[Discussion] Pearl Harbor remembrance

[Lord Poe]

I wonder if public opinion about Pearl Harbour will change over the next hundred years, just as American outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania quietly dissipated.

Pearl Harbor brought the US into WW2; that's why it is distinctive.

[Surlethe]

Don't we have a poppy thread already for remembrances? Memorial threads strike me as +1 post opportunities, and there's no meaningful discussion that goes on in them. So boo to Elfdart for making a comment in a memorial thread (edit: that is, for going off-topic), but why did it exist in the first place?

[Hotfoot]

Don't we have a poppy thread already for remembrances? Memorial threads strike me as +1 post opportunities, and there's no meaningful discussion that goes on in them. So boo to Elfdart for making a comment in a memorial thread, but why did it exist in the first place?

As I commented earlier, memorial threads are worthless with regards to overall content to the board, but seem to me to serve a purpose similar to venting threads.

It would probably be best to move memorial threads to testing, since they come back every year and are usually only posted in for a few days before everyone moves on. That way there's no +1 posting possible, and since it's removed from major forums, there will be less hijacking (I hope) by anyone.

[Darth Wong]

What's with this left winger-right-winger stuff? Left wingers weren't smug about the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

No, but Elfdart is often targeted for doing or saying "left-wing" type things which, if they were done by right-wingers, would probably not end up in the Senate.

And frankly, Rachel Corrie would be considered nothing more than a Darwin nominee anyway. Recall that Evel Kinevel's memorial thread, and the Steve Irwin's memorial thread were replete with snickering and jokes. Corrie was little different in that she stupidly put here life in jeopardy.

The fact that two of them did it for personal fame and fortune and the other one did it for a deeply held moral belief carries no significance whatsoever?

[Darth Wong]

Suppose someone responded to the Pearl Harbour thread by saying something like this?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 99#2533999

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if public opinion about Pearl Harbour will change over the next hundred years, just as American outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania quietly dissipated.

Pearl Harbor brought the US into WW2; that's why it is distinctive.

That's why it's a historically noteworthy event. That's not why it merits "memorial threads" every year, which everyone is supposed to respect in mournful silence. Especially when the historically noteworthy event that ended the war is typically celebrated by people praising the men who dropped the A-bombs.

[Sea Skimmer]

Of course there is no such remark, because it is unnecessary: those remarks are all implicit to any American.

The point being no attempt was made to play up the politics of the event or guilt or anything. Just remember the dead. You can’t honestly think that was all Elfdart wanted to do. He fucking loves this kind of thing; if he didn’t I don’t think he’d still be posting.

Pearl Harbour is an important event in the sense of what happened as a result of it, but these "memorial threads" imply that the loss of life at that event was remarkably noteworthy in some way, and really, by the standards of World War 2, it was a drop in the bucket. There are countless incidents in World War 2 which caused far more loss of life than Pearl Harbour and which never get a "memorial thread". I sometimes pay respects to the anniversary of D-Day because I feel moved by the tremendous valour of that enormous expedition, but Pearl Harbour just doesn't stand out in that way to me.

You might notice that I have still made no post in that memorial thread, and I ignore about 99% of all memorial threads for historical events for exactly that reason. I’d rather have a thread to remember the loss of Task Force Smith in the forgotten war myself. The fate of that unit and the reason for its fate in a war which was a just as one can be is well remembering, but then 95% of the forum would have to Google it to have any idea what it was, so I don’t bother.

It's not about whether those threads exist for the same purpose; it is about the fact that the right-wingers gleefully and unapologetically used outright mockery of the deceased in Elfdart's thread. That is not "debate"; it is a clear violation of the intent of the thread and of common decency. Where were the calls for disciplinary action or HOSing there?

The clear intent of Elfdart's thread was to spark the exact kind of reaction it got, and I don’t give a shit about disciplinary action because I sure as shit didn’t call for it then or now. In the PH thread the crap should have been split and left at that simply because that kind of discussion wasn’t the point of the thread. I’ve already stated that I didn’t mind Elfdarts initial post on it’s own.

