Roger Ebert: hating terrorists = thinking like terrorists

[Luke T.]

By describing your enemy as an, "animal," you're not only dehumanizing, you're taking away some of the fear that they cause. An animal does not reason nor does it have any human emotions. While we don't generally subscribe to, "The Great Chain of Being," we consider animals to be lower creatures. Thusly, by referring to your enemies as, "animals," you are now describing them as lowly beings who have no reason or any kind of humanity or soul. They cease to be people.

You ever see the U.S. war propaganda during World War II? The Japanese and Germans were caricatured to look almost like animals. Easier to kill them that way. Just the way it is. (I had a good example of such art, but for some freaking reason, it won't upload even though it meets all the forum size requirements)

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.

 

[Luke T.]

I think our country is going through on a mass scale what I went through in the Persian Gulf.

While my ship was on its way to Kuwait, I would lay awake all night listening to the water sliding past the ship. My rack (bunk) was right at the waterline, just on the other side of the skin of the ship. All I could think about were mines. I kept waiting to hear the clink of metal just before I was blown to pieces.

That's America post-9/11.

Before I left the States, I told my wife to go outside and look at the moon every night at a pre-determined time. I would go outside at the same time (adjusting for time zone differences) so we would both be looking at the moon at the same time.

Pretty sappy, huh?

Well, one night (very, very late where I was), I was looking at the moon, and I suddenly had a vision in my head of an Iraqi soldier standing in the desert not so far away, also looking at the same moon and thinking of his wife and kids, knowing that I was on my way to kill him.

I did not like that vision. It humanized my country's enemy. I can't even begin to tell you how much that messed with my head. For a very long time. It made a permanent mark on me.

That is America in the years ahead.

 

[Mycroft]

I did not like that vision. It humanized my country's enemy. I can't even begin to tell you how much that messed with my head. For a very long time. It made a permanent mark on me.

That makes sense when talking about another soldier, but not so much when talking about the sort of person who will hyjack planes and fly them into buildings or strap explosives to their own body so they can kill people worshiping at a mosque.

The soldier is no more than an instrument of his nations policy. He didn't decide that policy, and for him the choice to be a soldier is a reflection of his self-identification with his people, his country, and his community.

The terrorist, on the other hand, directly chooses the policy he acts upon. His choice is to disassociate himself with his people, his country, and his community in order to destroy them so something different and more to his liking can be put in its place.

 

[jay gw]

The implied assertion that, if two sides both feel the same way about each other, then both feelings are equally valid, is simply perverted.

Irony - people like Ebert are forcing their own personal views on other people by saying that "you should think this way and not that way."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Roger Ebert is an excellent movie critic.

Maybe we should ask Donald Rumsfeld and Nancy Pelosi what they thought of the latest Harry Potter movie.

And why not?

I agree with Snide. That is, where is the logic in seeking to besmirch Mr. Ebert's simple application of the same, regardless of subject matter?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Irony - people like Ebert are forcing their own personal views on other people by saying that "you should think this way and not that way."

"Forcing?" Or offering? Nevertheless, your post is a bit of a strawman.

And it would certainly be nice to see the entire content of Mr. Ebert's thoughts.

 

[Bluegill]

Roger Ebert is an excellent movie critic.

Maybe we should ask Donald Rumsfeld and Nancy Pelosi what they thought of the latest Harry Potter movie.

I have to say that I'd certainly tune in to "Meet the Press" if I knew Rummy would have that question sprung on him.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's a derogatory slang used by (ignorant) Americans against Arabs. CS was using it in a mocking way.

Am I mistaken or are turbins generally not warn by Arabs? Isn't it a more of an Indian custom?

 

[Cleon]

Am I mistaken or are turbins generally not warn by Arabs? Isn't it a more of an Indian custom?

Yep. Hence the "ignorant" part.

But Arabs are also strongly identified with the kuffiyeh, which I suppose could also qualify as a "towel."

In any event...Racism isn't exactly rational.

 

[supercorgi]

Am I mistaken or are turbins generally not warn by Arabs? Isn't it a more of an Indian custom?

Turbans are worn by some Arabs. Religious leaders always wear them and certain religious/ethnic sub-groups wear them. I know Bedouins do and many Palestinians but I'm not sure about other groups. Turbins in India are usually seen in the northern parts of India and are always worn by certain groups like Sikhs. I'm not sure why, but in the U.S. we usually associate turbans with the Middle East and not India. It may be because we have more Indian immigrants than Middle Eastern immegrants -- rarely do you see an Indian in the U.S. wearing a turban.

 

[jj]

What is it with this Leftist extreme moral relativism?

Heeeyyyyy.

Yowsir, yowsir, yowsir, step right up, it's ELECTION TIME Boys and Girls and Ladies and Gentlemen and Childred of ALL AGES! It's election time.

Time to bring out the vilification! Time to turn "left" into a swear word! Time to smear anyone to the left of Joe Goebbels! Yowsir, yowsir, yowsir, it's election time boys and women! Step right up. See your favorite victim vilified! See the namecalling. See the proof of Joe Goebbel's claim that "Repetition is the linchpin of propaganda". Yowsah, yowsah, yowsah!

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. Well, there was the idiot congresscritter from Pa who attacked the war hero, too...

