Comment by ericmay
5 days ago
> Yes you do. I explained it multiple times already. If you don't, I suggest you pay more attention instead of replying to comments you admit you don't understand.
Ok. I don't understand I guess. Whatever :)
> You claimed you didn't care about my opinion, yet here you are. Why? Sport?
I'm here for a broader audience to read. Do you care about my opinion?
> Thanks for the straight answer. However, the person I was replying to didn't reject the calculation, which is why they mentioned it, and this is what I challenged. Clearer now?
But I was replying and rejecting the calculation because the calculation doesn't matter, at least in my opinion. Again if 1 American life was saved it was worth it and Civilized so it isn't relevant whether 50,000 lives were saved (Japanese, American, otherwise) or 5,000,000.
> That's your own baggage. Argue with the things I actually said, not with "common themes". You seem to be upset about things I haven't argued, at least not here.
Nope. I know what you're doing because it's a common pattern and the same tropes are repeated. Even in this very article you're defending the Soviets illegally partitioning and invading Poland alongside the Nazis as "nuanced".
> I don't know your internet circles, but most of what I hear is "America won WW2", "Soviets are as evil as Hitler", etc.
Well the Soviets were quite evil. That's a simple fact and we can state that up front.They were arguably more evil than the Nazis over the long term but still categorically evil so it doesn't quite matter just who is winning the evil Olympics.
I don't know where you hear America "won" World War II. Vast majority of Americans accept and understand that the Soviets fought the Germans in the east which was hugely important for defeating the Nazis. While the United States fought Japan in the Pacific which was also incredibly important. There's a common phrase here in the United States that the war was won with Soviet Blood, British Intelligence, and American Steel.
> I expected you to extend me the courtesy of assuming I knew about Molotov-Ribbentrop. Like I said, there were nuances to the situation, even mentioned "there's a lot to read on the subject".
But at the end of the day, the broader actions are what matter, not the nuance. I can't tell if you are familiar with Molotov-Ribbentrop because your previous comments seem to be aghast that I suggested the Soviets, who helped kick off the war, deserved what happened to them.
> I assume you don't care -- or you think anyone who disagrees with any action of the US is simply ill-informed -- but there are nuances on this topic (e.g. how the USSR foresaw war with Nazi Germany,
I think people who repeat obviously untrue things, like suggesting the US would have dropped atomic bombs on Japan just to test them after Japan surrendered, don't debate in good faith and are also ill-informed.
> how it sought an anti-German pact with the UK and France which was rejected).
Nuance right? Or does that only count when it's the Soviets?
> Well, they were in some sense and they were barbaric in others. But let's take it for granted that the Japanese were pretty savage towards the people they invaded: your own civilization doesn't depend on your foe's. It's an inherent trait.
> I know this may be hard to grasp when following your "us vs them" logic.
Sure. I declare we are civilized because we bombed Japan and turned them into a peaceful democracy. During a war, it is us versus them. This is basic stuff. There's nothing we need to take for granted about the Japanese. They were rampaging, murdering lunatics. Korea, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, and more suffered under their brutal regime of violence and repression.
> Apparently not; you don't seem aware of how jingoistic you sound. Or that when you say "our", this being a relative word, it pays to know your audience who may or may not be "yours".
Nope, I'm pretty aware. My audience isn't you, it's other readers who happen to stumble upon your argument. If they think I sound overly-Patriotic because I reject your claims, so be it. My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it.
By the way, you said you're not American. What country are you from?
> Ok. I don't understand I guess. Whatever :)
Well, better read more closely then before replying :)
> I'm here for a broader audience to read. Do you care about my opinion?
If I didn't care about your opinion, I wouldn't answer -- I'm using human logic, not ET-logic.
> But I was replying and rejecting the calculation because the calculation doesn't matter, at least in my opinion.
Understood. Unfortunately, you got confused about who you were replying to; it wasn't me who argued the calculation mattered. I actually argued the calculation was a retroactive justification, not the actual one. I can see you got lost here. Maybe for the benefit of, you know, your "broader audience" you could have replied to that other commenter.
> Nope. I know what you're doing because it's a common pattern and the same tropes are repeated.
This thing you're doing is really bizarre, claiming to know my thoughts. I find it fascinating. Do you always debate like this?
