Because you don't establish deterrence without being at least *somewhat* mean/threatening about it. Ever seen nice guy deterrence work out well? You only get to do "nice guy deterrence" after you already have an established record of proven cruelty.
Hmm, the choices are either menacing or nice? Agree nice doesn’t work in establishing your authority, but mean? I learned to “take no shit” from 7th-grade students (the most disruptive of the middle grades due to all those hormones surging) as a substitute teacher. The first principal I worked for gave me these watchwords in managing classroom behavior: “loving and firm”.
In a classroom with children, where your relationship with them is part of your teaching, you have to be both loving (preserves the relationship) and firm (behavior compliance). Of course that’s not so in the situation you’re describing. Still, you can be firm, which is confidence in your authority, without being mean. Meanness is for teachers and parents (and Trumpers) who aren’t confident in their authority. The firmness and confidence in your authority is the most important. Civil - and firm - is better than mean.
These are not 7th graders we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who only understand and operate around strong vs weak. Raw force and the will to apply it aggressively is the universal language they understand, not firmness. "Move fast and break stuff" is not about being firm, it's about being swift and course. This is the language of the "disruptors" we're trying to rein in. Give it back to them in their own language, speed, and force and they'll learn a lot quicker than going the "firm" approach. This is about getting results, not showing the best form. No more of this "when they go low, we go high" BS.
Yes, I clearly acknowledged that we aren’t talking about 7th graders.
Move fast and break stuff isn’t what presidents do in our nation.
“Swift” is fine, but I don’t know what you mean by “course.” Is that a synonym for mean? Judges don’t have to be mean when they render their rulings.
I’m sorry, but raw force is not what one does in a liberal democracy that runs on the rule of law. As Malinowski said, "the party fighting to restore a government that respects rules must abide by the rules it champions." Do you disagree with this???
I’m fine with “aggressive”, but “malice” means the intention or desire to do evil. Evidence of “malice” is necessary for a 2nd degree murder conviction. It’s the wrong word.
I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
I dunno, listening to how fanatic/suicidal the Japanese were I’m pretty sure that ground invasions of the mainland would have led to even higher Japanese casualty rates among civilians than the firebombing campaign produced.
Perennial question. That would argue the fire-bombings were not done with malice, they were necessary to prevent a still worse outcome. I have never bought that argument. The Japanese had no supply lines. They were out of petroleum, trying to struggle on with small quantities of pine oil. Airplanes were grounded, trucks were next. Japan was utterly isolated, we had full air superiority.
I have never understood we we 'had' to invade the mainland, we could lay seige to the islands indefinitely. We could have shipped in food and medicine to ease famine and disease. Without domestic oil and few other resources time would have done the work.
We insisted on unconditional surrender - the Japanese condition was not to go after the emperor, and then - we didn't go after the emperor. Go figure.
I think there were more humane options but I don't fault the Allies too much, it is virtually impossible to fight such a war without losing part of your soul, all told we did OK. I can hold two truths in my head: Our worst excesses were unnecessary, and we did OK considering how war brings out the worst in human nature.
Why is malice necessary?
Because you don't establish deterrence without being at least *somewhat* mean/threatening about it. Ever seen nice guy deterrence work out well? You only get to do "nice guy deterrence" after you already have an established record of proven cruelty.
Hmm, the choices are either menacing or nice? Agree nice doesn’t work in establishing your authority, but mean? I learned to “take no shit” from 7th-grade students (the most disruptive of the middle grades due to all those hormones surging) as a substitute teacher. The first principal I worked for gave me these watchwords in managing classroom behavior: “loving and firm”.
In a classroom with children, where your relationship with them is part of your teaching, you have to be both loving (preserves the relationship) and firm (behavior compliance). Of course that’s not so in the situation you’re describing. Still, you can be firm, which is confidence in your authority, without being mean. Meanness is for teachers and parents (and Trumpers) who aren’t confident in their authority. The firmness and confidence in your authority is the most important. Civil - and firm - is better than mean.
