[Kerrigan]

It is pretty clear to me that the West has lost its edge in the global balance of power. We are weak, we are always defending the fanatics that attack us instead of our leaders who defend us, we are impotent in that we can no longer assert or defend our values against the argumentation of fanatical tyrants abroad, and we are in relative economic decline. The world is increasingly marked by Eastern initiative and Western passivity, and in this global dialectic, we are bound to lose out.

We have reached such a state of collapse that I predict many of you here at MacNN are so blinded by moral relativism that you will deny the meaningfulness of words such as "civilization" or concepts such as right and wrong, or even the mere distinction between the East and the West.

Of course, all of this reflection was sparked by the impotent, pusillanimous reaction of the West to Russia's invasion of Georgia. And I'm well aware that there are at least a few of you here at MacNN who want to respond that all of the above is mere rubbish, that there is no such thing as Western civilization or morality, and that Russia was justified in attacking Georgia, and we are perfectly right to sit around on our hands. And this will simply confirm my private notion that the West is in irreversible decline.

[zombie punk]

LOL - the 18th century called- it want's its broken political rant back! There's so much wrong with that post that you'll have to break it out into several smaller ones if you really want to be set straight on any level of detail. It may help you to clarify your thoughts to think about the following questions:
1. What is 'the West'?
2. Which 'fanatics' do you feel are attacking 'us'?
3. What are 'the West's 'values'?
4. What do you mean by 'civilization'?
5. Why would you expect a different reaction to Russia's actions in Georgia?
6. What about the situation you describe bothers you?

[Kerrigan]

It's a good thing I included twice in my OP that some people in here would instantly devolve this into a discussion of semantics. How much more pedantic or impotent does it get?

[Kerrigan]

As an aside, it's interesting how these notions of mine do not even raise an eyebrow when discussed in the company of important people. At alumnae events at top-tier fraternities you find this same sentiment, and often even more conservative in nature, amongst very reasonable, very powerful members of society. And yet, this sort of discussion horribly offends the lower orders, or the keyboard warriors, or any other segments of the population so blinded by moral relativism that they prefer to use scare-quotes around words like values or civilization.

[TETENAL]

Alumnae? At "top-tier fraternities" they don't allow chicks in Germany.

On topic though: Russian natural gas makes a large portion of our energy supply. So there is not much we can do.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It is pretty clear to me that the West has lost its edge in the global balance of power. We are weak, we are always defending the fanatics that attack us instead of our leaders who defend us, we are impotent in that we can no longer assert or defend our values against the argumentation of fanatical tyrants abroad, and we are in relative economic decline. The world is increasingly marked by Eastern initiative and Western passivity, and in this global dialectic, we are bound to lose out.

We have reached such a state of collapse that I predict many of you here at MacNN are so blinded by moral relativism that you will deny the meaningfulness of words such as "civilization" or concepts such as right and wrong, or even the mere distinction between the East and the West.

Of course, all of this reflection was sparked by the impotent, pusillanimous reaction of the West to Russia's invasion of Georgia. And I'm well aware that there are at least a few of you here at MacNN who want to respond that all of the above is mere rubbish, that there is no such thing as Western civilization or morality, and that Russia was justified in attacking Georgia, and we are perfectly right to sit around on our hands. And this will simply confirm my private notion that the West is in irreversible decline.

Georgia started it by violating its less than week-old agreement with South Ossetia. Russia was responding to defend an ally, how does that make them the aggressor? Was Russia's response "disproportionate?" To the extent that they didn't play the now Western game of waging war in a minimally destructive fashion, yes.

Oh, but you probably reject that "pusillanimous" Western habit of conducting war in such a way as to try to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage, so I guess you don't even have those grounds to criticize Russia.