> Even in this very article you're defending the Soviets illegally partitioning and invading Poland alongside the Nazis as "nuanced".
Nope. I was explaining the nuances of a situation which had more angles than what you implied. You were asking me to read on Molotov-Ribbentrop, yet you don't seem much well read on the subject if you ignore these nuances...
Have you read the Smelser & Davies book I mentioned?
> I don't know where you hear America "won" World War II.
I don't know how you can ignore this widespread take.
> I think people who repeat obviously untrue things, like suggesting the US would have dropped atomic bombs on Japan just to test them after Japan surrendered, don't debate in good faith and are also ill-informed.
"Obviously untrue" is begging the question; I mean, it's precisely what we're debating! In your adult life you'll sometimes face people who will argue that something you believe in is false or untrue, and this doesn't automatically make them bad faith arguers or ill-informed.
I consider someone to be arguing in bad faith when they feign ignorance, put words in other people's mouths, argue against strawmen, or consistently use cheap rhetorical tricks. Not by mistake, or a one-off, but consistently. Like you're doing now.
> But at the end of the day, the broader actions are what matter, not the nuance. I can't tell if you are familiar with Molotov-Ribbentrop because your previous comments seem to be aghast that I suggested the Soviets, who helped kick off the war, deserved what happened to them.
Both matter: broader actions and nuance. Being aghast at someone who claims 40 million people deserved to die has nothing to do with Molotov-Ribbentrop or any pact. Again... I'm aghast but not in defense of the Soviets, just at your callousness.
> Nuance right? Or does that only count when it's the Soviets?
No, nuances also apply here as well. It doesn't count only when it's the Soviets. There were nuances to the reasons for dropping the Bomb as well. Is this another of your "common tropes" you're constantly fighting against? Please, I urge you to engage with the positions that are actually stated, not with some imaginary enemy you've constructed.
> Sure. I declare we are civilized because we bombed Japan and turned them into a peaceful democracy.
Ok, this is a straightforward, honest position. You think dropping the Bomb was ok because it won the war. Also you make some non sequitur about the Bomb turning Japan into a peaceful democracy (completely bizarre logic, it doesn't follow that it was the bomb). You've repeatedly ignored arguments by me, and others here, that argued that it wasn't necessarily the Bomb that won the war, but whatever. I understand this is your position; I think it's wrong.
> There's nothing we need to take for granted about the Japanese. They were rampaging, murdering lunatics. Korea, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, and more suffered under their brutal regime of violence and repression.
Do you understand the expression "let's take for granted"? It seems you're hell-bent on arguing where there's no argument.
> Nope, I'm pretty aware. My audience isn't you, it's other readers who happen to stumble upon your argument. If they think I sound overly-Patriotic because I reject your claims, so be it. My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it.
My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it either. But, I posit, by sounding jingoistic you're not doing yourself any favors.
> By the way, you said you're not American. What country are you from?
Why does it matter? I'm South American. I'm not from: Russia, China, Japan, Venezuela, North Korea or any country deemed a rogue state or hostile actor by the US. I don't believe in American exceptionalism or their Manifest Destiny. People are entitled to dissenting opinions about the US, right? (I hope, at least!)
> Well, better read more closely then before replying :)
Nope. I prefer to read not so close and just reply anyway.
> Understood. Unfortunately, you got confused about who you were replying to; it wasn't me who argued the calculation mattered. I actually argued the calculation was a retroactive justification, not the actual one. I can see you got lost here. Maybe for the benefit of, you know, your "broader audience" you could have replied to that other commenter.
I'm saying that it doesn't need to be retroactively justified, and even if the numbers are high or low it doesn't matter. The action was justified until Japan formally surrendered and ended the war. What you're trying to debate it seems to me is around agreements or disagreements about the justification of using the bomb, my criteria is that we were still at war with Japan, and so the justifications, either accurate at the time or retroactive, are irrelevant. It's possible that what you are suggesting around the number of lives saved was a revision, which I don't agree or disagree with, but you are later implying a moral failure because of that revision, and I am rejecting that there was ever a moral failure by using the bomb provided we were still formally at war.
If you want to reject a moral claim about the revision of the justification, I don't really have much to debate here. Whatever the facts are, are the facts. But if you are making a moral claim about the usage of the bomb, that's different.
> This thing you're doing is really bizarre, claiming to know my thoughts. I find it fascinating. Do you always debate like this?
