Mos Def undergoes force-feeding for Guantanamo

[fhdz]

For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.

I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.

But it is very much like a child's temper tantrum.

Except that they are adults, presumably with more reasoning faculties and options than children, and their situation is far more dire than 99.9% of temper-tantruming children might be experiencing.

That is why the context here is important, as I argued earlier. No one would use the word "tantrum" to describe the actions of a child freaking out to being kidnapped, for example. We reserve the word tantrum, generally, to denote an a) unacceptable and b) petulant type of behavior in response to a child not being given something he wants.

Do you think derspeiss means "It is an attempt to draw attention to oneself using any means necessary" when he refers to a "tantrum" in this case?

[Berkut]

Fair enough, I can agree with the objection on the grounds that the term innately implies a level of pettiness that isn't really fairly applied to someone willing to kill themselves over the injustice of their situation.

What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.

[crazy canuck]

For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.

I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.

But it is very much like a child's temper tantrum.

It is an attempt to draw attention to oneself using any means necessary.

That doesn't make it a bad thing per se, but the analogy is perfectly apt.

I dont think so.  A temper tantrum is by definition a loss of emotional control.  This is the exact opposite.

[derspiess]

I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just. Etc.

Are you skimming past those responses, or are you not agreeing with them?

I'm not Max, but this is about as good an explanation as can be made.  And it wasn't really stated so clearly up until now.  People seemed very stuck on explaining that it is effective, not so much on the "why"?

I still don't fully understand it why hunger strikes tend to resonate so much.  If I see someone harming himself to get attention, I'm more apt to think lesser of him and ignore his cause.  But then again, emotionally manipulative ploys are a bit of a pet peeve for me.

[crazy canuck]

What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.

I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here.  Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.

[derspiess]

I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here.  Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.

That's not it at all.  We know why they do it-- because it works.  The question is, why does it work?

[garbon]

What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.

I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here.  Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.

It is however the issue I raised in my OP.

[dps]

Again the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general.

I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.

But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation.  And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.  We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just;  it's completely unjust;  or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice.  Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it.  I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option.  But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion? 

[DGuller]

But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation.  And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.  We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just;  it's completely unjust;  or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice.  Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it.  I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option.  But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?

It's one thing to be aware of a situation, it's another thing to be forced to really contemplate it.  It's a difference between a statistic and a tragedy, so to speak.

[dps]

But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation.  And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.  We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just;  it's completely unjust;  or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice.  Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it.  I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option.  But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?

It's one thing to be aware of a situation, it's another thing to be forced to really contemplate it.  It's a difference between a statistic and a tragedy, so to speak.

Don't see how the hunger strike or Mos Def's stunt force any of us to comtemplate it.  I'd think the only people actually forced to comtemplate it would be the people who have to force-feed the hunger strikers--and those folks probably have plenty else in their daily lives that forces them to comtemplate it.

[garbon]

Again the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general.

I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.

But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation.  And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.  We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just;  it's completely unjust;  or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice.  Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it.  I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option.  But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion? 

I doubt most Americans have a firm viewpoint on what's happening there.

[fhdz]

But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation.  And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.

Even assuming you're correct, what I would say is that this is their last-gasp effort to try and get enough of us to change our minds about it.

[fhdz]

What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.

I'm not sure they *have* another option, considering that the notion of "don't hold them if you can't prove their guilt and aren't going to try them" appears to be off the table.

[CountDeMoney]

I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.

I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience.  Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.

[fhdz]

I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.

I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience.  Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.

Sometimes I feel like half this country has Asperger's.