Interesting isn't it? The repugnicans make wars, but RELENTLESSLY attack the heros of past wars.

There's a hint there, boys and women, they don't give two ****s about you, your life, your kids' lives, or you parents' lives. All they want is your body to fight in their crusade.

 

[Mark]

I always find it interesting that---in general---the people who are most vocal about "hating" the enemy are usually the same ones who encourage us to be just like them. Used to happen all the time in the Cold War, too. Am I the only one who finds that odd?

"Do not celebrate your victory; rather, mourn your enemy's defeat."---Lao Tzu

 

[jay gw]

"Forcing?" Or offering? Nevertheless, your post is a bit of a strawman.

He's forcing his opinion because Ebert is saying that email author should only believe the terrorists are just like him.

 

[UserGoogol]

Just because terrorists are insane and violent doesn't mean we have to hate them for it. If we accept that terrorists are scum, that's one thing. But once we actually hate them for it, we skew our views. When you hate a thing, you are prone to doing things purely out of that hate rather than as a rational proccess of fixing the problems which the things make.

The way I see it, the war against terrorism is really just part of the larger War Against Stupid. Terrorists harm not only others but themselves in the name of their stupid goals. Frankly, I almost feel like pitying terrorists for being such complete [fark]tards. We should not let ourselves fall into irrationality in our battle against irrationality, even if we do not fall quite to the depths of the irrationality of the terrorists.

 

[Tony]

It's a derogatory slang used by (ignorant) Americans against Arabs.

No it's not. You're talking about camel jockey and sand ni**er. "Towl head" is derogatory to those who wear towels on their heads (ie sihks, muslims).

 

[Art Vandelay]

We think the towel heads are savages. They think we are. So what Ebert said is accurate.

While you have just admitted to being a racist, there is no evidence that the reader is, so I find your argument utterly unpersuasive.

This is the problem. Terrorists and other sons of bitches are, in fact, people. They think and they feel. They could be us, we could be them. The idea that your enemy is that same manner of creature as the person next door is scary. In fact, it's downright horrifying.

I reject the idea that terrorists are the same manner of creature as I. Just because we share superficial characterists, such as both having feelings, does not make us the same. Animals feel, too.

Are we thinking like them? Sure.

No, we're not.

I'd have to agree. I suspect that the terrorists do consider us to be animals; therefore, if you consider them to be animals, you are thinking about them in the same way they think about you. Perhaps you should link to the relevant article so we can see the context - I'm a little skeptical about your implications.

First of all, the exact quote was "you're thinking exactly the way they think...". Not "you're thinking about them in the same way they think about you." The latter says that our thoughts regarding terrorists are the same as their thoughts regarding us. The former says that all of our thoughts are the same as theirs. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it didn't come out quite the way he meant, and he did mean to say what you said. Then what would be the purpose of pointing this out? After all, a statement such as "Most terrorists wear shoes, therefore when you wear shoes you're just wearing the same thing terrorists wear" is factually true. But is it rhetorically valid? Isn't such a statement implying a moral equivalence based merely on superficial similarities? The issue I have is not whether we feel the same about terrorists as they feel about us, but whether it is valid to imply some sort of equivalence based on this.

As for context, it was taken off the TV show.

It's a derogatory slang used by (ignorant) Americans against Arabs. CS was using it in a mocking way.

And thus accusing people who oppose terrorism of being racist.

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.

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?

I always find it interesting that---in general---the people who are most vocal about "hating" the enemy are usually the same ones who encourage us to be just like them.

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.

But once we actually hate them for it, we skew our views. When you hate a thing, you are prone to doing things purely out of that hate rather than as a rational proccess of fixing the problems which the things make.

I think that hate is the appropriate response to evil, and trying to engage in a PC purging of "negative" emotions is just as likely to skew our views as acknowledging our feelings.

 

[Snide]

No it's not. You're talking about camel jockey and sand ni**er. "Towl head" is derogatory to those who wear towels on their heads (ie sihks, muslims).

Thanks for the correction! Ironically, it's typically the type of person who doesn't recognize the difference who's most susceptible for using the epithet in the first place.

 

[aerosolben]

Then what would be the purpose of pointing this out? After all, a statement such as "Most terrorists wear shoes, therefore when you wear shoes you're just wearing the same thing terrorists wear" is factually true. But is it rhetorically valid?

Your analogy is not valid.

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.

Holding this belief towards human beings would therefore make you more likely to tolerate or perform these behaviors against them, yes?

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.

As for context, it was taken off the TV show.

I ask because I read Ebert's review of "Paradise Now" (probably the most likely provocation of such a comment). While admits that the movie humanizes suicide bombers, they do not come across as heroes but rather pitiable, curious figures, interjecting their preparation for their "mission" with strange moments of family life.

Given that, the reader's response seems fairly inappropriate, and Ebert may just be responding with a quick, unserious reparte. This seems more likely than him thinking average Americans = terrorists (to me, at least). But again, hard to say without context.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yep. Hence the "ignorant" part.

But Arabs are also strongly identified with the kuffiyeh, which I suppose could also qualify as a "towel."

In any event...Racism isn't exactly rational.

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

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

While you have just admitted to being a racist, there is no evidence that the reader is, so I find your argument utterly unpersuasive.

Where did I admit that?