5 ms·

47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???

by csours 7y ago

datashow 7y ago
So Soleimani = "Man from Iran"?
- csours 7y ago
  Yes.
throwlaplace 7y ago
“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer edit: it's easy to read this pridefully yourself ("i have other things to be proud of and therefore i'm immune from such petty things"). i think the most significant part of the quotation is the last part - you can derive pride in direct proportion to how invested you are. most people (those that aren't nihilists) have such things that function for them in exactly the same way. it's ultimately a sublimation urge -- we prove ourselves insofar as we sacrifice. if nationalism vexes you then i challenge you to reflect on your own loyalties/commitments.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- danans 7y ago
  > if nationalism vexes you then i challenge you to reflect on your own loyalties/commitments. I agree, but just because the psychological mechanisms that give rise to both humanism and nationalism are related, doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable judgments about which is better than the other, especially when the nationalism is of an ethnic or racial variety.
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    >doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable judgments about which is better than the other i'm not advocating for reserving judgment. i'm simply saying that being proud of yourself for not being nationalist is pointless and if you want to understand nationalists (to whatever end -- even eradication of nationalism) then study yourself in analogy as a proxy for the other.
    - acephal 7y ago
      Or simply, be self-critical, which is the number one trait disappearing from public conversation, if not for the fact that being self-critical is seen as weakness, perhaps the reason you're reiterating yourself
- mistermann 7y ago
  "Perception is reality." - Lee Atwater "One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them." - Tom Robbins "One may reasonably ask: Why do people cling to the values and practices of the past, when they so obviously no longer work? Long-standing thought patterns are hard to overcome because they often appear to serve the interests of the individual, and old ways of thinking are simpler and easier to handle. In a two-valued way of thinking, as in good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, cause and effect, very little logical analysis is involved." - Jacque Fresco
3minus1 7y ago
I love and sympathize with your comment heavily. As far as 47% support I think it because: Trump = Good Something Trump ordered = Good
- jandrese 7y ago
  Also, their only news source told them it was a good thing.
  - csours 7y ago
    I read a comment from an older white person (on another older white person's post) who said they were afraid for all 8 years of Obama's presidency. They were happy that Trump was president because they didn't have to be afraid anymore. I didn't truly understand the reach of Fox News until I read that comment.
LeonM 7y ago
> How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? That is true for just about any political question. The consequences are usually so complex that the average citizen can't possibly be informed well enough on the matter. Just look at what happened with brexit... Mandatory political disclaimer: I'm not saying democracy is wrong, and I wouldn't know how to solve this problem either.
- randyrand 7y ago
  and the most divisive political questions don’t even have objective answers.
tyingq 7y ago
Fox news typically has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. So 47% doesn't surprise me.
merpnderp 7y ago
The real question is how could anyone not know the US and Iran have been at each other's throats for over a decade and that things were always a hairs breadth from exploding into outright warfare?
LyndsySimon 7y ago
How about: Soleimani = Quds leader Quds = responsible for Iranian military actions outside Iran Kill person responsible for Iranian military actions outside Iran = Good Reading the above seems a bit contrived, but I know it pretty much fits for me. I had heard his named before the news broke, but wouldn’t have been able to tell you what he did upon hearing it again. As soon as I discovered he was a Quds general, I had enough information to know that I supported striking him. Granted I was already aware of Iran’s involvement in Iraq over the past few years, and that he had been killed in Iraq.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  That you know who Soleimani is places you as an outlier. Nobody would know unless told he's from Iran, and even more so that he lead the Quds.
  - LyndsySimon 7y ago
    That’s the point, though - I didn’t know who he was when I first heard the name. It took maybe 30 seconds for me to determine he lead Quds, at which point I had enough information to know that I supported his being targeted.
- csours 7y ago
  That is by far more informed and sophisticated than most people's knowledge on this topic. Further questions: Why was he in Bagdad? Why did the US use an airstrike? Why was he not arrested? Did the Iraqi government invite him to the country? Was he pursuing diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government, the nominal allies of the United stakes? Speaking for myself, I could not support the killing without answers to those questions.

