I don’t like this categorization of Americans as “not human”. The loudest Americans are horrible, awful, evil human beings, but they are still humans.

I mean, both the image and the title of this thread are reactionary. USians are humans. As were the Nazis who did genocide. As were the original colonizers of the Americas. And so on. If saying or doing fucked up things made someone not human, we’d need a whole analysis explaining how a significant portion of what were thought to be human beings are not actually. Which is not a dialectical materialist view and has more in common with reactionary views of selective dehumanization than anything else; it is precisely selective dehumanization that is one of the methods for validating fucked up behavior toward others in the first place. Why would you encourage it? Just because it’s flipped around and pointed at the ones who are usually doing the dehumanizing?

How are we supposed to put a stop to horrible behavior if we don’t even understand where it comes from? This is what historical in dialectical and historical materialism is there for. To understand how societies and entities developed into the form that they did and why they did. And it’s not a question of doing perfect analysis either, it’s a question of being able to do something about the problems in the world. The kind of society that produces this behavior will have to be dealt with at some point and “say they’re not human” (which would lead to validation of the prospect of indiscriminately killing them) is not going to be a practical nor ethical solution.

While the US/israel goes after civilians or unarmed cooperatives forces somewhere else, Iran targets military installations and occupying forces in the region (and it has a clear payoff when it puts them in a better position militarily to do so). Learn from Iran. Be more like the pragmatism and war-time ethics that they have and less like the mindset of the colonizer. Note that they’re not pacifists. They’re capable of defending and striking back, without needing to be indiscriminate. An indiscriminate mindset is largely impractical (unless you’re an occupying force wanting to seize and colonize land so your goal is to kill as many people in the region as possible so you can replace them - then, despite being one of the most fucked up things you can do, it becomes practical for that particular goal).

Another way of looking at it is: when has a successful AES project ever gone, “The solution to our problems is to say that an enemy is not human, so we can justify killing them indiscriminately”? This would run counter to their goals on many different levels. Revolutions are “not a dinner party”, but they still aren’t practical as indiscriminate violence. The priority is power for the oppressed masses and how to get and keep it. Not low effort generalizations and wasting of limited resources on poorly directed ideals.

This may sound like a lot over little, but dehumanization is a serious issue with a lot of bloody history. It has helped fuel colonialism for hundreds of years. Why feed into it more, when we can work on an alternative instead? It is the imperial core people who are most vulnerable to buying into dehumanizing thought in the first place; whether it’s directed at them or elsewhere, validating the school of thought will most affirm what they already tend to believe about the world, which furthers the goals of imperialism, not liberation.

No one who has experienced the grief and despair caused by war would ever say this. US military nerds are the worst.

gringos are human…some of them are pretty stupid humans, but humans anyway

A Reddit link was detected in your post. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.

• redlib.nohost.network
• red.ngn.tf
• redlib.tux.pizza
• libreddit.projectsegfau.lt