Why is there so much hatred and conflict in the world?
Discussion
otolith said:
How many years ago?
That's the thing; much of what we consider the foundations of modern liberal governance, and the norms of our society, was once considered the outre collective wants of niche groups. And we were certainly less ill at ease with conflict, as state policy, in centuries passed.Of course, there could be no connection. War might simply be an instrument of policy that is more readily available to the authoritarian.
That said, I wouldn't deny the strong - historic and ongoing- links between pacifist and socially progressive movements, or the tendancy for militarists to be paternal and socially conservative. Even where ideologies set out to combine an authoritarian & muscular military posture with social progress, their ongoing practice tends to show backsliding towards the socially conservative (the USSR being a good example.)
Dagnir said:
AmyRichardson said:
Probably close to reality.
Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
Get what you're saying but it's not wokeness that prevents us from being warmongers.....it's being a civilised, western democracy.Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
The very definition of woke is the tolerance and acceptance afforded to those different to yourself.
The very definition of hatred and conflict is the opposite of this.
Woke is neither nonsense or bulls
t. That also means that those that understand it must tolerate and accept those who do think it is nonsense or bullst.I do understand why many of my fellow, white, middle-aged, middle class male peers may take this view. But it's important not to let the odd oddity of someone wishing to be identified as a wheelie bin or tree cloud the wider reality of a mindset that has been gestating for the past 60 years.
Dagnir said:
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
It wasn't called woke but the UK were amongst the first nations on earth to become 'enlightened' when it came to tolerance and the adoption of liberal values. Before then, we most definitely had warmongering and other less than liberal tendencies. StevieBee said:
Dagnir said:
AmyRichardson said:
Probably close to reality.
Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
Get what you're saying but it's not wokeness that prevents us from being warmongers.....it's being a civilised, western democracy.Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
The very definition of woke is the tolerance and acceptance afforded to those different to yourself.
The very definition of hatred and conflict is the opposite of this.
Woke is neither nonsense or bulls
t. That also means that those that understand it must tolerate and accept those who do think it is nonsense or bullst.I do understand why many of my fellow, white, middle-aged, middle class male peers may take this view. But it's important not to let the odd oddity of someone wishing to be identified as a wheelie bin or tree cloud the wider reality of a mindset that has been gestating for the past 60 years.
Dagnir said:
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
It wasn't called woke but the UK were amongst the first nations on earth to become 'enlightened' when it came to tolerance and the adoption of liberal values. Before then, we most definitely had warmongering and other less than liberal tendencies. StevieBee said:
Woke is neither nonsense or bullst. That also means that those that understand it must tolerate and accept those who do think it is nonsense or bullst.
I do understand why many of my fellow, white, middle-aged, middle class male peers may take this view. But it's important not to let the odd oddity of someone wishing to be identified as a wheelie bin or tree cloud the wider reality of a mindset that has been gestating for the past 60 years.
I think it is bullst. That also means that those that understand it must tolerate and accept those who do think it is nonsense or bullst.I do understand why many of my fellow, white, middle-aged, middle class male peers may take this view. But it's important not to let the odd oddity of someone wishing to be identified as a wheelie bin or tree cloud the wider reality of a mindset that has been gestating for the past 60 years.
t when the rights of people who wish to be identified as wheelie bins or trees over-ride the interests of actual wheelie bins and trees. (edited to fix formatting)
Edited by Yertis on Monday 13th May 16:08
Jinx said:
And that is not "woke" - woke is a mask of tolerence covering the belligerently intolerent. Judging people for the actions of their ancestors = "woke", promoting the rights of localised minorities above the rights of localised majorities (when in the grand scheme of things the majorities are often less numerous than the minorities) = "woke", advocating social cancellation of individuals (or worse) for not sharing their beliefs = "woke", promoting feelings above facts = "woke".
That's the entry in the Daily Mail Dictionary. Though I now so rarely see it used in any other sense that I suspect it has been appropriated and those who exemplify it in the non-pejorative sense would no longer use it of themselves.Jinx said:
StevieBee said:
Dagnir said:
AmyRichardson said:
Probably close to reality.
Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
Get what you're saying but it's not wokeness that prevents us from being warmongers.....it's being a civilised, western democracy.Pick your own list of "2024's top warmongers and tyrants" and then consider how many of them are social progressives - or are even remotely tolerant of socially progressive interest groups.
The havens of social justice movements are invariably liberal democracies, which don't tend to fight amongst themselves regardless, so the "woke = not warlike" connection might be coincidence - but they're all hardwired together none the less.
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
The very definition of woke is the tolerance and acceptance afforded to those different to yourself.
The very definition of hatred and conflict is the opposite of this.
Woke is neither nonsense or bulls
t. That also means that those that understand it must tolerate and accept those who do think it is nonsense or bullst.I do understand why many of my fellow, white, middle-aged, middle class male peers may take this view. But it's important not to let the odd oddity of someone wishing to be identified as a wheelie bin or tree cloud the wider reality of a mindset that has been gestating for the past 60 years.
Dagnir said:
A few years ago before we got infected with woke nonsense, we were not a warmongering nation.
It wasn't called woke but the UK were amongst the first nations on earth to become 'enlightened' when it came to tolerance and the adoption of liberal values. Before then, we most definitely had warmongering and other less than liberal tendencies. As Otolith says, that's the 'Daily Mail Ideal World Exhibition' meaning.
But we can, for the sake of simplicity, replace the word 'woke' with 'liberal' to mean the same thing in the context of the thread debate.
AmyRichardson said:
Klippie said:
Religeon and Imperialism the two main causes of conflict, and sometimes on a global scale.
Though in the last century the vast majority of casualties (something like 80% of all combat deaths since 1800) have been on the back of clashes between secular ideologies. And when it comes to states murdering their own, radical secular states are light years ahead of the pack! One could see a hint of imperialism in these conflicts - but the likeness of 19thC imperialism to (say,) Lebensraum or "our SoBs" in the Cold War is pretty thin.
StevieBee said:
I think you're wrong.
As Otolith says, that's the 'Daily Mail Ideal World Exhibition' meaning.
But we can, for the sake of simplicity, replace the word 'woke' with 'liberal' to mean the same thing in the context of the thread debate.
I disagree. As Otolith says, that's the 'Daily Mail Ideal World Exhibition' meaning.
But we can, for the sake of simplicity, replace the word 'woke' with 'liberal' to mean the same thing in the context of the thread debate.
Woke people are far from liberal.
StevieBee said:
It wasn't called woke but the UK were amongst the first nations on earth to become 'enlightened' when it came to tolerance and the adoption of liberal values. Before then, we most definitely had warmongering and other less than liberal tendencies.
Well, if the UK were still the major military power in the world, we'd still have plenty of that as it isn't enlightenment that has put a stop to that but lack of capability.....isaldiri said:
Well, if the UK were still the major military power in the world, we'd still have plenty of that as it isn't enlightenment that has put a stop to that but lack of capability.....
Not sure about that. Taking the US as a proxy for a Britain with capability we can see that western nations often conclude conflicts whilst capabilities remain plentiful, yet public discourse (much of which focuses on the moral questions of the conflict) creates a pressure to do so. You could even say that the 2nd Boer War was in part concluded because of the British public's distaste regarding the army's methods.
Derek Smith said:
lizardbrain said:
The grass and daisys on my lawn are currently at war. Any suggestions on how i can lend the grass a hand?
The combatants in that war are the daisies and you. The grass is a bit 'meh' in the matter.AmyRichardson said:
isaldiri said:
Well, if the UK were still the major military power in the world, we'd still have plenty of that as it isn't enlightenment that has put a stop to that but lack of capability.....
Not sure about that. Taking the US as a proxy for a Britain with capability we can see that western nations often conclude conflicts whilst capabilities remain plentiful, yet public discourse (much of which focuses on the moral questions of the conflict) creates a pressure to do so. You could even say that the 2nd Boer War was in part concluded because of the British public's distaste regarding the army's methods.
