"turning the other cheek when someone else is oppressed is not Christian behaviour; it is complicity in the oppressor's crimes".
This is what was said by the shooter in the US who tried to charge through security at the Whitehouse Correspondence dinner in Washington. And while I disagree with violence, I am just wondering who doesn't agree with that statement. Because if turning the other cheek to the violence of others is acceptable, it means that no one should do anything about child abuse or sexual abuse, or any other kind of violence. But it opens up a can of worms, doesn't it? Because while those examples are illegal, so too have been some actions of the US government, meaning that they are inflicting illegal violence on people who may not be able to defend themselves.
I have said for a while now that the US is heading toward a civil war, but most people will disagree, because they are imagining civil war to be like it was a hundred and seventy years ago, between the Union and the Confederates. But I don't think that kind of civil war is what would happen, because war has changed. Just like the war in Ukraine and Iran is being largely dominated by drones, and countries are ramping up robotic soldiers in various forms, civil war will take on a new form also.
As I see it, instead of a concerted push by centralised forces, a new US civil war would be far more decentralised, with many groups, as well as "lone guns" performing attacks against those they believe to be the perpetrators. And belief is all that matters, since we are in the post-fact world that has had gasoline poured on it over the last decade of Trump, with "alternate truths" and direct lying still garnering support. Rather than bringing people together, politics is about turning people against each other, with who ever can create the best enemy getting the backing. And the best enemy position is facilitated by wild emotions, a lack of critical thought, and the feeling of being victimised.
The new civil wars are already raging and have been for a while, but they have been constrained to the digital platforms, which have used them as collateral to get more clicks. But inevitably, those same online arguments that shape belief systems and encourage outrage, will spill into the physical world and will encourage people to act. And we are seeing this more and more, where civilians are taking matters into their own hands and acting on what they believe.
While they are likely considered "mad people" to most of us, it is the trend that matters, because just like a fashion trend, it starts to self-propagate, pulling more people into its sphere of influence. It is like that "First Follower" (short and worth the watch) concept where the first person is ridiculed, but once one follower comes along and legitimises, more will join in and pretty soon, there is a movement. And no matter what a person believes, with the internet, there is always someone willing to legitimise it. Even the most heinous and disgusting of beliefs, has groups of supporters on the internet.
So increasingly the position will become that people will act on their beliefs to do something against the perpetrators they see, whether it be governments, industries, corporations, or other citizens. When people are turned against each other for political and financial gain, it can only be expected that violence will result. And because the way this has been done has been to enrich an increasingly small amount of people, it means that simultaneously a growing number are facing increasing uncertainty and hardship, with less and less to lose. The social contracts are broken, the economic stability eroded away, the reasons to turn the other cheek diminishing rapidly.
Governments aren't prepared for a modern civil war, much like traditional battle tactics haven't fared well in Afghanistan or Ukraine, because the form of war had changed. Even now, with a far superior force, the US is facing a loss in Iran. The government response to a decentralised civil war would be increasing oppression through monitoring and application of force, such as what has happened in the US over the last decade or so, and the usage of military and government militia roaming civilian streets.
And ultimately, this approach is going to exacerbate the problems and push more people toward what was the edge domain of crazies and extremists. But, once enough people get pushed, that edge is no longer the edge, it is approaching the norm. That means there will be more extreme people who will increase severity and frequency, which will speed the process up further and add velocity to the movement. Not a single, concerted movement, but a myriad of movements, all with different ideals and targets, all wanting to do what is right in their eyes. And the more they do, the more harm gets done to an increasing number of people, creating a larger base of those who are damaged and oppressed, and are therefore less likely to turn the other cheek to the situations that feel are not right.
If someone you cared about was being attacked, would you want someone to step in and defend them? What if they were being attacked by the people who are charged with defending them, those who make the laws, and police the laws they have made? Should people defer to authority, even when they believe what the authority is doing is morally wrong?
We have seen what happens in the past, haven't we?
The world is in a sorry state of affairs and people are suffering, while politicians create unnecessary violence and volatility, and corporations are hitting record valuations. The economic and political systems are not aligned with improving society and are in fact the antithesis of what humanity needs. With their greed for power and control, they are creating an ecosystem that becomes increasingly volatile and violent, until all social systems collapse - and no one wins.
Turn the other cheek?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
I think part of the reason the US is having so much trouble in Iran is because they aren't willing to go scorched Earth like Israel did in Palestine. Which honestly is a good thing, but it still puts them at a disadvantage. Which just goes back to why they even acted in the first place.
Scorched earth will exacerbate problems in the US. Israel has a different political climate, especially against Palestine.
Which I think they know, but I also think that is why they haven't been able to just finish things quickly.
Yeah for sure. But without UN approval, going scorched earth makes it all war crimes. Even hitting civilian targets like the bridge is considered a crime.
Right, stuff like that Russia and Israel don't care about.