Could the West be in decline? Perhaps, perhaps the rampant greed of globalized capital has widened the gap between rich and poor that a global uprising is inevitable, but the last time this happened it didn't destroy Western civilization, so I doubt it will this time. Usually those who argue as you are that the West is in decline are shuddering with some conservative ideology that points a wary finger at "them" coming into our midst--those pesky brown-skinned people with funny customs are going to swamp our culture and destroy everything we have built!

Well, let me tell you this, it's only xenophobia that prevents "them" from just being absorbed right into the sweeping juggernaut of Western culture. It is only conservative attempts to dominate the globe through hamfisted military power that have led to the ascendancy of fundamentalists and propped up tyrants--whose values we ignore when in our business interests.

Short version: It's your thinking that's the problem. The open, Liberal traditions of the West that are prevailing so much to your chagrin are precisely those that will subsume the medievalism of the East and allow for the West to continue its march toward hegemony.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

it's interesting how these notions of mine do not even raise an eyebrow when discussed in the company of important people [and] at alumnae events at top-tier fraternities.

Worst. Fail. Ever.
Translation: I've never really given much thought to this, and neither have the frat-boys I hung out with at college.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

As an aside, it's interesting how these notions of mine do not even raise an eyebrow when discussed in the company of important people.

Wow... I wish I knew important people.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Georgia started it by violating its less than week-old agreement with South Ossetia.

Before I even read the rest of your post...get your facts straight. Georgia sent in troops to its own territory to stop the artillery from killing its people. Whether or not SO want independence or not does not negate Georgia's territorial boundaries.

Russia's military response should have been confined to that area....even that is somewhat overreaching....

Imagine if the US sent troops into Georgia to fight the Russian's who are within Georgia's boundaries outside of the disputed areas?

But we'd just be supporting our allies! Russia violated its agreement too!!! Your argument fails to meet a standard of objectivity to be labeled as moral, and therefore its whole premise fails.

If Russia can do it to georgia, why can't we do it to russia to support our allies? You'd scream bloody murder.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

And yet, this sort of discussion horribly offends the lower orders, or the keyboard warriors, or any other segments of the population so blinded by moral relativism that they prefer to use scare-quotes around words like values or civilization.

It's ironic, but the most sheltered in the most advanced and civilized of societies, are probably more likely NOT to know what civilization means, or have any real-world, non-romanticized point of reference to go by. An advanced civilization affords them the ability not to have to know.

[zombie punk]

This is turning into a pretty weak troll.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

As an aside, it's interesting how these notions of mine do not even raise an eyebrow when discussed in the company of important people. At alumnae events at top-tier fraternities you find this same sentiment, and often even more conservative in nature, amongst very reasonable, very powerful members of society. And yet, this sort of discussion horribly offends the lower orders, or the keyboard warriors, or any other segments of the population so blinded by moral relativism that they prefer to use scare-quotes around words like values or civilization.

Yes, I'm sure ex-frat boys can appreciate the iron-clad logic of this philosophy. Sorry that the rest of us in the "lower orders" who, you know studied in college, cannot appreciate the simplicity with which you are able to reduce all the world's complexities to such an easy-to-grasp "we're right, they're wrong" worldview.

You have officially turned yourself into a joke with this post, sir.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Before I even read the rest of your post...get your facts straight. Georgia sent in troops to its own territory to stop the artillery from killing its people. Whether or not SO want independence or not does not negate Georgia's territorial boundaries.

Russia's military response should have been confined to that area....even that is somewhat overreaching....

Imagine if the US sent troops into Georgia to fight the Russian's who are within Georgia's boundaries outside of the disputed areas?

But we'd just be supporting our allies! Russia violated its agreement too!!! Your argument fails to meet a standard of objectivity to be labeled as moral, and therefore its whole premise fails.

If Russia can do it to georgia, why can't we do it to russia to support our allies? You'd scream bloody murder.

