war is peace
You must log in or register to comment.
So, not agreeing with the premise but: this article is from 2014, written by a legit historian, and is specifically not discussing the short term.
Their premise is effectively that war consolidates power and minimizes violence at scale inside the unified territory afterwards. Further, the things nations do to be ready for conflict, like build roads, administrative statates and all the social structures that accompany a standing army facilitate trade and prosperity.It’s less that he’s arguing for war, and more just … Describing the historical consequences of war in aggregate.
It was certainly only titled the way it was because he was publishing a book and this is more eye catching.
Well, shit…
Somebody turned off the lights at Washington Post then lol
if by “us” they mean the billionaries behind this company then sure it does
AT WHAT FUCKING COST?!?!?
At the cost of murdering others and taking what is theirs.
Of courses it does, especially when you are the world’s biggest arms dealer! By far, not even China, Russia, and Germany combined, throw in UK and France, too
That’s the problem.
“Yeah because after WWII there was peace!!!1”
Technically, after the war is before the war.
Even if true, there has to be a better way to achieve safety and economic security for all. War causes losses for far too many.
ETA: grammar & clarity
Did a war write this article?
Keep in mind that this is a guest opinion, which means it is not intended to reflect the official opinion of the Washington Post—in fact, it might be the opposite, but published anyway in order to provide a diversity of viewpoints. (Personally, I do not like everyone they have chosen to platform, but it is not unreasonable for them to want to err on the side of listening to what the other side has to say to avoid creating an echo chamber.)
Bezos changed the editorial line of the paper so that conflicting views are not allowed.
Imperialist wars are, in fact, a pillar of neoliberalism, so of course they support it. They also make you richer, as the title claims, if you’re the propaganda appendage of a fascist regime, or own stocks in military corporations.
There was still some diversity of viewpoints, though it was much narrower. Still, I agree it got significantly worse, which is why I stopped subscribing to it. (I stuck around for longer than many because the reporting outside the opinion page was pretty good and I wanted to support that, but it eventually became too much for me.)
Also, out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because none of the points you seem to think that it makes come close to what it actually argues.
I think opinion pieces are great for matters of taste.
War, on the other hand, is about life, death, money, and politics all rolled into one giant horror-show. Publishing op-ed on such a topic, on such a well-known paper, is basically elevating -whatever- to the same level of validity as actual journalism. It’s a really bad show on the Post’s part.
So newspapers should never publish any opinions that have any commentary on warfare?
Actually, no, I really think they shouldn’t. In such matters I think it’s crucial to stick to just the facts and journalistic integrity (such as it is). Elevating personal opinion to the same level as wartime photography, reporting, data, etc. has dangerous ramifications for all involved. I’m aware that newspapers and other news/media outlets have bias, one way or another, but I think it important to draw a line and minimize that bias to the greatest extent possible; saying no to op-eds on war is such a line.
WRT to opinions and discussion on war, we have other kinds of media and public forums to serve that.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because it neither commented on any of the wars ongoing in 2014 nor proposed any new ones.
Also, newspapers generally have a designated opinion section, and this was in that section, so it was not treated the same as factual reporting in the manner you are concerned about.
Nah fuck that, that’s like posting straight Nazi gibberish and playing the “representing both sides” argument when someone calls you on it. In this day and age that whole idea can go fuck itself right into oblivion. We are all grown enough to known the difference.
It is not always the case that the side you disagree with is just a bunch of Nazis, and furthermore sometimes it is you who are wrong. That is why it is important not to be too zealous in shutting out everyone you disagree with on any issue.
Nonetheless, that does not mean that everyone should be platformed, and I am not a fan of some of the choices that the Washington Post has made in this regard, which is why I am no longer a subscriber. However, I did not think that this particular article was that bad, because it is essentially just saying that order results in far greater peace and prosperity than no order, especially when it incorporates increasingly large scales of people, but that it unfortunately requires violence to bring this about. One can very reasonably disagree, but one needs to do more than what many have done, which is to just read the title, assume that one knows what the article was arguing, and then criticize it based on that assumption.
War is bad. Good things coming about from bad things does not make the bad thing good. Especially when that bad thing is the death of who knows how many people, combatants and civilians alike. One should not need to carefully consider the idea that “maybe mass death and untold suffering is good?” because it is objectively bad. Also you type like a redditor.
Obviously war is bad, which is why the idea that was actually being considered was actually “maybe mass death and untold suffering is not the worst thing, if it buys peace and prosperity for subsequent generations by building a civilization of greater scale”. As @inputzero@lemmy.world says below, one’s thoughts on this probably depends on exactly how one feels about utilitarianism.
And… is the best attack you could come up with that I “type like a redditor”? Really?
Something something, act utilitarianism something something.
Nonsense. The “it’s just opinion” canard is so tired, please just let it die. By publishing an opinion in a well regarded (deservedly or not) news outlet, they launder ideas into mainstream acceptability by announcing that a reasonable person could hold such an opinion. A reasonable person can not hold such an opinion as this. If it was published with a warning and an analysis of how dangerous this is and to make people aware of how the extreme right thinks, that would be one thing. But publishing an opinion without comment is endorsement, no matter how much people say it isn’t.
Did someone say Blowback?
Did someone say Blowback?
Democracy died in daylight
I didn’t even see the WaPo part of the post at first… and I didn’t need to.
Yeah, I mean, what it said. Genocide! Love that. I respect The Washington Post and its commitment to corruption, abuse of power, and harm to kids.
