[J m HofMarN]

OF COURSE HE'LL SAY HE WAS A DISSENTER WHO WAS PLANNING SOMETHING, BECAUSE IF HE DOESNT YOU'LL TORTURE HIM MORE! MANY WHELPS! HANDLE IT! FCUUUUUK!

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 07 April 2010 - 01:04 PM

[civilian_number_two]

The scientifically advanced cultures of the world did not fanatically torture their civilians with paranoid zeal. Also, torture will not reward the torturer with valuable information. Torture has no desirable effect, apart from making small-minded voters believe that "something is being done" about "the problem," and allowing even smaller-minded sociopaths in the service of the army to get their kicks. Ed Geen would have found a home in a torturer's job. That's who you need in that room, by the way. Ed Geen.

Read 1984. It describes in detail the makework project that was Stalin's regime. Nothing effective came of it, and YES, as a matter of fact, I do believe that when a way of life ceases to be in a single generation, it was a failure.

[Deucaon]

You're only opposed to it because it doesn't represent whatever vision you have for the world. You're letting personal bias affect your ability to acknowledge facts. Torture works but it discourages initiative for the sake of establishing and expanding loyalty. Torture has nothing to do with information gathering. People who torture "for information" are lying to you about their goals. For them, the real purpose of torture is gain false confessions for a political end.
And Stalin's regime ended because Khrushchev was too squeamish to continue Stalin's era of terror. Look at North Korea. Or any socialist governments that have outlived the USSR, for that matter. They all rely on fear to exist. No doubt most of that fear comes from the idea of the government torturing you or your family to death in some dungeon.
And the point 1984 made was the same one I'm making right fucking now. Not that it matters because it's fiction.

[J m HofMarN]

Deuacon correct... Personal views effecting greater benefit of the collective inefficient... You will be assimilated.

Seriously though, do you believe that your idea of "torture for all" is a common societal consensus and that everyone else on the forums is just spouting their own maverick personal beliefs, that you alone are the voice of unselfish reason? I beg to differ.

Anyhow, ignoring your borg-speak, no, torture does not expand loyalty. Stalins people plotted against him aplenty, and then did their damnedest to erase his crazy ass from history. Also, those who escaped, such as Trotsky, formed movements for the specific purpose of opposing his methods. I can honestly see your logic in claiming that torture is always used to further a political goal. However, I am not sure that you can show that this is a conscious desire on the part of those who order it, and also, I would need a specific definition of a political goal from you so that it doesnt become a general term like oligarchy or something. However I would have to point out, that torture, like all similar evil, is not always for a goal. Sometimes evil, like good, just doesn't have a motive behind it. For instance: The Mossad once kidnapped a North African communist from France's streets, tortured him, killed him, and then destroyed his remains in a vat of acid. What political goal could that possibly have helped?

Quote

And Stalin's regime ended because Khrushchev was too squeamish to continue Stalin's era of terror.

Then why did Kruschev denounce Stalin in the secret speech before the Comintern? Why was he too squeamish for one action but not the other? Is it possible that an aversion to mindless cruelty and ruthlessness is not indicative of a personal flaw?

RE: Socialism relies on fear to exist:
As a socialist I would take offense to this, except that you seem to believe that all governments rely on fear to exist anyhow, so I'm unsure why you singled out socialist ones. I would however point out that Canada and Western Europe are all socialist countries that do not torture people and that are stable. I do not believe that this stability is brought about under threat of genital electrocution. Also, if this were true, the Canadians would make up a name for it that was too polite to frighten people. They would probably call it Codgering The Moose.

Oh, and how much do you know about Orwell exactly, because you're clearly not reading 1984 right. The threat of torture did not keep people in line. Where the hell did you get that from=? Conformity and indolence kept the Prols in their place. And 1984 was not about government in general, it was about fascism and stalinism SPECIFICLY. Because Orwell had been shot at by both parties during his time in Spain fighting for the Republic (he was a Trotskyite), and came to have an understanding of the fact that they were all a bunch of dick heads. In this case the threat of torture a murder by the NKVD or Falangists helped cause Orwell to write two quite good books, one of which, Animal Farm, helped inform the world to the horrors of Stalinism at a time when Stalin had quite a good bit of popularity in the West.