I debate and discuss things depending on various contexts.
In this context you're engaging in a group of common debate tactics (for example, you're afraid to say what country you are from, yet you're happy to speak English and criticize the United States and only the United States) that are a well-known pattern of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment. I just noted the patterns and identified your discussion points as being among them.
For example, let's change the subject and talk about the evils of the Soviet Union. And no we don't have to stay on topic, nobody is reading our nonsense anyway.
I know you won't do that though, because you don't know much about Soviet atrocities, and you won't be able to engage in a strict criticism of Soviet actions unless you introduce nuance (excuses) and find ways to make Soviet atrocities the fault of western countries.
If that's not true, prove me wrong. Let's spend some time now talking about the awful things the Soviets did.
> Nope. I was explaining the nuances of a situation which had more angles than what you implied. You were asking me to read on Molotov-Ribbentrop, yet you don't seem much well read on the subject if you ignore these nuances...
> Both matter: broader actions and nuance. Being aghast at someone who claims 40 million people deserved to die has nothing to do with Molotov-Ribbentrop or any pact. Again... I'm aghast but not in defense of the Soviets, just at your callousness.
Actions matter more than nuance, the nuance is just an excuse to justify the actions of the side you want to support. It sucks that so many Soviet Union, uh, members I guess? I'm not sure how to best describe that hellish autocratic government, but at the end of the day the Soviet Union colluded with the Nazis, and so I'm not really shedding a tear for them losing soldiers or civilians fighting the same maniacs they colluded with.
> Ok, this is a straightforward, honest position. You think dropping the Bomb was ok because it won the war. Also you make some non sequitur about the Bomb turning Japan into a peaceful democracy (completely bizarre logic, it doesn't follow that it was the bomb).
Well I said we bombed Japan, not necessarily it was because of the atomic bomb. But I acknowledge of course that specific context could be interpreted differently than my intention.
I'm suggesting that dropping the bomb, or any other action was just another action that our civilized country took and the end result was that we took over influence of Japan and civilized it and made it a peaceful democracy.
(besides obvious stuff like just raping people or whatever)
> You've repeatedly ignored arguments by me, and others here, that argued that it wasn't necessarily the Bomb that won the war, but whatever. I understand this is your position; I think it's wrong.
I think it's very much up for debate whether the bomb was actually what got the Japanese to surrender. It's possible and debatable that we could have just continued to bomb Japan without the atomic bomb and we would have seen a surrender anyway.
But it is not up for debate that the Japanese military were very much divided on whether or not to continue to hold out against the United States up until the usage of the atomic bomb and some were still holding out (if my memory serves correctly) even after the reports of the first bomb. You're suggesting that I'm ignoring your arguments, but I'm not, I'm disagreeing with them.
> Do you understand the expression "let's take for granted"? It seems you're hell-bent on arguing where there's no argument.
The specific language used matters. When you introduce the term "let's take for granted" you are implying that there is another option to be considered, such as that the Japanese weren't rampaging, murdering lunatics at the time. It's not an assumption to be taken for granted that the Japanese were as I described, it's simply a fact.
Another way to look at it is you can replace "let's take for granted" with "let's suppose" or "let's pretend". That term or variation of those terms, in my view, aren't valid to be used here because we don't suppose that the Japanese were rampaging murderous lunatics from around 1938, they were as a matter of fact.
> My opinion doesn't change because you don't like it either. But, I posit, by sounding jingoistic you're not doing yourself any favors.
I'll posit by sounding anti-western and anti-American you're not doing yourself any favors.
> Why does it matter?
Why are you afraid to say where you're from?
> Nope. I prefer to read not so close and just reply anyway.
It shows. Maybe you should read closer so as to debate the actual statements and not something you imagined.
I had typed a longer answer but then realized it's pointless. You seem intent on setting some kind of trap or gotcha, which is pointless. It's also against the HN guidelines, but you already know this.
You've already decided I fit a "common pattern" and that I'm anti-American and anti-Western (that's hilarious, I was born and live in Trump's very own Western hemisphere. Plus good luck arguing that anti nuclear weapons Americans are anti-American), so stay with that opinion. I have nothing to gain by telling a bad faith troll my country, and you haven't justified why you need this information.
I hope you can overcome your anger.
2 replies →