Today, I planned to talk about the recent airstrikes carried out by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France on Syrian targets in depth, but I just need to vent right now. While doing research about the strikes and the surrounding events, I responded to a post someone made. That person was pretty nice to me, so I have no problem with him. However, I ended up arguing over the Internet with some other people and that crap was exasperating — and it was somehow more exasperating then arguing with someone face to face.
I was being push to the point of being mean, y’all! I finally decided to block one person because they were being an obnoxious twat. I don’t like being mean (or blocking people), but when the people I’m talking to are being disrespectful and intellectually dishonest, I have to put my foot down. I also need to take a break.
What Happened and What Should We Ask Ourselves?
If you have been keeping up with what’s been going on in Syria, you know that there was a suspected gas attack in Douma on Sunday, April 8, 2018. It was in a “rebel-held” area and people were evacuated 1-2 days later. Of course, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was blamed for the attack. There was supposed to be an investigation, but the airstrikes were carried out without one being done.
Right there, that should cause people to ask themselves what’s going on. We need to step back for a minute and think about the following:
- We need to know if Assad actually used gassed on his own people.
- We need to ask ourselves why he would do that if he was already winning the war.
- We need to ask ourselves if the United States should intervene and what happens next.
- We need to find out what the Syrian people want.
- We also need to ask ourselves why were are so fixated on Syria when we support Saudi Arabia’s genocidal adventure in Yemen and we have said nothing about Israeli soldiers slaughtering at least 17 Pakistanis and injuring over 100 more.
However, there are people who are jumping on the “Assad is dumb and evil” train without a second thought and jumping on people who want answers. These sable-rattlers want our leaders to “DO SOMETHING!!!111,” but what is that something? Is that something intervention?
Where Do I Stand?
I will state right now that I am an anti-interventionist. I don’t like the idea of a country unilaterally going into another because of “humanitarian” reasons. There is no such thing as a humanitarian war anyway because people die. Civilians die. And while countries (namely the United States) might choose to invade countries in order to “liberate” them from brutal dictators who are hurting their people, the moment we decide to drop bombs in that country, we are the ones hurting those people.
Airstrikes can kill families, but jingoists want the people who bring that up to shut up. They would even scream at the people who lost their loved ones in those strikes and wonder why those people weren’t grateful for being “liberated.” Do you think I’m exaggerating? Then it would help if the type of people I’m arguing with would speak up and be honest.
Is (Intellectual) Dishonesty That Much of a Problem?
Yes, that’s the problem I’m having right now. The first person I had a back-and-forth with today understood what I was saying. We might have still disagreed on most things, but he calmly and respectively addressed my points. He was also completely honest. The other people were making ASSumptions about me, but they wouldn’t say what they didn’t like about my arguments or what was bothering them.
These people can’t even defend their positions without gaslighting or using ad hominems or using any other logical fallacy. I wouldn’t have much of a problem if the people I was talking to were good at debating, though.
That’s the problem I had when I was arguing about the Russia probe, too. And to be quite honest, the more I argue about the Russia probe, the more I’m convinced it’s stupid. I will still read news about it, but it has gotten so far from the “Russia colluded with Trump” angle, it seems like a cruel joke.
Why Am I Talking About Russia Now?
I get that people want Trump gone (I want him gone, too), but many anti-Trumpers are latching onto anything, anything at all if it gives them hope that he might be impeached. It’s not so simple, though. For one thing, we need the numbers and there are not enough Republicans willing to get rid of Trump — right now. Also, a President Pence would be worse because the policies would be the same and he would be far more efficient.
That said, if Trump is to be removed, I want it to be by the book and based on evidence. Now, there are grounds to do just that without the Russia Probe. For instance, Trump is definitely in violation of the Emoluments Clause. Was the weapons deal he signed for Saudi Arabia related to a stay at his Washington, D.C. hotel? It’s highly likely.
There are likely other things Trump is doing. So yes, I would like officials to investigate the hotel and all of Trump’s business dealings and do what they may with him if they find evidence. If they have that evidence, Trump has to be impeached in order to save our democracy. Too many people in high places have gotten away with murder (literally, in more cases than we know) and justice needs to at least start with Trump.
Why Does Arguing Over the Internet Suck So Hard?
I could never get to the point of saying much of the above with the type of people I have argued with. I could also never get them to believe that I dislike and distrust Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad.
Nope, they assume that I like bad people because I’m asking questions. They rely on name-calling. And then they try to gaslight me.
Oh, you’re crazy.
You support terrorists and dictators.
You’re un-American (if the person I’m talking to is American).
Why do you hate America?
It gets even weirder if the person I’m arguing with is not an American. What, does this person whose country is not militarily involved want the United States to flex its muscle while they watch? What kind of fetish is that?
In any event, I question why people need for Assad to be guilty of gassing his own people. It’s certainly possible, but I think it would be too risky, incredibly stupid, and extremely unnecessary on his part. However, his guilt in this matter (or lack thereof) does not change my views about intervention. That’s the main difference between me and the people I’m arguing with.
That’s why arguing over the Internet sucks, people. We have the same problems with understanding and static viewpoints when we argue face to face, but sometimes it seems that things are taken to 11 when we’re arguing remotely. That’s especially true when the people I’m arguing with are poor debaters and are talking about intervention like it’s this great moral cause.