[civilian_number_two]

I would like to add one Socialist country to the list created by JM: The United States of America. At least, if we're going to use the term in the way that most Americans use it. Canada's government for instance is a Constitutional Democracy just like the government of the United States, but folks in the US call Canada Socialist. Presumably the reason for this is we legalized gay marriage and we have nationalized medical insurance, along with slightly better provisions for the homelss and unemployed. Apart from those differences in resource management however, the governments are functionally quite similar. So if Canada is Socialist, and I say it is, then the US is Socialist as well.

Anyway. Deuc: The English used torture in the political way you describe. In one generation they went from the most powerful empire in the world to a little island with a few holdings abroad. The Spanish before them used torture for fear-mongering and political gain. Their power collapsed rather abruptly as well. Before them the Romans did the same. In the case of every empire, their subjects and subject nations feared and hated them, and when the time came they rebelled and conquered.

Maybe torture helps build empires while it breeds the discontent that makes them fall. Or maybe empires always fall, torture or not. I don't know. But while we're on the subject of torture, this just in: torture does not work to gain information, you have not proven that it is more effective than military conquests in expanding empires, and its ability to ensure a permanent empire is disproven by the fact that there have been few long-lived empires, and of course no permanent ones.

So poo-poo to torture. And no, it is not personal squeamishness or moral sentiment that has me say that.

[Deucaon]

civilian_number_two, on 19 April 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

I would like to add one Socialist country to the list created by JM: The United States of America. At least, if we're going to use the term in the way that most Americans use it. Canada's government for instance is a Constitutional Democracy just like the government of the United States, but folks in the US call Canada Socialist. Presumably the reason for this is we legalized gay marriage and we have nationalized medical insurance, along with slightly better provisions for the homelss and unemployed. Apart from those differences in resource management however, the governments are functionally quite similar. So if Canada is Socialist, and I say it is, then the US is Socialist as well.

It might as well be socialist. The USA, that is. It's got a central bank which essentially controls how much currency there is on the market and said central bank is utterly "unregulated." But it's the most essential arm of the government and the government's ability to oppress so of course it wouldn't be regulated. (Assuming the government can regulate the government which is just stupid.) Not to mention the unholy number of regulations which are essentially meant to monopolize the economy so that only friends of the governments are allowed any real power.
Whether or not the government helps people is irrelevant. It helps people to keep them placated. You can't solve the problem with bureaucracy by piling more bureaucracy onto it. Then again, the mind of the statist is different from the mind of everybody else. After all, who else thinks they're entitled to keep their job and have a constant raise in salary regardless of the economic situation?

civilian_number_two, on 19 April 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

Anyway. Deuc: The English used torture in the political way you describe. In one generation they went from the most powerful empire in the world to a little island with a few holdings abroad. The Spanish before them used torture for fear-mongering and political gain. Their power collapsed rather abruptly as well. Before them the Romans did the same. In the case of every empire, their subjects and subject nations feared and hated them, and when the time came they rebelled and conquered.

That's because the English got relatively squeamish after the Falklands fiasco, the success of the Spanish led to gold deflation and the Romans didn't think to stop enslaving and massacring in order to manage their empire. (Or to raise their own birthrate.)

civilian_number_two, on 19 April 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

Maybe torture helps build empires while it breeds the discontent that makes them fall. Or maybe empires always fall, torture or not. I don't know. But while we're on the subject of torture, this just in: torture does not work to gain information, you have not proven that it is more effective than military conquests in expanding empires, and its ability to ensure a permanent empire is disproven by the fact that there have been few long-lived empires, and of course no permanent ones.

Torture doesn't help empire, it establishes a culture. The culture a torturer wants is one of utter obedience and that's exactly what the allusion of torture creates.

civilian_number_two, on 19 April 2010 - 07:34 AM, said:

So poo-poo to torture. And no, it is not personal squeamishness or moral sentiment that has me say that.

I still think it is. I mean are you really arguing that the threat of torture from a government doesn't keep it's citizens scared shitless? I'm not condoning torture, by the way. And neither would you be if you accepted reality.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Whether or not the government helps people is irrelevant. It helps people to keep them placated.

I don't think that's why governments offer the services they do. It is difficult to imagine social security recipients rising up and guillotining Obama if he cuts their benefits.

