3 ms·

That’s simply not true. A very large majority were in favor. Some were opposed, yes. Using “we” is a proper generalization. Everybody is offended by generaliz

That’s simply not true. A very large majority were in favor. Some were opposed, yes. Using “we” is a proper generalization. Everybody is offended by generalizations today. (See what I did there?) but you can’t talk coherently without them.

RC_ITR 3y ago
Sure, but also as much as it may make you feel old, those polls were of people over 18 in 2003, and about half of the current US population does not fit that bill. The effect is even more dramatic when you presume polls always skew older.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Do you presume that most of the unpolled 17 year olds in 2003 were against it? Most of the unpolled 16 year olds? Even if they weren't polled, it's not reasonable to assume that 0% of them would have supported the various responses.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    I know many of the unpolled 1 year olds who are now 24 probably never thought the war was a good idea. My point is that America in 2003 feels the same to people who were alive then, but blaming Americans alive today for Iraq is like blaming Americans alive in 2003 for being pro-Grenada.
mistermann 3y ago
If "we" is misinformative, it seems like the opposite of coherent. It is possible to use some sort of set theory terminology to avoid misleading people, but then that wouldn't really be "proper" (culturally acceptable). It's a real conundrum.
AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
Even the ones who were opposed at the time, myself included, should have done more.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  You wouldn’t have changed a thing. The wars were in the making for over a decade by the time 9/11 happened. That was just the opportunity for them to fully put those plans in motion. If anyone or group actually did “more” they would have been branded a traitor and thrown in prison — or worse.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    I don't believe you because I refuse to live in a world where that's true. That kind of thinking is exactly what they want you to think, and, they can't call everyone a traitor and lock everyone up.

RC_ITR 3y ago

Sure, but also as much as it may make you feel old, those polls were of people over 18 in 2003, and about half of the current US population does not fit that bill. The effect is even more dramatic when you presume polls always skew older.

sokoloff 3y ago
Do you presume that most of the unpolled 17 year olds in 2003 were against it? Most of the unpolled 16 year olds? Even if they weren't polled, it's not reasonable to assume that 0% of them would have supported the various responses.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  I know many of the unpolled 1 year olds who are now 24 probably never thought the war was a good idea. My point is that America in 2003 feels the same to people who were alive then, but blaming Americans alive today for Iraq is like blaming Americans alive in 2003 for being pro-Grenada.

mistermann 3y ago

If "we" is misinformative, it seems like the opposite of coherent. It is possible to use some sort of set theory terminology to avoid misleading people, but then that wouldn't really be "proper" (culturally acceptable). It's a real conundrum.

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago

Even the ones who were opposed at the time, myself included, should have done more.

enterprise_cog 3y ago
You wouldn’t have changed a thing. The wars were in the making for over a decade by the time 9/11 happened. That was just the opportunity for them to fully put those plans in motion. If anyone or group actually did “more” they would have been branded a traitor and thrown in prison — or worse.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  I don't believe you because I refuse to live in a world where that's true. That kind of thinking is exactly what they want you to think, and, they can't call everyone a traitor and lock everyone up.