These are not 7th graders we are dealing with. We are dealing with people who only understand and operate around strong vs weak. Raw force and the will to apply it aggressively is the universal language they understand, not firmness. "Move fast and break stuff" is not about being firm, it's about being swift and course. This is the language of the "disruptors" we're trying to rein in. Give it back to them in their own language, speed, and force and they'll learn a lot quicker than going the "firm" approach. This is about getting results, not showing the best form. No more of this "when they go low, we go high" BS.
But we are dealing with people who ACT as 7th graders with no respect for real authority and no real sense of proportion.
Yes, I clearly acknowledged that we aren’t talking about 7th graders.
Move fast and break stuff isn’t what presidents do in our nation.
“Swift” is fine, but I don’t know what you mean by “course.” Is that a synonym for mean? Judges don’t have to be mean when they render their rulings.
I’m sorry, but raw force is not what one does in a liberal democracy that runs on the rule of law. As Malinowski said, "the party fighting to restore a government that respects rules must abide by the rules it champions." Do you disagree with this???
I didn’t say break laws, I said to be malicious/aggressive with our political enemies.
I’m fine with “aggressive”, but “malice” means the intention or desire to do evil. Evidence of “malice” is necessary for a 2nd degree murder conviction. It’s the wrong word.
Yes but you are recommending breaking laws above. The things you recommend these blue state governors to do are unconstitutional.
We may be getting into word definitions, but we fought WW2 very effectively and for the most part not maliciously.
I think a spirit of cold calculation is best. You do X? I will do Y and you will regret it.
I like "cold calculation." But war isn't the right analogy. We are not in a massive war of weapons on the ground, in the air and on the seas with fatalities. We are engaged in a war of words and images on media platforms and courts of law. No fatalities.
"....and for the most part not maliciously."
Literally in the middle of a re-listen to Dan Carlin's "Supernova in the East" Hardcore History pod series covering the Pacific campaign of WW2 and can confirm that this is not at all the case. We fought *very* maliciously, and that was because the Imperial Japanese fought ruthlessly and to the last man in most cases. We ended up fighting maliciousness with maliciousness. Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign alone puts this sentiment to rest. We burned to the ground 50-90% of 67 Japanese cities before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo alone killed more civilians than both the nukes we dropped combined.
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." - Curtis LeMay
The only real "gentleman's front" in WWII was the European campaign, and even then there were things like the Dresden bombing. For more examples in Europe, see the US section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
I'm aware of the history you cite. If asked whether the allies committed war crimes in WW2 my answer is yes, we fire-bombed cities and dropped two nukes.
I stand by "for the most part not maliciously" aware that no war is free of malice. The question is whether malice is embraced or resisted, both happened in practice.
Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay had to push for indiscriminate bombing, they finally got their way because we could not achieve the accuracy needed for strategic bombing. They were seen as bloodthirsty within Allied command.
The Allies would have won the war without bombing cities, that particular strain of malice was not necessary; this is in itself an argument against giving malice free reign in wartime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey
I dunno, listening to how fanatic/suicidal the Japanese were I’m pretty sure that ground invasions of the mainland would have led to even higher Japanese casualty rates among civilians than the firebombing campaign produced.
Perennial question. That would argue the fire-bombings were not done with malice, they were necessary to prevent a still worse outcome. I have never bought that argument. The Japanese had no supply lines. They were out of petroleum, trying to struggle on with small quantities of pine oil. Airplanes were grounded, trucks were next. Japan was utterly isolated, we had full air superiority.
I have never understood we we 'had' to invade the mainland, we could lay seige to the islands indefinitely. We could have shipped in food and medicine to ease famine and disease. Without domestic oil and few other resources time would have done the work.
We insisted on unconditional surrender - the Japanese condition was not to go after the emperor, and then - we didn't go after the emperor. Go figure.
I think there were more humane options but I don't fault the Allies too much, it is virtually impossible to fight such a war without losing part of your soul, all told we did OK. I can hold two truths in my head: Our worst excesses were unnecessary, and we did OK considering how war brings out the worst in human nature.