On Debates and Context
The most recent news on ISIS and their barbaric ways (apparently some odd effort to mimic aspects of bombing itself?), seems to have everyone in a fury. What to make of this group and what seems to be their nihilistic ways, or perhaps their self-defeating ways? Are they truly that despicable? Is it merely a role of propaganda to make them seem this bad? George Packer over at the New Yorker seems to have one take: that it is a death cult bent on some sort of purification. In other words, a rabid dog that needs to be put down.
Indeed, it must. I've never said otherwise. In many ways, it's much like the Munster city state, the Nazis, & the Khmer Rouge in many ways. Yet whenever I, an Iraq War veteran, tell people that there shouldn't be a rush to bomb that we need to think harder upon the causes here, they ask if I'm on the other side. Interesting. The only thing I see here, is a will to be much too easily goaded into a fight. That is surely what they want Jordan and many other Sunni dominant countries to do: send troops. One should note the hesitance to send all but fighter pilots into this war on the part of Sunni nations. I think, and I'm sure many others do, that they understand that would be playing into ISIS hands.
To go back to being accused by anonymous interneters as well as friends of being on the side of so heinous a group: I can only think that they are being broiled with emotion and are truly being tribalistic for those reasons alone. What else can one say about such reactions? I do know this: that for all ISIS is doing, for all the war crimes they are carrying out, when people here are telling us not to sit and have a rational discussion, that to do so aids the enemy, I know that then it is truly a matter of needing that rational discussion, and anything else is conflation.
And I'm still wondering if, even if we were to wipe out ISIS with some magic bomb, people will stop to think about what it is that caused it to happen in the first place. This goes deep. And we must consider this part as well. Or else we'll face the same thing all over again. In fact, if we don't think in terms of the violence that has taken us this far, we won't get anywhere anytime soon. So all this wanting to claim it's many things (there isn't much information coming from that area except from ISIS' marketing branch; and this is much a result of what ISIS has done) without information seems rushed. I did see them in a video and they were obsessed with some sort of justice. I really doubt that they are all foreigners (doing so well in a foreign land). If so, where is that information coming from? What are the numbers? Nothing solid, all conjecture at best... What of the violence of others in that region? No, don't add context, don't add anything.
So that brings me to context when used in debates. It is well known that the human mind can only take into account a handful of things. When we debate (orally, but this counts for on the internet as well) it usually helps to focus on the subject at hand, as time constraints don't allow for much more. Thus, when people like me try to add context to any situation (usually because of odd tribal outbursts like the one I mentioned above), we are called out for changing the subject. Indeed, is it? It seems like a time honored tactic, to say the least.
But it can be done right. If someone is truly trying to add historical context to any debate, then it is a needed action. For those who only want to look at one situation in a vacuum (as if such things exist), then that is an effort to take out history, to make sure no one can see the situation for what it is. So if you hear me say something that offends you, you should think about what that says about yourself and the need to have a view of the world that takes out all history. Only a child comes to the world without history. We then try to teach them things. Let's not move away from that. Keep teaching and adding context. To not do it is to fall for someone else's trap.
Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
Indeed, it must. I've never said otherwise. In many ways, it's much like the Munster city state, the Nazis, & the Khmer Rouge in many ways. Yet whenever I, an Iraq War veteran, tell people that there shouldn't be a rush to bomb that we need to think harder upon the causes here, they ask if I'm on the other side. Interesting. The only thing I see here, is a will to be much too easily goaded into a fight. That is surely what they want Jordan and many other Sunni dominant countries to do: send troops. One should note the hesitance to send all but fighter pilots into this war on the part of Sunni nations. I think, and I'm sure many others do, that they understand that would be playing into ISIS hands.
To go back to being accused by anonymous interneters as well as friends of being on the side of so heinous a group: I can only think that they are being broiled with emotion and are truly being tribalistic for those reasons alone. What else can one say about such reactions? I do know this: that for all ISIS is doing, for all the war crimes they are carrying out, when people here are telling us not to sit and have a rational discussion, that to do so aids the enemy, I know that then it is truly a matter of needing that rational discussion, and anything else is conflation.
And I'm still wondering if, even if we were to wipe out ISIS with some magic bomb, people will stop to think about what it is that caused it to happen in the first place. This goes deep. And we must consider this part as well. Or else we'll face the same thing all over again. In fact, if we don't think in terms of the violence that has taken us this far, we won't get anywhere anytime soon. So all this wanting to claim it's many things (there isn't much information coming from that area except from ISIS' marketing branch; and this is much a result of what ISIS has done) without information seems rushed. I did see them in a video and they were obsessed with some sort of justice. I really doubt that they are all foreigners (doing so well in a foreign land). If so, where is that information coming from? What are the numbers? Nothing solid, all conjecture at best... What of the violence of others in that region? No, don't add context, don't add anything.
So that brings me to context when used in debates. It is well known that the human mind can only take into account a handful of things. When we debate (orally, but this counts for on the internet as well) it usually helps to focus on the subject at hand, as time constraints don't allow for much more. Thus, when people like me try to add context to any situation (usually because of odd tribal outbursts like the one I mentioned above), we are called out for changing the subject. Indeed, is it? It seems like a time honored tactic, to say the least.
But it can be done right. If someone is truly trying to add historical context to any debate, then it is a needed action. For those who only want to look at one situation in a vacuum (as if such things exist), then that is an effort to take out history, to make sure no one can see the situation for what it is. So if you hear me say something that offends you, you should think about what that says about yourself and the need to have a view of the world that takes out all history. Only a child comes to the world without history. We then try to teach them things. Let's not move away from that. Keep teaching and adding context. To not do it is to fall for someone else's trap.
Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
No comments have been added yet.
Nelson Lowhim's Blog
- Nelson Lowhim's profile
- 14 followers
Nelson Lowhim isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