I wonder if public opinion about Pearl Harbour will change over the next hundred years, just as American outrage over the sinking of the Lusitania quietly dissipated.

Outrage about Lusitania should dissipate! We know now that not only was the ship illegally carrying ammunition, it was under orders to attack any submarine it spotted by ramming (Titanic’s sister ship RMS Olympic sank U-103 that way) and might actually have been armed to boot. You don’t here much about the Rape of Belgium anymore either, because now we know that it pretty much never existed. The number of Americans killed on Lusitania was in any case not that many more then the number who died on several other torpedoed liners no one remembers at all, though they gained headlines at the time.

The memory of Pearl Harbor will fade, but I think it’s just too all around spectacular an event to be forgotten the way the outrages of WW1 have been. That’s one advantage of having color film of an event. But then color film is also our enemy, my god do a I wish they would burn every last copy of (book and movie) ‘Bridge on the River Kwai’ and make a new movie based on the far superior and far closer to reality book Return From Kwai. I guess American subs torpedoing shiploads of allied POWs wouldn’t come across a sufficiently patriotic for modern Hollywood, even though they rescued hundreds afterwards and had no way of knowing what they’d attacked beforehand. They’d probably change the plot so Alce Baldwin hijacks the ships to attack a Nazi base in Antarctica….

[Lord Poe]

The fact that two of them did it for personal fame and fortune and the other one did it for a deeply held moral belief carries no significance whatsoever?

Not at all, especially if we take Irwin into account. Say what you will about him, but he was passionate about the care of the animals he interacted with. Corrie wasn't going to save a house by standing in front of it, trying to ape the Tiananmen Square standoff. She was simply grandstanding.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that two of them did it for personal fame and fortune and the other one did it for a deeply held moral belief carries no significance whatsoever?

Not at all, especially if we take Irwin into account. Say what you will about him, but he was passionate about the care of the animals he interacted with.

What does that have to do with the claim that he was doing it for fame and fortune? He was on TV, wasn't he? He was getting paid, wasn't he?

Corrie wasn't going to save a house by standing in front of it, trying to ape the Tiananmen Square standoff. She was simply grandstanding.

By your logic, even the Tiananmen Square guy himself was "simply grandstanding", since he wasn't realistically going to save the people in that square by his actions. It appears that you and I have different ideas of what "grandstanding" means.

[Lord Poe]

What does that have to do with the claim that he was doing it for fame and fortune? He was on TV, wasn't he? He was getting paid, wasn't he?

He was a volunteer crocodile trapper and wildlife rehabilitator running a zoo until 1990 or so, when someone decided to film him doing his job. He wasn't doing it simly for "fame and fortune."

By your logic, even the Tiananmen Square guy himself was "simply grandstanding", since he wasn't realistically going to save the people in that square by his actions. It appears that you and I have different ideas of what "grandstanding" means.

"
Nice, but the "Tiananmen Square guy" did it as an attempt to stop bloodshed. Knocking a house over is hardly in the same ballpark. Nor is clearly apeing a noble gesture knowing full well it would do no good other than to be good publicity for her pet cause.

[Connor MacLeod]

Before this thread begins miring the senate in political ideology wars, could we at LEAST settle the original issue? Or at least get it split off elsewhere? I can quite see this issue becoming a trainwreck quickly.

Frankly I think Shep (and Joe) did the exact same thing Elfdart did in that same thread (Though I'm less favorably inclined towards Shep and Joe, particularily for the "Saint Pancakes" crap), for very much the same reasons, so the point actually becomes:

a.) do we let it happen in the future without anything happening.

or

b.) prohibit such trolling (by left wingers, right wingers, middle-wingers, no-wingers, chicken-wingers, whatever.) of such threads. Note that this does not mean that discussion of such topics is prohibited, even on the "memorial" days - I see no reason to treat any of it as "sacred" - I just think there's no reason to deliberately hijack such threads for the purpose of sparking discussion (short of stirring trouble, as all examples thus far presented seem to indicate.)