Yes, I'd be rather upset if we pursued a course of action that led to WWIII. For the record, the point I'm trying to make is not that Russia was justified, but that people who support US adventurism in Iraq really cannot claim that Russia is behaving in a fundamentally different way. I was pointing out the flawed premises of Kerrigan's condemnation, not voicing any support for Russia. What I said was that the US should not take sides, but should try to mediate neutrally to bring the most satisfactorily swift end to the bloodshed.

That said, I have no doubt that Russia was pleased by the opportunity to intervene in Georgia once it attacked South Ossetia, but as to the "fact" that Russia made the first move, you'll have to provide me with some evidence on that as all the sources I've read indicate the opposite--that Georgia made the first move against South Ossetia and that they did so within days of signing an agreement to respect their autonomy.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's ironic, but the most sheltered in the most advanced and civilized of societies, are probably more likely NOT to know what civilization means, or have any real-world, non-romanticized point of reference to go by. An advanced civilization affords them the ability not to have to know.

Wait, you're accusing us of having a romanticized vision of what civilization means?

This guy just said that his view of the world is from inside swanky frat reunions and that's the realistic assessment of the globe you're endorsing? Sorry, but the web of history and the lives of six billion people on this planet cannot be reduced to a simple us vs. them, the civilized against the barbarians sort of dichotomy.

It may comfort you to reduce the world in such a self-congratulatory fashion, but those types of worldviews are precisely the sort of self-delusion that has led to some of the worst atrocities of human history. The European colonists decimated the indigenous populations of the Americas in the name of progress. African slaves were dehumanized in the interests of civilization. Jews were gassed by the Nazis because they were trying to orchestrate the downfall of an inherently superior civilization.

So if those are the values you think are so in jeopardy, then I say let them come crashing down.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

This is turning into a pretty weak troll.

This whole forum is turning into pretty weak sauce, as a matter of fact.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Wait, you're accusing us of having a romanticized vision of what civilization means?

This guy just said that his view of the world is from inside swanky frat reunions and that's the realistic assessment of the globe you're endorsing?

LOL! When I read his post, it never occurred to me that he wasn't referring to the frat boys as the sheltered ones! I totally thought it was a jab at Kerri Gan. But now that you mention it, it could be he meant it either way. Funny stuff.

[zombie punk]

It's only funny in the same way that sort of uncomfortable way, you know, when you are laughing at someone for tripping over, or being disabled. You might laugh, but you feel bad about it. Kerrigan is one of those who we really shouldn't laugh at. It's not fair.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Wait, you're accusing us of having a romanticized vision of what civilization means?

Who is "us"? I didn't accuse you of anything. Why did you take my statement as aimed at yourself?

Uncle Skeleton got it exactly right- anyone from fratboys, to pretend intellectuals who never venture outside, to urban dwellers could easily fit the mold of what I was talking about. (I wasn't taking a shot at Kerrigan, or anyone else in particular).

It may comfort you to reduce the world in such a self-congratulatory fashion, but those types of worldviews are precisely the sort of self-delusion that has led to some of the worst atrocities of human history. The European colonists decimated the indigenous populations of the Americas in the name of progress. African slaves were dehumanized in the interests of civilization. Jews were gassed by the Nazis because they were trying to orchestrate the downfall of an inherently superior civilization.

So if those are the values you think are so in jeopardy, then I say let them come crashing down.

Wait, did you just invoke Godwin's Law? Lose.

It's actually the type I was talking about that would sit by and allowexamples like yours to take place without opposition, and without realizing it's a responsibility of the civilized world to use force against such things.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Who is "us"? I didn't accuse you of anything. Why did you take my statement as aimed at yourself?

Uncle Skeleton got it exactly right- anyone from fratboys, to pretend intellectuals who never venture outside, to urban dwellers could easily fit the mold of what I was talking about. (I wasn't taking a shot at Kerrigan, or anyone else in particular).

Wait, did you just invoke Godwin's Law? Lose.

