Kurt R.A. Giambastiani

There are times when sticking your neck out can make a difference. Then there are times when all you get is your head handed to you in a burlap sack.

Last week, a Facebook friend began to post vitriol against ISIS (or ISIL, or the Islamic State…choose your moniker) and against President Obama. He started slow–a comment here, a flame there–but his rhetoric took an uptick when he posted a collection of presidential quotes that included old favorites such as Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” and Reagan’s Cold War strategy, “We win, they lose,” and ended with Obama’s recent faux pas: “We don’t have a strategy, yet.”

The gist of his posts: ISIS is super-bad, and Obama is doing nothing.

If that was all it was, I probably would have left it alone. I knew that Obama wasn’t doing “nothing,” and I agree that ISIS is super-bad and must be dealt with. But that wasn’t all it was.

Embedded in his posts and comments was language that shocked me. He referred to ISIS as “non-humans” deserving of nothing but utter annihilation, as “things” that should be “dispatched to hell,” and as “a plague that needs to be destroyed.” He expanded his arguments to include all Shiites and Sunnis, put forth mass murder as a solution, and essentially adopted the “nuke ’em from orbit” stance as the only way forward.

Now, this is not a guy who usually makes these kind of statements. He does much good in his community, and has a big heart for those less fortunate than he. He’s a conservative, yes, and a Republican, but he’s not prone to this type of heightened rhetoric. It’s out of character for him, which is why I found it so shocking.

And it is also why I spoke out.

I do not in any way condone, excuse, rationalize, or apologize for the heinous, repugnant, atrocious, and utterly inhumane acts perpetrated by ISIS. I find everything about their organization, their methods, and their doctrine absolutely horrifying. However, neither am I an “ends justify the means” sort of guy.

The rhetoric of dehumanization has been used against many groups throughout history—against Jews by Christians, in intertribal warfare in Rwanda, against just about every immigrant class by white Americans, and most recently, by white cops against black citizens in Ferguson, MO. It is a way of justifying or rationalizing any action one might take against a foe. After all, we don’t feel bad when we take antibiotics to kill off bacteria. We don’t have qualms about ridding our houses of vermin. Why then (such rhetoric asks) should we have any reservations about ridding our society of such a group of sub-humans?

Dehumanization is insidious not just because of its danger to others, but because of the damage it does to us. It excuses our behavior, enabling us to do things we would not otherwise do. It is a way of justifying emotional, reactionary responses, and it is absolutely antithetical to any reasoned discourse.

“Reasoned discourse?” you ask. “With ISIS? Impossible!”

I do not suggest we attempt diplomacy with ISIS. They have proven they are not interested in any sort of reasonable action. No, what I am suggesting is that we, the rest of the civilized world, sit down and reasonably, rationally discuss what we should do about ISIS. The rhetoric of dehumanization has no place in such discussions. We must not lose our own reason, our own humanity, in the face of such evil crimes.

Why? Why must we keep our cool and let reason, not emotions, dictate our actions? Why should we not give in to our outrage, our justifiable outrage in response to such evil? Simple: because if we let our emotions drive our response, we will give in to what my friend feels. We will attack this enemy indiscriminately and with no regard for any innocent lives caught up in this morass.

In short: We will become them.

So, how did this friend respond to my challenges, to my calls for a more reasonable discussion? How did he react to the news that came out of Wales this week, when Obama announced that a coalition had been formed that will bring force to bear on ISIS?

He upped the ante. He ignored everything I said, every citation I provided, every supporting op-ed I linked to, and increased his demand for immediate, violent, genocidal action. When his conservative friends added their voices, the echo chamber kicked in, and it simply became a rant-fest. In the end, my friend retreated behind the idea that Facebook is for entertainment and lively discussion, and he was just responding emotionally to an obvious evil.

I thoroughly understand his emotional response, his disgust in reaction to the horrible news we hear about ISIS, but that is no excuse for such words. To hide behind a shrug and a smile is disingenuous, manipulative, and an entirely insufficient counter to such racially tinged calls for mass murder. We are responsible for the words we choose to say and the way we put forth our ideas.

In the end, I removed myself from the discussion, having had no effect on the tone of the rhetoric except to increase its fervor. This is the true danger of echo chambers: additional voices only feed the frenzy, regardless of what they’re saying.

We don’t want to listen, anymore; we only want to shout.

–k