5686639
I am still quietly fuming. Last night, participating in a weekly Yahoo! chat, I was admonished post facto for “political” discussions. By this is meant that “bomb the Middle East”, “go after our enemies whether or not they had anything to do with the attack”, and “torture is too good for bin-Laden; cut his balls off and let him die a eunuch” are not political statements, but urging care and restraint is. Implicitly (and not very obscured) is the point that bilious tirades, racist generalisations, and threats of (further) unprovoked military force are harmless and on-topic; conversely, arguing in response that we should actually investigate who the guilty parties are before considering a storm of terror is “political”. Note that for the soldiers who have been successfully brainwashed by our armed forces, the definition of “political” is actually “pansy-assed”.
Oh, I forgot that my views were also “shockingly naive”. This, by the way, after I had left the chat. A note to Yahoo! chat users: if a user goes “away from desk”, the browser still retains a log of what is discussed. I vehemently reject the premise that diplomacy, research, and a respect for life are inappropriate in this circumstance. I am cautiously heartened that Bush and Powell have so far demonstrated a willingness to think, rather than act on bigotry, the “they’re all the same” mindset, as despicable as that which motivated the attackers.
Email subscription
