're thinking exactly the way they think about you". So considering someone to be subhuman scum because they're murdering bastards is the same as considering someone to be subhuman scum because of their nationality? What is it with this Leftist extreme moral relativism? Sure, there are problems with America. And some of the terrorists' point are valid. But the idea that there is something hypocritical about calling them monsters, yet denying that we are, is just absurd. The implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid, is simply perverted.

And yet that last perspective is what keeps many of these discussions going so long, because even here there are many who think it is more noble to show respect for any position, even while, respectfully, claiming to disagree.

Religion comes to mind. Why, for example, should one pretend to show any respect for a version of Islam that clearly advocates the murder of anyone they dislike, in order to receive perverted rewards from a god?

Perhaps Roger Ebert is one of those who think terrorists would all love us as long as we just left them alone to do their thing to each other?

 

[Elind]

I'm pretty sure Arab is a race.

But either way it's splitting hairs. Bigotry is bigotry and pejorative terms are pejorative terms no matter what the classification of the group you’re directing them too.

Arab is only a race in the sense it is used in this forum. Loosely, very.

Mediterranean Arabs, which is the bulk of them, are pretty much the same stock as, say, the Greeks or Italians, which is usually called caucasian according to traditional race definitions.

Other regions have, obviously, considerable mingling from Africa, but I don't think the word Arab qualifies as a race. To the extent there is commonality it's in culture and language.

 

[Mycroft]

You may say my judgement is still colored, to which I would respond, with your moral relativism, your judgement is not adequately equipped.

Well said!

 

[Mercutio]

If we cannot call a suicide bomber subhuman, then we cannot call the firefighter a hero. If nothing is condemnable, then nothing is commendable.

Actually, I would apply the same analysis to heroism. It may make us feel better to call someone a hero, but I suggest that it would be more important to look at why that person acted heroically, and try to make those conditions more prevalent. Heroes stand out from the crowd for one of at least two reasons--either they are responding to a terrible situation (war heroes, 9/11 heroes, etc.) or they are doing things we admire greatly but which relatively few others do (the more "everyday hero" sort). I hope we all would choose to have fewer terrible situations than more of the first type of hero (Skinner's quote on this is "we may mourn the passing of heroes, but not the conditions which make for heroism). As for the second, would we rather have heroes or would we rather have such admirable actions performed by so many that the label "hero" is not needed?

Yes, I know this is idealistic; I present it to counter your statement. You imply that being able to call someone a hero is a very good thing, but that examining how heroes (and villains) are like the rest of us would tarnish the shine of that "hero" medal. I agree that such an understanding could lead to fewer heroes, but in a very good way, by leading to fewer circumstances which call for heroism. Understanding why someone acted heroically may take the mystery and awe away from it, but the same argument can be made against scientific understanding of anything. Fortunately, understanding the truth has its own beauty.

Once again, the emotional labels, the wanting to see that villains are beneath us, that it is ok if we don't measure up to superman, gets in the way of treating humans as humans, learning about our motives ("ours" writ large, including them and us, as distinct from theirs, making a distinction between them and us normal folk), and making the world a better place.

 

[Mercutio]

Agreed. If by labeling a person you lose some ability to understand him/her, then you are doing yourself and others a disservice. But I feel comfortable calling a terrorist subhuman because I still wish to understand the essence (can't think of a better word) of a terrorist. You may say my judgement is still colored, to which I would respond, with your moral relativism, your judgement is not adequately equipped.

By refusing to see the common ground, you risk "understanding the essence...of a terrorist" and completely missing its relevance to yourself. In the thread I linked above, I speak of the Milgram study. That study demonstrated that the potential for great cruelty simply by following orders exists in all of us...and yet, out of 200 students in my classroom, I may get 4 hands raised when I ask if they think it applies to them.

What good is it to feel you understand a terrorist, if in doing so you willfully and self-protectively deny that potential within yourself? A true understanding may not be comforting, but it is more useful.

I think you are conflating the actions with the person. You want a person to blame, and so you say that person is different from you. I say that person is, like me and you, a human being; it is a particular subset of that person's actions that I find abhorrent, and those actions would be abhorrent in any human. Blaming the person does not do anything to address the root of the problem, but it might make you feel better. I'd rather be a bit more uncomfortable with my nature, but able to understand the real cause of the problem.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Where did I admit that?

When you said “We think the towel heads are savages”.

Your analogy is not valid.

I don't see that that assertion is supported.

Would you agree (or is it reasonable to believe) that there exist actions which, if applied to humans, would be morally reprehensible, but when applied to animals, are not? Leashing, muzzling, shooting when lame, using for food are all examples of this.

First of all, it should be obvious that the term "animal" is meant metaphorically. Secondly, I can't think of any universal prohibition against an action being performed on humans that is not based on protecting decent human beings.

While "more likely" does not mean "will do" above, I can see how it is arguable that such a trait is bad and a "piece" (even if a small one) of the terrorist mentality. Not the best argument, perhaps, but it has potential validity (with context; see below) and is certainly a far cry beyond shoes.

Shoes also make it more likely that one will commit terrorist acts. Not having shoes draws attention, something terrorists don't want. Aggression, violence, and outrage are all "pieces" of the terrorist mentality, but it's silly to think that we should categorically reject them simply to avoid any resemblance to terrorists.

This seems more likely than him thinking average Americans = terrorists (to me, at least).

I don't think he's saying that average American = terrorist, but average American's thoughts = terrorist thoughts.