Quote

After all, who else thinks they're entitled to keep their job and have a constant raise in salary regardless of the economic situation?

The CEOs of the corporations that would run everything in your libertarian fantasy land, for one.

Quote

That's because the English got relatively squeamish after the Falklands fiasco, the success of the Spanish led to gold deflation and the Romans didn't think to stop enslaving and massacring in order to manage their empire. (Or to raise their own birthrate.)

No they didn't. No it didn't. And finally, yes, a contributing factor to the fall of Rome was over-expansion, so in this suggestion you're correct.

Quote

Torture doesn't help empire, it establishes a culture. The culture a torturer wants is one of utter obedience and that's exactly what the allusion of torture creates.

That's not at all true. Various factions use torture in Iraq and yet the country is ridiculously lawless. Batista tortured the fuck out of Castro's guerillas when they were captured, but he still got run out of Cuba on a rail. So forth and so on. Your attempt at sounding like a cold Machiavellian or Utilitarian thinker fails due to lack of thought.

Quote

I still think it is.

that's good.

Quote

I mean are you really arguing that the threat of torture from a government doesn't keep it's citizens scared shitless? I'm not condoning torture, by the way. And neither would you be if you accepted reality.

Once again, you've utterly misread 1984. The threat of torture MIGHT deter political enemies within the country, maybe, possibly but never proven. However, it's the use of propaganda and the highlighting of outside threats that keeps a totalitarian government afloat. And you have frequently suggested the use of torture, defended it, and, yes, condoned it, just to be a troll. Please don't make me dig up specific examples.

[Spoon Poetic]

How is a fiction novel being used as an argument at all here?

[J m HofMarN]

Because that seems to be the only example of this enduring utilitarian torture system that the Cobnuts has proposed. He's yet to put forth real examples of governments that systematically employed his torture pyramid scheme and profited by it, and I'm fairly sure that 1984 is where a lot of his ideas came from.

[Deucaon]

Spoon Poetic, on 14 November 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

How is a fiction novel being used as an argument at all here?

I have no idea. Other uses keep referencing Ayn Rand and George Orwell. It's almost as if they didn't have a reality-based argument so they decided to entrench themselves in fiction.

[J m HofMarN]

Your argument was that an insane 1984 Ministry Of Love style torture scheme would... do something positive for... someone. And I'm pretty sure that reality based arguments abound for the ineffectiveness or inethicalness of torture. Those arguments have been made, and you responded by, to paraphrase "That is because they don't do it right, they need to use this crazy scheme I made up"

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 27 December 2010 - 07:11 PM, said:

Your argument was that an insane 1984 Ministry Of Love style torture scheme would... do something positive for... someone. And I'm pretty sure that reality based arguments abound for the ineffectiveness or inethicalness of torture. Those arguments have been made, and you responded by, to paraphrase "That is because they don't do it right, they need to use this crazy scheme I made up"

I never made that argument. My argument was that torture serves it's purpose which is to instill fear in a population. It's not insane, it's a calculated strategy. It's been done for millenia. In the real world, not in your fantasy world. If you honestly don't believe that then you're probably an asspie. That would explain a lot, actually. Unless you're feigning ignorance. In which case: LMAO.

[J m HofMarN]

Provide an example of a conflict in which, by "virtue" of their use of torture, one force was able to gain the long term obedience of the people they sought to oppress. Vietnam under Diem, Ireland under British occupation, Cuba under Batista, Russia under Stalin, Palestine under Zionist occupation, so forth and so on. All of these places have seen the documented use of torture which has failed to cause the people to surrender in fear, has had a negative effect on the government using it.

You might make headway by focusing on the Spanish Inquisition or the suppression of the Knights Templar. These two actions, however, were meant to gain riches and nothing more, and were not needed to maintain the government or church's control, nor did they instill fear in the citizenry. I think Civ pointed out that a government that needs to use torture to the extent you suggest in order to keep power is clearly doing everything else wrong, violating the social contract if you're aware of that concept.

