| |
|
I’m sorry AG, was your last comment intended as a response to mine? Because, as far as I can see, without directly referencing anything I actually wrote, you seemed to feel the need to lazily lampoon any criticism of the actions of the Iranian government in this matter. Is that how you really feel?
Can I ask then whether you’re genuinely relieved that the imprisoned soldiers have been freed, as your tone suggests that you are, in fact, not? I can’t say that I am, particularly, relieved for them as individuals, even though had I been a member of the military captured by a hostile government, denied consular access, and forced into a cynical media presentation where the overwhelming implication was that I would be used towards whatever ends that government saw fit – I’d have been dead scared I would; if anything, as above, I’m relieved that for the moment there’s going to be no escalation in a standoff between the two nations that could potentially result in another nightmarish armed conflict. I don’t understand why that wouldn’t be something for which to be grateful.
Thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed.
There’s a point to be made about weighted representations of these issues in the media, and there clearly is an issue of comparative treatment of prisoners in “civilised societies”. But those points aren’t really being considered are they? I don’t understand the disconnect by which another serious and analogous situation makes people dismissive of the reality of other unpleasant situations. There’s even, I think, quite an interesting point about how prisoners are treated and the visibility of their treatment. What it made me think about was the cultural imposition of a certain form of dress or a certain kind of treatment and where the balance is made between the desires of the individual and the desires of the state. What are the standards which we might assume both the individual and the state in such a situation might expect? Can we reasonably assume (on the balance of probabilities) that Leading Seaman Faye Turney did not choose to adopt a head covering? That she was in fact made to, by force or coercion? Is the fact that said head covering is not physically injurious entirely displace our belief about what control prisoners should have over their own appearance? What about the context in which Turney was presented, when, it would appear, she was selected for the first television interview seemingly because of her perceived vulnerability as a woman and also perhaps because she was both verbally and physically being presented as an object undergoing cultural appropriation? Is there a comparison to be made to Americans prisoners forced into orange jumpsuits, and more generally how are the restrictions in dress that are or are not placed on prisoners expected to relate to the cultural standards of the countries in which they are imprisoned? Why is the media, and by extension the public, more concerned about even more serious human rights violations that initially go unseen, as in Abu Ghraib, and how might that be exploited, and, as has been demonstrated in this thread, how does the political context and the specific comparison to other less visible examples of abuse of prisoners’ rights devalue the violations of others’ rights and leave them subject to ridicule?
I mean, for me, these aren’t questions with immediately obvious answers. I might be being naïve, and I think these questions are answerable, but there would seem to be some potential worth in going through these issues and if need be filling in the obvious moral answers for those of us who don’t necessarily perceive them as well given our distance from the high ground. And personally I’m a bit worried that the general level of response to all of that on the board, not to pick on Elijah, has been to reduce discussion to immediate mockery: OMG THEY MADE THE WOMAN WEAR A HEADSCARF!!!111. Because at that point it’s not really even about a productive discussion, it’s about picking sides on a moral issue and if you don’t see it that way you’re just as likely to be made a target of mockery. Which, if only for consideration of maintaining a certain level of debate, is a bit meh really.
As regards to your exaggerated comments above, I don’t think you’re being as witty or astute as you think you’re being to be honest AG, and having comprehensively proven that you’re better at being disingenuous than most other people on the board, could you… well, could you give it a rest? And rather than hammer on about how tiresome it is (and it is tiresome, and not terribly productive) could I ask instead whether you find it helpful to frame your responses in that way? Because the impression I get from your current manner in general, and specifically from your comment above, is that whatever your position on the subject genuinely is it’s increasingly clear that you have no desire to have an actual discussion regarding it. You would seem to prefer to drop in to an existing discussion, make an acerbic but content and wit free observation, then either disappear again or apologise by means of resorting to a culpable persona when challenged. Is it really working for you?
As a bit of an aside, I’m finding least attached to the idea of continuing posting on the board as a result of this style of argument where the emphasis appears to be almost entirely on reinforcing a single viewpoint , rather than having any substantive exchange from a multiplicity of viewpoints. Which is partially because I find it something that’s affecting the way I think about the issues negatively, and am guilty of on occasion, and also partly because coming to Barbelith should be an opportunity to have one’s views criticised and refined, rather than just accepted or rejected.
Can I ask you what, exactly, I’ve done personally to make you think that I’m not worth engaging with on these issues? I don’t consider myself any real student of politics so I framed my comment primarily as a series of questions regarding the future consequences of this episode with the hope that those with more experience could help me be better informed. I don’t see that I’ve said anything so odious or misguided that it wouldn’t be worth pointing out to me that I had. Hyperbolic comments such as yours define the issue in black and white terms where any divergence from a perceived consensus comes under criticism which by its very nature imposes a reductive, binary model of communication and which favours an attack/defend style of argument rather than one of debate or discussion or, who knows, actual exchange of useful information. And on top of that they invite similar comments, of a similar level of worth. So as above really, is there something I’ve done that’s so verboten that I’m not worth engaging with on this issue? Or do you feel incapable of responding to the substance of the issues raised? If so, that’s ok, but next time could you just, well, not bother with a dismissive, emotive comment perhaps? I see you haven’t responded further to my question here, are you finding this aggressive style of communication beneficial? Could you possibly consider whether there might be a fuller debate to be had if you modified the content and style of your responses? |
|
|