I personally am in favor of B.) since we've already seemed to go along those lines

I also like the idea of moving the memorial threads to Testing - at least with the provisio that if we decide to prohibit trolling, anyone spamming them meets harsh retribution.

And given that Elfdart didnt' do anything blatantly wrong (at least no worse thant what Shep has done, which might be described "stupid" at worst in either case.) Maybe in the future such crap can be dealt with (by either person.) so I think we can at least consider the punishment issue settled?

[Darth Wong]

He was a volunteer crocodile trapper and wildlife rehabilitator running a zoo until 1990 or so, when someone decided to film him doing his job. He wasn't doing it simly for "fame and fortune."

And when he dangled his kid in front of a crocodile in front of an audience, what was that?

Nice, but the "Tiananmen Square guy" did it as an attempt to stop bloodshed. Knocking a house over is hardly in the same ballpark.

Ah, so you feel that her cause (stopping the methodical ethnic cleansing of Palestinian neighbourhoods to make way for Greater Israel) is not a worthwhile or important one. Without getting into that (not as if we couldn't), let's just say that at the end of the day, it's still a moral cause, not public entertainment.

Nor is clearly apeing a noble gesture knowing full well it would do no good other than to be good publicity for her pet cause.

Getting publicity for a cause is a perfectly valid objective. What do you think anti-war protesters were trying to do in the 1960s? And let's get back to Pearl Harbour here: one could easily make the point (disallowed by American "sacred cow" rules) that the Americans were imbeciles and racists at Pearl so they fell into the "Darwin Award" category themselves. They were not "taken by surprise": they knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. All the intel said so, and it was virtually common knowledge. That's why they took all sorts of precautions, like parking the planes wingtip to wingtip on the airfields and throwing up anti-sub netting in the harbour. The problem was that they were a bunch of fucking racists who thought that the stupid cowardly little yellow man would never dare attack the big strong white man straight-up, so the attack would come in the form of mass sabotage or submarines.

[Lord Poe]

And when he dangled his kid in front of a crocodile in front of an audience, what was that?

How does that nullify the fact that he was a wildlife conservationist, and that fame found him, not the other way around?

Ah, so you feel that her cause (stopping the methodical ethnic cleansing of Palestinian neighbourhoods to make way for Greater Israel) is not a worthwhile or important one.

You know, in the last few dustups we've had, you have a curious habit of attributing something to me that I've never said. Did I say her cause wasn't worthwhile or unimportant? No, but you already knew that. Again:

"Nice, but the "Tiananmen Square guy" did it as an attempt to stop bloodshed. Knocking a house over is hardly in the same ballpark."

Stopping imminent bloodshed is hardly comparable to protesting a house being knocked down. The house isn't alive. I'm assuming the house wasn't occupied, and said occupants weren't padlocked inside by the evil Israelis, waiting for the Evil Bulldozer Of Doom to come kill them. Please correct me if I have those facts wrong.

Without getting into that (not as if we couldn't), let's just say that at the end of the day, it's still a moral cause, not public entertainment.

A moral cause doesn't call for you to put your life in imminent danger, especially when no one is being threatened with injury.

Getting publicity for a cause is a perfectly valid objective. What do you think anti-war protesters were trying to do in the 1960s?

By putting her life in danger? Would she get this same pass from you if she was bungie jumping off a bridge for the cause, to get publicity? IIRC, your policy on such death defying acts is to call for a Darwin award.

And let's get back to Pearl Harbour here: one could easily make the point (disallowed by American "sacred cow" rules) that the Americans were imbeciles and racists at Pearl so they fell into the "Darwin Award" category themselves. They were not "taken by surprise": they knew perfectly well that some kind of attack was coming. All the intel said so, and it was virtually common knowledge. That's why they took all sorts of precautions, like parking the planes wingtip to wingtip on the airfields and throwing up anti-sub netting in the harbour. The problem was that they were a bunch of fucking racists who thought that the stupid cowardly little yellow man would never dare attack the big strong white man straight-up, so the attack would come in the form of mass sabotage or submarines.