[civilian_number_two]

I can't think of any successful governments who used torture to scare the general public. It is true that the British did that in Ireland, yes, and there we have an example of a military power with superior technology and organization resorting to thuggery because its government could not manage the legal system or the economy. The effect was chaos and revolt, in which yes, the British Army was the superior force. Superior for the reasons I stated though, not because of the torture, and ultimately their efforts failed for the same reasons that made them necessary: their government had no idea what it was doing. So ... tell me how the "torture for fear and no other reason" policy succeeded there. If that's not a good example, then please give me one. Any country. Anywhere. Any era. Ever.

Anecdotally, there are incidents here and there scattered through history where torturing someone may have effected a short-term gain. But as a policy, it is short-sighted, cowardly, and ineffective. It cannot be used systematically to gain information, and as a means of controlling people, it has never worked. The way to control a people may be to have a really powerful military, but it is not to have a really malicious torture regimen. There's just no evidence for that. It has never worked.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 28 December 2010 - 02:35 PM, said:

Provide an example of a conflict in which, by "virtue" of their use of torture, one force was able to gain the long term obedience of the people they sought to oppress. Vietnam under Diem, Ireland under British occupation, Cuba under Batista, Russia under Stalin, Palestine under Zionist occupation, so forth and so on. All of these places have seen the documented use of torture which has failed to cause the people to surrender in fear, has had a negative effect on the government using it.

You might make headway by focusing on the Spanish Inquisition or the suppression of the Knights Templar. These two actions, however, were meant to gain riches and nothing more, and were not needed to maintain the government or church's control, nor did they instill fear in the citizenry. I think Civ pointed out that a government that needs to use torture to the extent you suggest in order to keep power is clearly doing everything else wrong, violating the social contract if you're aware of that concept.

civilian_number_two, on 28 December 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

I can't think of any successful governments who used torture to scare the general public. It is true that the British did that in Ireland, yes, and there we have an example of a military power with superior technology and organization resorting to thuggery because its government could not manage the legal system or the economy. The effect was chaos and revolt, in which yes, the British Army was the superior force. Superior for the reasons I stated though, not because of the torture, and ultimately their efforts failed for the same reasons that made them necessary: their government had no idea what it was doing. So ... tell me how the "torture for fear and no other reason" policy succeeded there. If that's not a good example, then please give me one. Any country. Anywhere. Any era. Ever.

Anecdotally, there are incidents here and there scattered through history where torturing someone may have effected a short-term gain. But as a policy, it is short-sighted, cowardly, and ineffective. It cannot be used systematically to gain information, and as a means of controlling people, it has never worked. The way to control a people may be to have a really powerful military, but it is not to have a really malicious torture regimen. There's just no evidence for that. It has never worked.

Okay, let's use Hoffman's examples.

England ruled Ireland for nearly three hundred years. Even now England controls a small chunk of Ireland. The reason England doesn't control all of Ireland is because it has become "liberalized" in the past century. A more accurate term would be egotistical.

Diem effectively suppressed rebellions in the south despite making shit loads of enemies by going after Buddhism. Even Minh agreed that he was effective in suppressing rebellion and he only lost power after a coup. I assume he wasn't torturing his own officer corps. There probably wouldn't have been a coup if he had.

According to reality, Batista lost power because he was a pussy and wasn't willing to torture or murder or incarcerate dissidents indefinitely. Basically the things Castro does now. He even released Castro after Castro rebelled against him! He lost power because nobody feared him and nobody obeyed him. Castro on the other hand has managed to be the longest ruling dictator in recent history. Castro uses systematic torture, Batista did not. To his own detriment.

Stalin? Stalin was fucking Stalin. He died the most powerful person on the planet. The most powerful person in recent history. Possibly the most powerful person in all of history. His successors refused to use his methods (in other words systematic torture) and Stalin's empire soon collapsed.

First, it's not Zionist. It's Israeli. Many Zionists believe Palestine is their homeland. Moving on, Israel controls most of the West Bank. The only reason they don't control all of the West Bank and Gaza is because they're egotistical and care a lot about how the world views them. Though slowly that's changing as they're becoming more paranoid. But, regardless of their objective, they've managed to hold onto whatever they currently have quite effectively. Using, guess what, systematic torture. Among other things. Hamas has also kept control of Gaza and Fatah has kept control of the West Bank using the same methods.

Systematic terror: It works, even if you don't admit it. It's not something you'd want to live under, of course. But when you live under a desperate government, you don't have a lot of choice.