I'd also say that the 2nd Boer war concluded as much due to the boers being unable to sustain the numbers of women and children dying in concentration camps that Kitchener had put them in and thus had to effectively surrender as from the british public's distaste.....
isaldiri said:
Well, if the UK were still the major military power in the world, we'd still have plenty of that as it isn't enlightenment that has put a stop to that but lack of capability.....
Bit of both probably. I think that after the horrors of WW2, the British public must have been more aware of the evils of empire and war. The British public of today would not allow our government to carry out any empire building. The UK could achieve a military victory (ignoring the international backlash), but a population can only be subjugated with extreme cruelty. We would march on parliament before allowing that to happen.AlexC1981 said:
isaldiri said:
Well, if the UK were still the major military power in the world, we'd still have plenty of that as it isn't enlightenment that has put a stop to that but lack of capability.....
Bit of both probably. I think that after the horrors of WW2, the British public must have been more aware of the evils of empire and war. The British public of today would not allow our government to carry out any empire building. The UK could achieve a military victory (ignoring the international backlash), but a population can only be subjugated with extreme cruelty. We would march on parliament before allowing that to happen.Dagnir said:
otolith said:
No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.
IDD with most of that.Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.
Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.
I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.
You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???
Presumably when those same Western powers are off f
king up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?isaldiri said:
The US concluding conflicts early just means that they lack the stomach to carry out what they start rather than any newfound enlightenment I'd have thought. The number of military engagements the US has been involved with pretty much every year hardly suggests that there has been much lack of warmongering and they have also been ever quick to support countries with less than liberal tendencies whenever it has been deemed useful to them.
I'd also say that the 2nd Boer war concluded as much due to the boers being unable to sustain the numbers of women and children dying in concentration camps that Kitchener had put them in and thus had to effectively surrender as from the british public's distaste.....
These are all factors; but a "lack of stomach" is very much a liberal characteristic, not something that, say, Putin, Saddam or Pol Pot would suffer from. The US could readily choose to sow the fields with salt in order to successfully conclude its military endeavours - and others would with their resources - but they do not (and we do not) and this is a part of liberal democracies being relatively reticent warriors.I'd also say that the 2nd Boer war concluded as much due to the boers being unable to sustain the numbers of women and children dying in concentration camps that Kitchener had put them in and thus had to effectively surrender as from the british public's distaste.....
Kermit power said:
Dagnir said:
otolith said:
No, I was just thinking that we've been doing things which have been described as warmongering for as long as I can remember - whether it was allegedly allowing the Falklands crisis to escalate to an electorally convenient war, or the various expeditions on the shirt tails of the Americans. If anything I think we've been less willing to wage war since Blair got himself labelled a war criminal, with Cameron losing the vote to bomb Syria. There have been subsequent actions, bombing ISIL and Houthis, but nothing of the scale of our previous adventures.
IDD with most of that.Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.
Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.
I'm not blaming them btw.....quite often it's as much of an excuse as it is a cause.
You think the reason that Western nations equipped with state of the art weaponry don't go to war with each other is because we're more civilised???
Presumably when those same Western powers are off f
king up various parts of Africa and the Middle East that's all the fault of those damned uncivilised darkies in your world view?...and did you read my final paragraph?
AmyRichardson said:
These are all factors; but a "lack of stomach" is very much a liberal characteristic, not something that, say, Putin, Saddam or Pol Pot would suffer from. The US could readily choose to sow the fields with salt in order to successfully conclude its military endeavours - and others would with their resources - but they do not (and we do not) and this is a part of liberal democracies being relatively reticent warriors.
Being relatively reticent warriors, to my mind anyway, means we don't actually go round starting wars and attacking others. That we then don't use sufficient brutality to properly finish what was started and just pull out having made a mess of whatever country that was attacked might be a liberal characteristic but it doesn't mean it was any less warmongering to have started it in the first place especially given that huge capability gap in the first place meant we mainly simply expected the opposition to roll over and submit to our will..... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff