Is it right to use the tactics of the enemy?

[Houseman]

Ever since July 13th, when Trump was shot, the left is getting a taste of it's own medicine in the form of cancel culture.

A home depot employee was fired for her comments about wishing death on Trump.

Kyle Gass of Tenacious D got the tour cancelled for his onstage remarks, that were disavowed by his band-mate, Jack Black.

This has sparked discourse on twitter and the like, where conservatives are asking themselves: "is it right to use the tactics of the enemy against them?"

My opinion is: No, it is not.

From a certain perspective, I can see how the correct answer is "yes", but from my perspective, as a Christian, the answer is no.

From a materialistic standpoint, where everything is riding on humanity's shoulders, and morals don't matter, then the answer is "yes". Why not try anything you can to win? Who cares about morals? The only thing that matters is that you win and you ensure your own survival. There is no God to judge you, history is only written by the victors. It's either you win, or they win. There is no afterlife, no reward for maintaining your integrity.

If you're a Christian, you understand that, like Jesus, your earthly survival is not the most important thing. Even if you are tortured to death like Jesus was, you will receive your reward.

Even if you're not a Christian some agree that one should become as corrupted as your enemy.

What do you think?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

You can skip the holier than thou attitude as that has nothing to do with it at all. I can find just as many MAGA Great Awakening christians that think we should go even further than the left in their tactics..

I too can see both points of views, but the matter of the fact is that aggression will always win over pacifism. All, and only, aggression will lead to M.A.D though, and no sane, logical, consequence-thinking person would go down that route if there are other options. When the enemy escalates, they narrow your options further. Sometimes more drastic things are needed, but they should be brief and short stop-gap measures. Like with leaders, it ultimately comes down to benevolent dictator thinking. Voting in people that treads softly but carries a big visible stick. Deterrent, and measured response. Like armed police, fines & jail.

I blame the failing western education system for not teaching people what they need, for a society to work. As well as cowardly and corrupt politicians bending the knees and hollowing out core tenets. Also, greedy corporations that preys on the lowest common denominator, creating consoomers. The various churches can take their fair share in making apathetic "gods will" type of people that simply obeys authority like the soldiers in WW2 germany.

 

[Arnox]

There are no "tactics of the enemy". There's just tactics, good or bad or somewhere in between. In this specific case, firing someone just for their opinion is an infringement on the spirit of free speech. Therefore, it's a bad tactic. Doesn't matter who uses the tactic or who may have used the tactic first.

 

[Houseman]

Meanwhile, the left is very upset about the fact that they can't publicly wish death on others without getting cancelled themselves, so they're trying to get revenge:

"omg Elon showed a video of Trump MURDERING Biden!", #1 on Reddit.
The video? It's the "Neo awakens his powers" scene from The Matrix with Trump as Neo, and Biden as Agent Smith, y'know the one where Neo stops bullets in midair then flies into Smith and explodes him.

That's so desperately pathetic.

 

[Signa]

It matters only if the allied tactics are capable of winning the war. Values are something we all hold, but when it pares down to an issue of survival, then the values have to go out the window. Once stability is restored, a true and just person/community can return to those values, and if those values are just, they will uphold the order correctly.

Speaking less broadly, I'm not happy with the Home Depot situation. That lady is a piece of shit, and I fully support Home Depot wanting to disassociate with pieces of shit, but as a legal and just matter, it was the wrong move. Nothing about being a good person is part of the terms of employment at a business, and she did nothing that would impact her employer directly. As far as I'm concerned, it's cancel culture getting her fired. The only positive I can say is that because the left made this the game we all have to play, it's funny now that it's happening back to them in return. If they had collectively kept their mouths shut, it would have been easier for Home Depot to hold onto my values and say that the lady doesn't represent the business in her free time.

 

[Islander]

When your choice is between letting the enemy win and inflict untold suffering on your people, or defeating your enemy and, hopefully, ensuring a better life for your people, you do what it takes to win.

There are certain actions that should be avoided in war; many of which are defined as war crimes:

• Torturing captives without any purpose beyond sadism (torturing as a form of interrogation is in an ethically gray area)
• Excessively destructive firepower (you don't generally need to bomb residential buildings to defeat an army)
• Harming a medical practitioner who is observing the Hippocratic Oath
• Killing enemies who have already surrendered
• Weaponizing children or animals (especially since you have no guarantee the enemy will refrain from harming them)
• Otherwise going out of your way to harm innocent noncombatants simply because they happen to be affiliated with the enemy army

Such actions don't contribute to victory and can't be excused as pragmatism; they're simply depraved atrocities that take advantage of wartime circumstances and only add to the harm and damage caused by war.

However, pragmatic tactics that will end the war faster, such as crippling the enemy's offenses or defenses, capturing enemy equipment and using it to your own advantage, or reducing the number of their active personnel through capture or, if necessary, death, are acceptable as long as they are conducted with the intent to end the war as quickly and humanely as possible. Lethal force should kill as quickly and painlessly as possible; this is why chemical weapons are outlawed in most countries' armies, as they are slow and excruciating ways to die compared to a bullet or battlefield explosive.

Of course, I assume this topic is referring more to tactics in social warfare than literal military operations. But, my point about pragmatic force vs. excessive or sadistic force stands; use what is effective and will win as quickly as possible with minimal harm. In the case of the Home Depot ex-employee, I think her wishing death on anyone is perfect grounds for termination. Vocally wishing death on someone is almost as dire as a direct death threat, as both indicate malicious desire, with the only diverging factor being the express intent or lack thereof.

Now, that raises the question of what constitutes pragmatic tactics in the context of social warfare. How do you "defeat" a social enemy quickly and effectively?

1. You don't allow them to influence or discourage you. You have to win the battle on the inside before you can win the battle on the outside.
2. You speak out and make the truth known, preferably with hard proof.
3. You show good faith and honest intentions in your actions; petty or facetious behavior will only damage your credibility.
4. You point out the flaws in your adversary's stance without attacking them personally; this is a point many people, myself included, often overlook thanks to emotions clouding our judgment.
5. You keep in perspective what your actual goals are and why they benefit everyone following you. If you can demonstrate the benefit to your would-be followers, they are much more likely to follow you. You want to make allies of people, you got to treat them as allies.

Ultimately, I think the key to winning "social warfare" is to realize there is no point in social warfare, and that we have much more important things to worry about, like making money to support ourselves and our families, and helping ensure our country has a stable economy and military. Not everyone sees that of course, in which case the problem goes deeper than "Who's right and who's wrong?"