I see. So if this was true, why the plane? Why the warships? How are planes going to stop sabotaging little yellow men who sneak in military facilities (as I'm sure all the intel at the time show the Japanese were known for doing, right?) and throw their chopsticks into the great racist American war machine? You have a real fucking problem with American anything no matter what the subject (which has been pointed out to you before by other members of the board). Just admit that, and move on. Ban all threads about anything American from now on, if it will make you feel better. (Cue the JINGOIST! NATIONALIST! ravings now, please.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is really getting out of hand, I daresay.


Lord Poe: America was very racist against Japanese at the time; Mike is correct and there's simply no denying that at all. It's an incontrovertible fact, and Mike has plenty of right to bring it up.

Mike: To be quite honest, Pearl Harbour was unavoidable, and not because of the racism of the commanders, but rather because we simply had no idea that the Japanese were better than everyone else in the entire world at underway refueling. Their ships could only reach an attack position on Pearl Harbour by refueling in the Marianas islands. Therefore, all of our scouting was directed in that direction, and we had lots of scouts up. The problem is that the Japanese force sailed through the extremely rough waters of the northern Pacific and refueled at sea in those waters, which was something that nobody had done before with an entire taskforce. The Japanese were simply better than we could conceive of at the time at strategic naval operations and that wasn't because of racial blinders but because nobody else in the world had pulled that off yet.

[Lord Poe]

Lord Poe: America was very racist against Japanese at the time; Mike is correct and there's simply no denying that at all. It's an incontrovertible fact, and Mike has plenty of right to bring it up.

I'm fully aware of the racism, but wasn't aware that said racism was the cause for the U.S. to be caught as unawares as it was at Pearl Harbor.

[Sea Skimmer]

Stopping imminent bloodshed is hardly comparable to protesting a house being knocked down. The house isn't alive. I'm assuming the house wasn't occupied, and said occupants weren't padlocked inside by the evil Israelis, waiting for the Evil Bulldozer Of Doom to come kill them. Please correct me if I have those facts wrong.

Actually it turned out that at the time that bulldozers weren’t knocking down houses at all, though they may have been earlier that day. They where simply tearing up the ground to look for mines and IEDs; Israeli doctrine calls for removing the top 12in of soil wherever they intend to operate as a precaution against that kind of attack.

[CmdrWilkens]

It's been quite a while and I guess I did forget, but guess what? It happened exactly as I expected, didn't it? I guess my memory wasn't as good as I hoped it would be, but guess what: all of the people who tried to have Elfdart strung up in the Senate can go fuck themselves.

I'm wondering if you could list for me anybody who actually tried to have Eldart strung up?

How should I know? The people who wanted this brought up in the Senate have not been named.

Therein lies the problem. There is a fucking difference between wanting to bring something up and wanting to string someone up. People have brought shit to the Senate's attention and the point is not always to seek punishment. We are here as, to my understanding, a sort of advisory council. The idea that someone might find the conduct questionable and refer the matter to the senate to discuss seems perfectly reasonable. Calling folks out without any evidence of motive seems disingenuous at best. Read Publius's post. The point he was making (and I agree with) was here is behavior I question but let everyone else decide because I don't like it but if everyone is cool they fine by me. That is what he offered and it indicates no intent to "string up Elfdart" so again you seem to be assigning motive without evidence.

[Connor MacLeod]

Turin wished me to forward this response to the Senate. I'll post the whole thing and let him speak for himself:

I have a point from the peanut gallery on the subject of the Pearl Harbor Discussion thread going on in the Senate:

It seems to me that a memorial thread, particularly one for an event that happened over 60 years ago, is merely spam and +1 me-too posting when it contains nothing but empty posts. That someone wanted to actually turn it into a discussion thread, or had something of interest to bring up regardless of the tone behind it seems like a better use of the board's bandwidth than post after post of "..."