We all have the potential to be the suicide bomber, or the torturer, or the guy who flies the plane into the building...or the firefighter who climbs the staircase to rescue trapped innocents, knowing he will likely not survive the attempt.

I suppose in the "there's no physical law preventing it" sense. Sort of like those radical feminists who say "every man is a potential rapist". But in any meaningful sense, no, I'm not a potential rapist, or potential Islamist terrorist. We do not all have the same potential, and I don't see how you can presume to know what my, let alone that of several billion people, potential is.

I think Art's (OP) "implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid" is incorrect (although, again, completely understandable).

You either didn’t word that correctly, or are misunderstanding what I am saying. I was not making that assertion; I was disagreeing with it.

Our culture is one that assigns blame, and assigns it to autonomous individuals, rather than exploring the causal factors influencing the phenomena under investigation.

But autonomous individuals are where the blame ultimately lies. We can discuss casual factors in order to understand the behavior, but we should never think that it excuses it, or takes away blame.

We did dehumanize them, and they did dehumanize us. In that (if in nothing else) it did make us like them. It should not be impossible to admit that. "Alike in one aspect" does not imply "alike in all aspects".

One might as well say that we both bombed each other, so in that we were like them. Do you deny that bringing up ways in we are alike implies a larger similarity?

In my opinion, if understanding "their" behavior means understanding that they are not different from us, that is more important than maintaining a difference at the expense of not understanding their behavior.

You seem to be assuming that it goes without saying that maintaining a difference comes “at the expense” of not understanding their behavior.

That study demonstrated that the potential for great cruelty simply by following orders exists in all of us...

It did no such thing.

I think you are conflating the actions with the person.

So, what, we should blame the actions but not the person? The person is responsible for the actions.

Blaming the person does not do anything to address the root of the problem, but it might make you feel better.

Sure it does. The person is the root of the problem. Pretending otherwise is Leftist claptrap.

There is no substance to your position.

Pot, kettle. This is just more dishonesty from you. You said “Art, you've written one of the most completely dispicable, misleading, dishonest, knee-jerk hit-pieces I've seen since the gutless draft dodger attacked the war hero.” Clearly, you were claiming that my post was saying something, unless you think that there is something “dispicable [sic]” and dishonest about not saying anything. But then I point out that you have no support for those claims, and you pretend that it’s because I have nothing to say.

Your position, from the start, is simply "I feel good about my position and bad about them". It's a subjective statement, an argument for moral relativism, and you didn't offer a tiny bit of argument to back up any of that.

It’s quite silly to accuse me of making a purely subjective statement, then complain that I don’t have an argument. A subjective statement, by its very nature, is one for which an argument is superfluous. If I think that terrorism is bad, and you don’t, that’s not the sort of difference that can be settled through rhetoric. Now, I suppose you could summarize my position as “I feel good about my position and bad about them”, but isn’t that the core of every position (especially yours)? As for your accusation of moral relativism, that is absurd. I am arguing against moral relativism.

So, there is nothing whatsoever to respond to.

And yet you felt the need to spend several paragraphs not responding.

I specifically deny that I used a straw man. Prove it.

Oh, please. Just because you avoided forming coherent thoughts, that isn’t a defense against the charge of strawmen. Pretty much your entire post was spent engaging in dishonest innuendo, from implying that I am a Nazi to implying that I was attacking war heroes. Now, do you have any support for your allegations of dishonesty?

I cheerfully stipulate that I was sarcastic and contemptious about you, it completely mirrored your own attitude, and quite deliberately so. If you don't like how I said things, blame yourself, because I simply mimiced your own behavior.

Yeah, blame someone else for your complete lack of civility, I did not consider my post to be contemptuous, which means that you are not mirroring my attitude, as your contempt is intentional. It also means that your position is one of those subjective things you seem to dislike to so much. As for sarcasm, my post was completely lacking in that, and that’s an objective fact.

You are, howoever, attempting to hide behind Godwin's law.

”Hiding”? Whether, in general, bringing up the Nazis is a sign that the poster has nothing useful to say is questionable, but in this case it’s clearly accurate.

Pointing out to someone just how similar they are to their "enemy", both in action and mindset, is invariably met either with a chorus of denials, or a qualified acceptance -- "That doesn't matter, he's wrong and I'm right!"

But it doesn’t matter, because they are wrong and I am right. Do you have an argument against that?

Calling a murderer subhuman implies that the mere act of refraining from murder makes one human.

Huh? Does saying that the firefighters who went into the tower were heroes mean that no one else is a hero?

I can't reasonably call the terrorists subhuman, without calling anyone who can't understand Dante subhuman.

Now I’m even more confused. What the heck are you talking about?

We're the ones watching the world starve, or helping invade, burn, and loot it ourselves, not the terrorists, after all.

I’m not looting the world. The terrorists are watching the world starve, too, and by giving fuel to the hawks in the US, Israel, and every other country whose citizens they slaughter, they are helping support the worst of those countries.

The terrorists' mistake and their referenced opponents' mistake come from the same source: thinking that proper definitions of human come from the popular opinions of their respective "glorious civilisations."

That’s just silly. I don’t think terrorists are wrong because they’re not American, I think they’re wrong because they’re murdering scumbags. The idea that flying planes into buildings is wrong simply because of “popular opinion” is moral relativism.

Doesn't really follow at all -- there is no great equivalence in weight of the terms "subhuman" and "hero".

Actually, the term “hero” was used to refer to figures in mythology that were the offspring of humans and Gods: that is, they were above mere humans, just as subhumans are below.