It's actually the type I was talking about that would sit by and allowexamples like yours to take place without opposition, and without realizing it's a responsibility of the civilized world to use force against such things.

I was the one taking a shot at Kerrigan.

And yes, I'll evoke the Holocaust when appropriate. It was. I did.

The only really functionally useful definition for evil I've ever seen is that it is a lack of empathy. It is those who pretend there is no middle ground, that there is no room to understand those who believe differently than us who are capable of such atrocities. Understanding your enemy is not conceding to him, but what often happens is that when we engage in that intellectual act of understanding, we find that things are not so black and white, nor we so "right" and they so "wrong" as we imagined.

[zombie punk]

Crash, do you have a point? You're starting to ramble, and I don't think anyone really understands what you're trying to say.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And yes, I'll evoke the Holocaust when appropriate. It was. I did. I lost.

The only really functionally useful definition for evil I've ever seen is that it is a lack of empathy. It is those who pretend there is no middle ground, that there is no room to understand those who believe differently than us who are capable of such atrocities. Understanding your enemy is not conceding to him, but what often happens is that when we engage in that intellectual act of understanding, we find that things are not so black and white, nor we so "right" and they so "wrong" as we imagined.

It's a product of you living in a civilized society that affords you the luxury of even sitting around thinking up definitions of what evil is. Plenty of people around the world experience what you only ponder about, first hand.

Also, while an interesting exercise, defining evil, it has nothing to do with anything I was saying, and really little to do with the subject of the existence of western civilization.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Yes, I'd be rather upset if we pursued a course of action that led to WWIII. For the record, the point I'm trying to make is not that Russia was justified, but that people who support US adventurism in Iraq really cannot claim that Russia is behaving in a fundamentally different way. I was pointing out the flawed premises of Kerrigan's condemnation, not voicing any support for Russia. What I said was that the US should not take sides, but should try to mediate neutrally to bring the most satisfactorily swift end to the bloodshed.

That said, I have no doubt that Russia was pleased by the opportunity to intervene in Georgia once it attacked South Ossetia, but as to the "fact" that Russia made the first move, you'll have to provide me with some evidence on that as all the sources I've read indicate the opposite--that Georgia made the first move against South Ossetia and that they did so within days of signing an agreement to respect their autonomy.

Weak. This has nothing to do with iraq and if u really want us to be self righteous then it would have no impact on our decision, as itd be based entirely on ethics at that point.

Every source i've looked at said rebels in SO fired artillery into georgia and killed 10 people.

Also, isn't your breed that always is saying how the US isn't the policeman of the world? Now we're supposed to sit everyone in their corner and decide if we should "arrest" somebody? Russia is a big boy now, they should know better....and i'd rather our resources however much greater they be go towards garaunteed results. I don't believe other countries should get away with poor behavior. There must be some deterrent for next time.

EDIT: I don't mean military action as the best deterrence in this situation...not as its current state. Don't think i'm calling for the US military to get involved....

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

existence of western civilization.

I understand that you have a hard time defining what you mean, but please, explain what you mean by this. I think that if you do, it might help you to clarify your thoughts, which would make discussion with you easier for all of us.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Weak. This has nothing to do with iraq and if u really want us to be self righteous then it would have no impact on our decision, as itd be based entirely on ethics at that point.

Every source i've looked at said rebels in SO fired artillery into georgia and killed 10 people.

Also, isn't your breed that always is saying how the US isn't the policeman of the world? Now we're supposed to sit everyone in their corner and decide if we should "arrest" somebody? Russia is a big boy now, they should know better....and i'd rather our resources however much greater they be go towards garaunteed results. I don't believe other countries should get away with poor behavior. There must be some deterrent for next time.

EDIT: I don't mean military action as the best deterrence in this situation...not as its current state. Don't think i'm calling for the US military to get involved....

Buddy, you're making precious little sense. I can't even begin to catalogue the contradictions in this one little post. Your response had so little to do with my post, I don't know what to say.

