Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Politically Correct War

#1
Zinjanthropos Offline
Strictly casual thoughts here*

Can a war be fought with either one or both sides adhering to a politically correct policy? Kill each other without being rude about it. How about the propaganda machine, would something like this poster be allowed:

https://www.allposters.com/-sp/WWII-Prop...igID=50710

Would a simple term like the ‘Italian Salute’ be unacceptable? Would calling someone GI Joe be considered an offence to all persons named Joe? 

Unless you think a global PC ideology will eventually bring an end to war then is PC war a possibility?

* Questions are the easiest forms of casual. Make a statement, like I’m doing now, and someone might jump all over you. I just made an upsetting comment so I apologize to all casual posters, especially those who don’t call out posts that contain no facts or evidence. And I apologize to the casuals with no facts...and those who do....I think that covers it. Sorry if it doesn’t.
Reply
#2
C C Offline
(Sep 14, 2019 01:52 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Strictly casual thoughts here*

Can a war be fought with either one or both sides adhering to a politically correct policy? Kill each other without being rude about it.


Presumably a leader, administration, party, political mindset or industrial/military complex can still be stereotyped and villified under whatever current, "neo-civilized" abstaining from demonizing the enemy. But it's frowned upon with respect to the general population and cultural, ethnic background(s) of a state one is at war with. It might even be contended that such was the case back in WWII, that it was enemy soldiers and the regimes they obeyed which were prejudicially caricatured -- but that quickly falls apart via the internment of Japanese descended Americans and Canadians, and other items.

Of course, just as there were lopsided standards in POW rights, there will be with thought policing. In the first half of the 20thy-century there were nations formally committing to avoiding harsh treatment and neglect of prisoners of war -- the latter being what was once a ubiquitous norm for thousands of years. Whereas other countries during wars retained or reverted back to the old customs as it suited their circumstances, for decades yet to come.

Similarly, whichever side has fewer resources, is more paranoid or is at higher risk of losing a war will also be inclined to chuck refraining from demonization. They need the traditional vilifying propaganda and smearing bigotry for riling up their struggling military and civilian population (as well as easing the consciences of troops who never killed before military service). However, there are examples of even Islamic terrorist groups going through the lip-service of proclaiming they have no beef with the population groups they're violently intimidating, just the governments and their adjuncts (or whatever "devils" they're challenging).

"Fortunately", speech and conduct puritanism of any era and stripe will automatically yield its own smut merchants and blasphemers -- by way of those who don't conform to the system or who don't profoundly repent slash apologize profusely enough when caught. Such shaming and vituperation protocol is a key part of what provides the demarcation line between the changing definitions and trait-swapping characteristics of "good guys" and "bad guys" over time periods. Thereby the hot-heads also still existing on the side of the policing don't have to worry about intense standards for decency depriving them of inherent human need and opportunities to feel scorn for certain groups and individuals. Who and what is plugged into the general placeholders for wickedness may occasionally vary over time, but the general abstractions functionally remain the same.
Reply
#3
Ben the Donkey Offline
(Sep 14, 2019 01:52 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Strictly casual thoughts here*

Can a war be fought with either one or both sides adhering to a politically correct policy? Kill each other without being rude about it. How about the propaganda machine, would something like this poster be allowed:

https://www.allposters.com/-sp/WWII-Prop...igID=50710

Would a simple term like the ‘Italian Salute’ be unacceptable? Would calling someone GI Joe be considered an offence to all persons named Joe? 

Unless you think a global PC ideology will eventually bring an end to war then is PC war a possibility?

* Questions are the easiest forms of casual. Make a statement, like I’m doing now, and someone might jump all over you. I just made an upsetting comment so I apologize to all casual posters, especially those who don’t call out posts that contain no facts or evidence. And I apologize to the casuals with no facts...and those who do....I think that covers it. Sorry if it doesn’t.
The USA has been trying to be "nice" about fighting wars since World War 2. They've had trouble winning them ever since. 

One of the reasons grassroots organisations with little in the way of central authority, training or advanced weaponry can challenge and cause major headaches for leading military powers is that they are not bound by the same moral constraints. "Hearts and Minds" is a political philosophy, not a military one. Any nation subscribing to it as a philosophy is effectively sacrificing its own soldiers for votes.

It's not really all that acceptable, in most cases, to get involved in wars to begin with. But when you find yourself in one, the best thing to do is get on with it, and get it over as quickly as possible by any practical means necessary. One of the reasons modern wars and conflicts have become to protracted, drawn out and expensive affairs is that the "enlightened" western nations really have no idea how to go about it anymore.
Reply
#4
confused2 Online
As I understand it a war is won by the last man (or woman) left alive. Possible options before that point are unconditional surrender and/or a peace treaty.
Reply
#5
stryder Offline
(Oct 13, 2019 12:10 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: It's not really all that acceptable, in most cases, to get involved in wars to begin with. But when you find yourself in one, the best thing to do is get on with it, and get it over as quickly as possible by any practical means necessary. One of the reasons modern wars and conflicts have become to protracted, drawn out and expensive affairs is that the "enlightened" western nations really have no idea how to go about it anymore.

I don't know, the strategy towards the end of the cold war was simple, drag it out as long as possible and make it cost as much as possible so eventually one side wouldn't be able to keep up with the spending. This lead to a certain amount of "Creative Accounting" in regards to exactly how many nuclear missiles existed at any given time. (A few years ago there was a report in regards to the number of cold war era missiles meant for decommissioning was a lot less than they originally estimated because they couldn't be found, while some might assume they were lost/misplace the reality was likely they never existed in the first place. Propaganda was an avid tool in forcing military overspending. )

In this day an age though it's not just military spending that's hit, creating a migration from the displacement of people forces them to become the problem of whatever countries are willing to take them in due to humanitarian grounds. Funding camps, policing, education, medicine and working out what to do with them in the long run is a long drawn out affair that costs equally as much as a military. So that's two separate economic blights converged to hurt a country with it's spending.
Reply
#6
confused2 Online
Locally (UK).
As is well known we have democratically decided to take back control from the EU and replace 'free movement' with a controlled border. cf "Build a wall". So far our armed forces haven't opened fire on those seeking to enter the country without the approved paperwork.
'Political correctness' could change overnight to the point where it is considered acceptable to open fire on thousands or millions fleeing war and/or oppression.
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
(Oct 15, 2019 12:31 AM)confused2 Wrote: ... thousands or  millions fleeing war and/or oppression.

What, from continental Europe? Things are worse than I'd imagined.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jurors recommend death penalty based on looks; new training can correct the bias C C 0 60 Dec 15, 2023 04:57 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Biden promised a ‘war on cancer’ — but declared war on the cure instead C C 0 59 Jul 7, 2023 07:39 PM
Last Post: C C
  Politically unacceptable: ‘Out-of-control’ Chinese rocket could hit habitable areas C C 0 65 May 4, 2021 08:22 PM
Last Post: C C
  BLM conducts politically holy rituals in streets; city leaders bow heads in respect C C 6 288 Aug 14, 2020 01:30 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Pete Buttigieg: Politically devoured by cannibal Democrats? C C 1 174 Mar 10, 2020 07:47 PM
Last Post: Leigha



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)