Israel seem to have been given a free hand to do what they want. Pretty weird.
It's irrelevant to try the United States for war crimes because it's in a position of power that grants it broad impunity. Look at all the charges against Bush for his crimes in the Middle East, with hundreds of pieces of evidence, yet he wasn't tried simply because he was in a privileged position that prevented any other power from prosecuting him. The same applies to Obama, who authorized more military missions than Bush, as well as Trump. They all have dark records.
In conclusion, evidence and testimony are meaningless if the International Criminal Court doesn't have a police force willing to arrest high-profile American war criminals.
I think the phrase "turn the other cheek" has been warped to mean "just be passive and don't do anything." In reality, it was meant if someone insults your or persecutes you in a way that isn't grievously harmful or could cause death, overlook the insult.
When someone else is suffering, however small that may be, I think it is our duty to act and say something. I think that's where so many have gone wrong and become sheepish. What we personally choose to overlook is on us, but also standing by and doing nothing when we see something is on us as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war were to happen at some point. There are far too many people willing to hurt and kill others over political differences, and I'm a firm believer there are no good politicians. They're all ultimately in it for themselves and to think otherwise would be extremely naive.
!BBH
!PIZZA
!ALIVE
Yes. And now, we have been conditioned (many of us) to be fragile that we are insulted by things that aren't even aimed at us.
People hurt and kill over 10 dollars worth of crack, so it is amazing that there isn't more political violence.
I've had to ingrain this in my oldest son. He has a tendency to let even small things irritate him, to which I tell him, "If you don't like it and your brother won't stop, get up and leave. Don't stay and end up doing something you'll regret."
Yes, today's society just gets worse. I honestly think a lot of it is "contracted out," because the politicians are too lazy to get their own hands dirty.
Yet we have also been told not to walk away, but instead complain to authority.
Well, the speech writers definitely are. The UK politicians are now using Americanisms, because the speech writers are using AI to generate speeches.
Yeah, I think too many people are conditioned to think "If not A, then B, and if not B, then C" instead of a wholistic approach of "What's the goal and the best way to get there, even if the path may detour at times." It's a sad state of affairs when so many people lack the critical thinking skills and emotional IQ to know when to stand up, push back, detour or outright avoid conflict.
Oh, that's interesting. So does it come across as odd or staged because of it?
I think that ignoring injustices just lets them grow worse, and we should face the uncomfortable realities about power and responsibility.
power and responsibility, and what we ourselves possess.
I think to say that US is facing a loss in Iran would be inaccurate. Even Trump administration is correct that US has a complete air superiority and can hit anything they want in Iran. Iran is contained and blockaded. What US is facing is the limits of air war. No regime has been changed in the history of the world via aerial bombardment.
In order to change the regime it would require a ground operation like in Iraq. Iran is a larger country with a larger population so it will be a little bit more effort to completely occupy than Iraq was, but make no mistake that is completely in the realm of US capability even without a coalition like was used in Iraq.
There are a few big downsides to the ground operation and occupying the Iran:
None of the above would play well in the elections this November as it is simply impossible to pull the preparation and execution of a major ground operation in that time period. Also the financial and life costs would play really bad into not only mid terms, but even into 2028 Presidential elections... That is why we don't see a ground operation yet...
This will be considered a loss. It isn't just the regime, it is the "gusto" they went in with, over in weeks BS and the like. If they send ground troops, it will drag out for many years. Poor Trump legacy...
Did the US win in Iraq you think?
yup.. big can o worms..
but nothing wrong with MORE clicks! :P
Depends what is being clicked
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@bulliontools(14/20) tipped @tarazkp
Learn more at https://hive.pizza.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 430000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPIt's been a while but I'm reasonably but not completely certain that "turning the other cheek" was only for things done to you specifically that really didn't matter. From memory the quote was related to being bitch slapped in the face by someone trying to start a fight, you "turn the other cheek" by turning your head so they can bitch slap you the other way if they're that mad/desperate for a fight (and then ideally they'll get embarrassed when you refuse to give them their rise and back off, but I guess being high on something and/or rage makes people even stupider than usual so you might get another one).
One can't actually "turn the other cheek" for someone else being done to, that would be "turning a blind eye" and you end up with a then they came for me.
I am being pedantic and/or semantic but I wanted that to make sense for me x_x
Your usage however felt slightly more sensical ^_^;
"i'M ShOoR tHeY hAd A gEwD RaEsOn" -_-
Turning the other cheek doesn't reflect any positive values; it simply means you're masochistic and accept being walked all over because you lack self-love. It also means you've validated those who oppress you, whether it's your family, your partner, the institution you work for, the government, etc.
People who repeat this phrase as if it were a virtue don't understand that we always have the option to distance ourselves from those who hurt us, to seek therapy to try to climb out of the abyss we accept as normal, to defend ourselves when we are victims of violence, or to defend those we care about when they are vulnerable.