47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???

by csours 7y ago

47% supported the strike? How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? Iran = Bad Man from Iran = Bad Kill Man from Iran = Good???

datashow 7y ago

So Soleimani = "Man from Iran"?

csours 7y ago
Yes.

throwlaplace 7y ago

“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer edit: it's easy to read this pridefully yourself ("i have other things to be proud of and therefore i'm immune from such petty things"). i think the most significant part of the quotation is the last part - you can derive pride in direct proportion to how invested you are. most people (those that aren't nihilists) have such things that function for them in exactly the same way. it's ultimately a sublimation urge -- we prove ourselves insofar as we sacrifice. if nationalism vexes you then i challenge you to reflect on your own loyalties/commitments.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
danans 7y ago
> if nationalism vexes you then i challenge you to reflect on your own loyalties/commitments. I agree, but just because the psychological mechanisms that give rise to both humanism and nationalism are related, doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable judgments about which is better than the other, especially when the nationalism is of an ethnic or racial variety.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  >doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable judgments about which is better than the other i'm not advocating for reserving judgment. i'm simply saying that being proud of yourself for not being nationalist is pointless and if you want to understand nationalists (to whatever end -- even eradication of nationalism) then study yourself in analogy as a proxy for the other.
  - acephal 7y ago
    Or simply, be self-critical, which is the number one trait disappearing from public conversation, if not for the fact that being self-critical is seen as weakness, perhaps the reason you're reiterating yourself
mistermann 7y ago
"Perception is reality." - Lee Atwater "One has not only an ability to perceive the world but an ability to alter one's perception of it; more simply, one can change things by the manner in which one looks at them." - Tom Robbins "One may reasonably ask: Why do people cling to the values and practices of the past, when they so obviously no longer work? Long-standing thought patterns are hard to overcome because they often appear to serve the interests of the individual, and old ways of thinking are simpler and easier to handle. In a two-valued way of thinking, as in good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate, cause and effect, very little logical analysis is involved." - Jacque Fresco

3minus1 7y ago

I love and sympathize with your comment heavily. As far as 47% support I think it because: Trump = Good Something Trump ordered = Good

jandrese 7y ago
Also, their only news source told them it was a good thing.
- csours 7y ago
  I read a comment from an older white person (on another older white person's post) who said they were afraid for all 8 years of Obama's presidency. They were happy that Trump was president because they didn't have to be afraid anymore. I didn't truly understand the reach of Fox News until I read that comment.

LeonM 7y ago

> How could they possibly have had enough information to support it? That is true for just about any political question. The consequences are usually so complex that the average citizen can't possibly be informed well enough on the matter. Just look at what happened with brexit... Mandatory political disclaimer: I'm not saying democracy is wrong, and I wouldn't know how to solve this problem either.

randyrand 7y ago
and the most divisive political questions don’t even have objective answers.

tyingq 7y ago

Fox news typically has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. So 47% doesn't surprise me.

merpnderp 7y ago

The real question is how could anyone not know the US and Iran have been at each other's throats for over a decade and that things were always a hairs breadth from exploding into outright warfare?

LyndsySimon 7y ago

How about: Soleimani = Quds leader Quds = responsible for Iranian military actions outside Iran Kill person responsible for Iranian military actions outside Iran = Good Reading the above seems a bit contrived, but I know it pretty much fits for me. I had heard his named before the news broke, but wouldn’t have been able to tell you what he did upon hearing it again. As soon as I discovered he was a Quds general, I had enough information to know that I supported striking him. Granted I was already aware of Iran’s involvement in Iraq over the past few years, and that he had been killed in Iraq.

AstralStorm 7y ago
That you know who Soleimani is places you as an outlier. Nobody would know unless told he's from Iran, and even more so that he lead the Quds.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  That’s the point, though - I didn’t know who he was when I first heard the name. It took maybe 30 seconds for me to determine he lead Quds, at which point I had enough information to know that I supported his being targeted.
csours 7y ago
That is by far more informed and sophisticated than most people's knowledge on this topic. Further questions: Why was he in Bagdad? Why did the US use an airstrike? Why was he not arrested? Did the Iraqi government invite him to the country? Was he pursuing diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government, the nominal allies of the United stakes? Speaking for myself, I could not support the killing without answers to those questions.