What are you saying should be done? You rule out diplomacy, somehow implying it has something to do with "arresting" someone. Then you rule out military action, yet say that Russia must learn a lesson. Honestly, can you make any of what you've said make sense.

And seriously, I've read five or six things on Georgia today and I have not read this claim. Can you provide a source that says South Ossetia started the hostilities?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's a product of you living in a civilized society that affords you the luxury of even sitting around thinking up definitions of what evil is. Plenty of people around the world experience what you only ponder about, first hand.

Also, while an interesting exercise, defining evil, it has nothing to do with anything I was saying, and really little to do with the subject of the existence of western civilization.

But it has everything to do with what I'm saying.

And have you experienced something of note here? What exactly is your point that by virtue of having lived in a civilized society I must be willing to support whatever you say is necessary to defend that civilization? Give me a break.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Buddy, you're making precious little sense. I can't even begin to catalogue the contradictions in this one little post. Your response had so little to do with my post, I don't know what to say.

What are you saying should be done? You rule out diplomacy, somehow implying it has something to do with "arresting" someone. Then you rule out military action, yet say that Russia must learn a lesson. Honestly, can you make any of what you've said make sense.

And seriously, I've read five or six things on Georgia today and I have not read this claim. Can you provide a source that says South Ossetia started the hostilities?

You don't read my posts properly.

First, i never said rule out military actions....i said its not neccesarily the best case scenario here and now (but if the situation deteriorates it may be).

Second...i've had a few beers.

Third:
"The situation in South Ossetia escalated rapidly from Thursday night, when Georgia said it had launched an operation into the region after its unilateral cease-fire was met with artillery fire from separatists that killed 10 people, including peacekeepers and civilians. It accused Russia of backing the separatists."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...ref=rss_latest

Just one of many articles that state the SO rebels started it (or at least that georgia claims this to be so)...which ones are you reading?

Fourth...you'll get a better response tomorrow.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It is pretty clear to me that the West has lost its edge in the global balance of power. We are weak, we are always defending the fanatics that attack us instead of our leaders who defend us, we are impotent in that we can no longer assert or defend our values against the argumentation of fanatical tyrants abroad, and we are in relative economic decline. The world is increasingly marked by Eastern initiative and Western passivity, and in this global dialectic, we are bound to lose out.

We have reached such a state of collapse that I predict many of you here at MacNN are so blinded by moral relativism that you will deny the meaningfulness of words such as "civilization" or concepts such as right and wrong, or even the mere distinction between the East and the West.

I believe the problem is that politicians talk down to us instead of listening to us, and as such, this country doesn't represents the interests of the people.

It's a good thing that nobody is demonstrating my point in this thread.

[Taliesin]

An interesting thread after a long time.

To get it on I will start to define "civilisation":

It's a bond between people, a sort of contract:

- A monopoly of violence in the hands of the government.
- Rule of law.
- A society where there is some form of work-division (for example: farmers, scientists, soldiers, clerics, governors..) and exchange of goods and services on a market.
- A tradition of writing, in order to preserve, reflect and teach to the next generation history, techniques and other things.

Usually civilisation is located in towns.

Taliesin

[Monique]

This idea of power is quite an illusion.

Instead look into your life; is it a success or a failure?

Are you a strong person, do people rely on you, do you do good around you?

All depends how you define success, some people define it by who has the most guns, who can destroy the other one first?

I prefer the lives of Ghandi and Dr. King!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

As an aside, it's interesting how these notions of mine do not even raise an eyebrow when discussed in the company of important people. At alumnae events at top-tier fraternities you find this same sentiment, and often even more conservative in nature, amongst very reasonable, very powerful members of society. And yet, this sort of discussion horribly offends the lower orders, or the keyboard warriors, or any other segments of the population so blinded by moral relativism that they prefer to use scare-quotes around words like values or civilization.

Says the keyboard warrior.