1. You examine the idea of being *truly anti-war as opposed to *theoretically, or *half-heatedly anti-war – let's call it a *fair-weather anti-war stance. Most people, myself included, are not strictly pacifist, that is I can imagine circumstances in which coercive force up to and including violence is justified to protect one's community (for example, locking a rapist in prison could be acceptable to me). I prefer to resolve conflict without force but accept it isn't always possible. So I don't see a problem with having a *fair-weather anti-war stance. And I wonder what additional quality would make me *truly anti-war.
2. "Propaganda only works on those who don't know they're being propagandized." Nonsense. If the mayor pushes a "Keep our city beautiful! Don't be a litter lout!" campaign that's propaganda. I can know that *and it can work on me, i.e. I choose to accept it. When the currently ruling regime attempts to manipulate public opinion, that's propaganda, and from the opposition it's called dissent. People can be understand this (I believe most people do, more-or-less) and still choose to accept the arguments.
3. When a community goes to war people can be forced to choose: Are you with or against the war? The consequences of the choice can be big. I assume everyone more-or-less understand this.
4. So in the community decision about war, each side will push its arguments, e.g. pro-war propaganda and anti-war dissent, or visa versa depending on the case. I can know which is which at the same time as evaluating the augments contained therein. And I feel morally that I must.
So much for generalities, at which level I don't see the difference that makes one *truly anti-war versus the other kind.
Or are you simply *labeling people who accept the bs propaganda coming from DC and its clients in the specific case of the current conflict in Ukr as *failing to be *truly anti-war? If that's all then I agree.
Not your most coherent, Caitlin.
1. You examine the idea of being *truly anti-war as opposed to *theoretically, or *half-heatedly anti-war – let's call it a *fair-weather anti-war stance. Most people, myself included, are not strictly pacifist, that is I can imagine circumstances in which coercive force up to and including violence is justified to protect one's community (for example, locking a rapist in prison could be acceptable to me). I prefer to resolve conflict without force but accept it isn't always possible. So I don't see a problem with having a *fair-weather anti-war stance. And I wonder what additional quality would make me *truly anti-war.
2. "Propaganda only works on those who don't know they're being propagandized." Nonsense. If the mayor pushes a "Keep our city beautiful! Don't be a litter lout!" campaign that's propaganda. I can know that *and it can work on me, i.e. I choose to accept it. When the currently ruling regime attempts to manipulate public opinion, that's propaganda, and from the opposition it's called dissent. People can be understand this (I believe most people do, more-or-less) and still choose to accept the arguments.
3. When a community goes to war people can be forced to choose: Are you with or against the war? The consequences of the choice can be big. I assume everyone more-or-less understand this.
4. So in the community decision about war, each side will push its arguments, e.g. pro-war propaganda and anti-war dissent, or visa versa depending on the case. I can know which is which at the same time as evaluating the augments contained therein. And I feel morally that I must.
So much for generalities, at which level I don't see the difference that makes one *truly anti-war versus the other kind.
Or are you simply *labeling people who accept the bs propaganda coming from DC and its clients in the specific case of the current conflict in Ukr as *failing to be *truly anti-war? If that's all then I agree.