As far as memorial threads of more recent events, I think it's really no different. This isn't the sort of place where I expect users to have to censor themselves for the sake of other's precious sensibilities (except within the boundaries of the board rules and posting guidelines). If someone decides to shit all over the memories of the dead, I'd expect them to get righteously flamed for it. But it isn't trolling to want to turn a thread into an actual discussion.

While I am not a "major poster" by any stretch of the imagination, I certainly don't come to SDN for pointless sentiment over events from long ago. I come here for discussion and debate, and to hell with style-over-substance arguments.

(Feel free to include my name in this post.)

I guess he does bring up a point about the "bandwidth issue" although that's easily resolved with the "Testing" solution as

[The Yosemite Bear]

should we move memorial threaeds to testng like birthdays?

[Darth Wong]

Therein lies the problem. There is a fucking difference between wanting to bring something up and wanting to string someone up. People have brought shit to the Senate's attention and the point is not always to seek punishment. We are here as, to my understanding, a sort of advisory council. The idea that someone might find the conduct questionable and refer the matter to the senate to discuss seems perfectly reasonable. Calling folks out without any evidence of motive seems disingenuous at best. Read Publius's post. The point he was making (and I agree with) was here is behavior I question but let everyone else decide because I don't like it but if everyone is cool they fine by me. That is what he offered and it indicates no intent to "string up Elfdart" so again you seem to be assigning motive without evidence.

I don't need fucking hard evidence for a vague suspicion; only for an attempt at conviction. And since I'm not talking about naming or punishing anyone for this, your complaint is a red-herring. Besides, if you'd gotten as many PMs unreasonably demanding punishment for Elfdart over every little goddamned thing over the last year as I have, then you'd be suspicious too. There are plenty of people on this forum who are consciously gunning for him, and who have come running to me many times in the past in an attempt to get him banned or suspended over some trivial bullshit. The fact that I haven't gotten any such PMs lately says to me that their new tactic is to simply go to other people in an attempt to accomplish the same thing indirectly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm very sorry about that, Mike.

I hate Elfdart's guts with a particular passion that probably rivals anyone else on the board if not exceeds it, to be frank, but, I'm mature enough to know that isn't reason to harass you constantly over getting him banned.

The people who themselves do so should be dragged up before the Senate and punished by us, simply for wasting your time if nothing else.

[Surlethe]

Wouldn't constantly bugging an admin to punish a particular user constitute a violation of the "No Vendettas" rule?

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't constantly bugging an admin to punish a particular user constitute a violation of the "No Vendettas" rule?

Not really, since that rule is about hijacking threads to carry out such a vendetta. And I have no doubt that these people are sincere in their belief that he needs to be punished; quite frankly, the political spectrum in America is so badly skewed to the right that a lot of left-wing arguments are interpreted as "trolling" by many Americans even if they're not. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people accuse Elfdart of "trolling" for stating what appears to be a sincere opinion. These accusations have come from all quarters, including members of my own moderating staff. I don't intend to name names, but as I said, I believe that they are so inured to the generally right-wing tone of American politics that they honestly think he is trolling.

Up till now, I have simply denied their attempts to have him banned or punished. But now, it appears that they're trying to make an end-run around me, and they can rest assured that this won't work any better than their previous tactics.

Of course, it would be nice if they just grew the fuck up and stopped trying to have him banned, but that seems like wishful thinking.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't see how they can "end run" you without this coming to your attention (or end-run any admin.) Even if it comes up before the Senate, you and the staff are a pretty intrinsic part of the process, and you would be bound to notice anythign happen (like now) and you or one of the other staff would bring this stuff up and it would be exposed.

In any event this does seem like a vendetta-like attitude, so perhaps we should discuss (in a separate thread) whether the relevant rules regarding vendettas should be amended to include this sort of behavior.

By the way, have we decided anything yet over the whole "memorials" issue?

[CmdrWilkens]

Back to the "folks bringing things up" bit we've been talking about. I jumped the gun and overreacted to that one so a sorry to all and especially to Mike. Have a merry christmas.