Darth Mencken wrote:As for terrorism (specifically the ones behind 9/11) being justified because of America's not-universally-welcome presence in the Mideast.
Good thing nobody has ever justified terrorism in this thread except yourself.
Darth Mencken wrote:I don't feel this makes me a terrorist sympathizer,
What the fuck? Are you five? Is this the second coming of McCarthy, or what? How would understanding other people's viewpoint make you a
sympathizer with
terrorists? Tell me, when you use that epithet, do you automatically shriek it out loud? I
must know.
Am I biased? Guilty as charged.
You are, but that's not the actual problem. The problem is that you buy into the most infantile talking points as if they had actual substance. The problem is that you're simply too much of a child to talk about these things. The problem is that by your own words you lack even the most basic toolkit to allow you to comprehend the difference between
understanding people and
sympathizing with them; you apparently think the two are one and the same, and that empathy is somehow ideologically suspect.
And now, petulantly, you will skim what I wrote, what Stark and Metahive wrote, what everyone else has written in this thread. Your eyes will latch onto the anger we display at your profoundly smug, ignorantly privileged and frankly bigoted jingoism; you will note the insults but not why they were made. You will flail against that expressed anger in the understanding that we are
mean, mean people who can't take a (very racist) joke because it's "controversial" (when "reactionary" would be a far more accurate label).
You will then dismiss any points made, irrespective of their merit. After all, the way we
said them hurt your self-esteem and our questions threatened to impose ambiguity upon what should be a simple, straightforward reality that made you feel good, so there's obviously no reason for you to listen. Then, you'll come up with yet another non sequitur of a rhetorical question and toss it out, telling yourself you held your own.
But it's not going to impress anyone until you've met the arguments themselves, and you refuse to. Shit, you didn't even acknowledge Ahriman's points with anything that showed comprehension of what he wrote. He took pains not to offend your delicate sensibilities, but the effort was obviously both undeserved and wasted.
You need to go and take a long, hard look at the axioms you're using. Why is it that you condone and minimalize the killing and impoverishing of entire regions of brown people, while you would gleefully participate in a culture war against said brown people if a tiny subset of them happen to attack a Western country? If the defining difference is that the attacked country in this instance is
your country then you, kid, dearly need to unfuck yourself. Because if that's the level of your ethical reasoning, then your moral compass is broken.