soumerd_retardataire @ soumerd_retardataire @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

32

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah no, we don't , double standard is everywhere. People would be surprised that you're touched as much by something happening in your "tribe" than outside of it.

Just take the massacre currently happening in Palestine if you want the most recent example, some lives are more important to us than others, there's a difference between what we proclaim our values to be and our practice of them.

We could be united in diversity though, instead of hating so many countries

Interesting, so criticising our tribalism makes me the one with a limited world view, how so ?

We care much more about what's happening in countries we're allied with(, whether they're on our continent or not), that sucks, we should help each other and not fight [insert a way too long list of countries here..]

It's not that world peace is difficult, but that our refusal of unity is difficult to overturn, we(sterners) are the f*cking prime wagers of death&destruction, didn't know that ten years ago.

As i wrote somewhere else, the aim of my post would have stayed the same if i titled it :
« If you tell someone “There’s been a bombing in the Middle-East !” with anguish in your voice, they wouldn't care nor be surprised as much as if it's in the west. »
Such claim wouldn't be less true. It still seems to me more linked to the word anguish and our lack of care than to the absence of a location(, but ok, w/e 🤷‍♂️).

Yes and no, while i do agree that this is considered normal behaviour, i also long for a world in which we would be able to say "there's a bombing !" with as much anguish whether its in 'the U.S.'/Europe, or in the Middle-East, Africa, etc.
It's not that much normal i think, and more the sign of a current problem.

👍

If it's so obviously stupid, then your argument is... ?

Why do we not find strange that we shouldn't say with anguish "there's been a bombing !" for something happening in the Middle-East, but only in the west ?

And your answer wasn't a counter-argument

But in the end, if i'm the only one finding this sentence interesting then there's no point in discussing it, i've lost interest in it as well.

Just that it shouldn't feel more normal when we're bombing than when we're being bombed, i guess that's ~all i aimed to point out, yet we're only surprised when we're on the receiving end, nothing new.

And what you consider local is the countries you consider yourself belonging to, i.e., the west, ⟳ .
If you're a separatist from southern France you can say "who cares about what's happening in the rest of France ?", there's no need for anguish in your voice. Yet when the twin towers fell, or something similar, french people could say "there's been a bombing there" with as much anguish as it happened in France, i think that you're omitting the term "anguish" too much in this conversation.

For example, you wouldn't say « There's been a bombing in the Middle-East ! », because we(sterners) would say « Yeah. And ? », that was the whole purpose of this thread, yet you focused on the omission of the location.

Thanks for your comment, may i have your opinion on this answer ? https://lemmy.world/comment/5083460

Anyway, apparently other people here don't find it that interesting(, just like one more bombing in the Middle-East compared to a bombing in the west,) so there's probably nothing to learn by arguing any further.

There's been a bombing

Place is implied. Could be anywhere in the west, if i'm in France it works for the south//north of France, the United Kingdom, America, Australia, or any country i feel like i belong to, that is in my tribe.
But if you say afterwards :

There's a bombing in some place

And that place is in the Middle-East, or in Afghanistan, we would say "yeah, of course, like yesterday and probably tomorrow, no need to be surprised"

It's more about an event happening often or not than a geographical positioning. No need to be surprised if it happens frequently, which is perhaps mainly what striked me in the sentence, we grew accustomed to something that shouldn't, while accepting as normal that we(sterners) were/are the ones doing the killing(, and acting as victims when a few of our civilians die by terrorist attacks, without once discussing the cause(s), and even less the possible solutions).
But thanks for wanting to correct me, it's nice to have a chat with other people than from Lemmygrad for once.

Oh, ok, so that's because we're not concerned by this, they're not "us", understood.
(it's not geographical since europeans will be more impacted by deaths in the west than, e.g., in Africa, it's more of a tribal thing)

I also hesitated to post « If you always agree with "the"( only) point of view of mainstream medias, then you should find it weird », because it's different in foreign medias that we never read(, iranian, venezuelan, russian, chinese, zimbabwean, ...), we usually call "foreign medias" those who are still in the west and aligned with our international policies. But i thought that this sentence was even more im14andthisisdeep material than showerthought, do you agree ?

Thanks, trusting wikipedia because it has a "source"(, as if a source meant the truth 🙄,) is super weird, and i'll also add that a lot of sources are inaccessible anyway, such as those pointing to books. Wikipedia will hopefully(, in part because it's always a mistake to pretend knowing "the one truth",) be replaced one day, it's long overdue.