Is a bigoted dystopia really feasible anymore?

[Tamas]

But generally speaking like Marty did, in what kind of sick world should a state not revenge the killing of its 3000 citizens? Should the leaders and citizens just shrug saying "shit happens" and go on?

Please don't try and defend America if you're going to say things like this.

What did I say wrong? That the murder of 3000 civilians warrant a response from their state?

[grumbler]

No, you need a sense that the previously acceptable is wrong, failing, or no longer applies and willingness on the part of the extremes to take advantage of this.

That's pretty much what he said! 

You really misunderstand culture, how society normalizes behavior, and the need of people to belong to that society. As I said, the ugliness of the "normal people" point of view is not that they were moral cowards and that they knew better and were weak, but rather that the obscene acts became the norm, and the extreme thinking became the center.

Way to tell him off!  You don't need to address his argument, just tell him what he doesn't understand.  I don't think your argument here is true of, say, Nazi Germany (people knew what they were doing was wrong, but they feared the consequences of not following orders).  There certainly have been societies where "obscene" acts were the norm (the Crusaders who took Jerusalem in 1099 were from such a society), but I don't think there have been any modern ones.

Again the naivety helps this.  The "it can't happen here" mentality is the social self congratulations or an understood morality and self-awareness that will not let it happen is precisely what societies do - naturalize actions so they become the norm.  A disruption, for modern western culture I would say a series of economic disasters, could easily destroy the comfortable normal and make the extremes far more likely to happen.

I think you underestimate the extent to which the West is a single society, and thus the likelihood that a single even or single series of events would bring the extremists into power in a western country.  I'd agree that this is entirely possible in pre-modern and non-western societies, though I don't think it was their "naivety" that allows this - it is allowed by the idea that the power of government comes from the ability to coerce, rather than from the consent of the governed.

[grumbler]

What did I say wrong? That the murder of 3000 civilians warrant a response from their state?

This is garbo you are talking to.  Just let it go.

I would argue, however, that the military actions in Afghanistan were justified more by the desire to avoid future acts of terror than to avenge previous acts of terror.  That doesn't counter what you are saying, but I think it adds an important caveat to what you are saying.

[garbon]

But generally speaking like Marty did, in what kind of sick world should a state not revenge the killing of its 3000 citizens? Should the leaders and citizens just shrug saying "shit happens" and go on?

Please don't try and defend America if you're going to say things like this.

What did I say wrong? That the murder of 3000 civilians warrant a response from their state?

I don't think the main motive was revenge (though if it was, more the pity to us as bloodlust isn't becoming for a supposedly enlightened state). I think acting against an organization that might have tried to make further attacks is sufficient reason alone.

[Martinus]

In any case, my point was to illustrate that a society that started two wars over something ultimately not very significant would be capable of going on a rampage if, say, someone detonated dirty bombs in two major cities. Not sure why this prompted Tamas to go on some erratic tangent.

[Neil]

In any case, my point was to illustrate that a society that started two wars over something ultimately not very significant would be capable of going on a rampage if, say, someone detonated dirty bombs in two major cities. Not sure why this prompted Tamas to go on some erratic tangent.

But they'd also be capable of not doing that.

Besides, 9/11 was pretty significant.  At least as significant as the act that started the Great War, and probably more significant than the act that started World War Two.

[grumbler]

In any case, my point was to illustrate that a society that started two wars over something ultimately not very significant would be capable of going on a rampage if, say, someone detonated dirty bombs in two major cities. Not sure why this prompted Tamas to go on some erratic tangent.

A society that had not started two wars over something not very significant would also be capable of going on a rampage if someone detonated two dirty bombs there.  Not sure what prompted you to go off on this banal tangent.

[crazy canuck]

I think we are being recklessly blind if we dont recognize that intolerance continues to exist in all Western democracies and if we kid ourselves into thinking that the sins of the past could never be repeated again.

[The Brain]

Dirty bombs are overrated.

[Martinus]

In any case, my point was to illustrate that a society that started two wars over something ultimately not very significant would be capable of going on a rampage if, say, someone detonated dirty bombs in two major cities. Not sure why this prompted Tamas to go on some erratic tangent.

A society that had not started two wars over something not very significant would also be capable of going on a rampage if someone detonated two dirty bombs there.  Not sure what prompted you to go off on this banal tangent.

Well, my response was meant in a context.

Ide said pretty much that "we (Americans) had something as horrible as 911, yet we did not do much, so I don't see how we would persecute a minority". I pointed out that both parts of his premise ("911 was horrible" and "we did not do much") were false. I did not intend to get into a debate over anything else.

[grumbler]

Well, my response was meant in a context.

Ide said pretty much that "we (Americans) had something as horrible as 911, yet we did not do much, so I don't see how we would persecute a minority". I pointed out that both parts of his premise ("911 was horrible" and "we did not do much") were false. I did not intend to get into a debate over anything else.

Ah.  You were making a false analogy, not a generalized statement.  I withdraw my comment, then.

[grumbler]

I think we are being recklessly blind if we dont recognize that intolerance continues to exist in all Western democracies and if we kid ourselves into thinking that the sins of the past could never be repeated again.

I agree with this trite generalization. Who wouldn't?

[crazy canuck]

I think we are being recklessly blind if we dont recognize that intolerance continues to exist in all Western democracies and if we kid ourselves into thinking that the sins of the past could never be repeated again.

I agree with this trite generalization. Who wouldn't?

Ide for one.  Thanks for coming out and playing

[MadImmortalMan]

In any case, my point was to illustrate that a society that started two wars over something ultimately not very significant would be capable of going on a rampage if, say, someone detonated dirty bombs in two major cities. Not sure why this prompted Tamas to go on some erratic tangent.

I don't understand the proportionality thing at all. If you have to retaliate, you do it completely. The point is to make the attacker unable to strike again. The only question is whether or not to retaliate with force in the first place.

[Valmy]

So long as we have Tim around to keep a vigilant eye on the news and provide insightful commentary and Martinus around to start facebook groups and tackle people evil can never triumph again.