@Nisse_Hult "...black kids... gunned down simply because they are black and their murderers - sometimes in police uniform - don't even get a slap on the wrist." The vast majority of blacks are killed by other blacks. By demonizing and demoralizing police you reduce their effectiveness and put more young men in the ground. If a few guilty cops go free and this evil saves the lives of hundreds of black young men would you burn this bridge? It is like shooting a man with a broken leg and then saying you have solved his problem. I cannot and will not agree with you because all I see is the bodies of other people’s dead children who are only reported on locally or if other news is slow. I will not sacrifice other human beings in a mad crusade. I'm not religious about my politics and I don't want to be.
"To which you'll probably reply that I shouldn't condemn then." I honestly don't care. I condemn them for what I have seen but that is my own choice. You can make up your own mind, it is yours.
"...lot of people who... watch and read them..." I will object slightly here, although ultimately it is your own judgment. You can only know that these people tell you things and that those things may or may not be lies from their perspective (relax I'm not calling them liars). Even if they never lie, the things they say can only ever be their perspective of the truth. Do you also have a trustworthy source with whom your other sources disagree? If you do then you know what they think the truth is and what others think the truth is. Although imperfect, by assuming that everyone is telling the truth from their perspectives you may be able to form an informed opinion but it will always lack an original source (for which the news is not). Basically, if you want to know what was actually said read it for yourself. This is the information age and you can get a transcript of almost anything newsworthy in a few seconds. Never settle for a second-hand account unless you want to be at the mercy of a foreign mind. Listening is essential but you should never blindly believe. After all, a liar can accidently tell the truth by being wrong about what he thinks the truth is, and a trustworthy man can give false testimony through ignorance. The truth is a complex thing and we are incapable of knowing it because we are limited by our own perspective. There is a way to get close, though: look at the facts first hand, then learn what your 'friends' think is the truth, then learn what your 'enemies' think is the truth, and then order the facts to form a picture that allows everyone to be telling the truth from their own perspective. Obviously, this is philosophical utopianism because people lie. Doing this, however, does help because it can remove possibilities that both sides have an accounted for and sometimes those that only one side can see. I'll repeat that I don't think you're wrong for choosing confidants; ultimately it is your own judgment.
Thank you for a European perspective on post- Great War politics. I have seen a few of these points before from American writers. You look at them differently though and that is helpful.
"...all wars are... avoidable." Some wars I would agree are avoidable but not all wars. Perhaps it is a cultural difference but this looks to me to be naiveté. If someone hates you to the point of irrationality, and they have a big enough following, what can you do to stop them? The American approach of being powerful is no guarantee, prevention only works every time with the benefit of hindsight, appeasement has proven insufficient, and negotiation only works if both parties want to negotiate.
"...War is always a choice made by... man - man always chooses..." Unless nature chooses for him or his environment shapes his person into someone who can go to war. "...History teaches us anything can happen again..." War will come again unless the species changes. Competition for resources is to much a part of us for this to never happen again. It just isn't in Man to end all wars. A man yes, Man no.
"…they usually don't understand the causal connections between events and are easy prey for lies and revisionist propaganda." I have talked with enough foreigners to know this is a universal trait. People do this everywhere and it takes a great deal of work to break this pattern. The old adage "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." is good advice in context.
"If the men and women who fought wars had the courage to speak truthfully about it - and we had the courage to really listen to them - war would end tomorrow." If everyone on earth agreed that death would take the day off would no one on earth die? Wishing on stars never helped anyone.
"...his supporters..." -would shoot him dead themselves, although they would have to beat the secret service to the punch. The most likely outcome is that everyone laughs at him. This is a complete mischaracterization of American culture and Americans in general. Only the very farthest right-wing nuts thought Obama might do this and that was stupid. I can only see this happening in the next four, to eight years *sigh*, if we are nuked, and anything less and no, absolutely antithetical to the American political ideology. Even if we are nuked it probably wouldn’t happen though.
"...US nuclear arsenal." Yah well, if there is other intelligent life out there maybe we would be doing them a favor. MAD will hopefully slow even Trump, but if it doesn't we may all already be dead. However, this is an unhelpful topic as we cannot change it or improve our understanding of it.
28
@Nisse_Hult "...black kids... gunned down simply because they are black and their murderers - sometimes in police uniform - don't even get a slap on the wrist." The vast majority of blacks are killed by other blacks. By demonizing and demoralizing police you reduce their effectiveness and put more young men in the ground. If a few guilty cops go free and this evil saves the lives of hundreds of black young men would you burn this bridge? It is like shooting a man with a broken leg and then saying you have solved his problem. I cannot and will not agree with you because all I see is the bodies of other people’s dead children who are only reported on locally or if other news is slow. I will not sacrifice other human beings in a mad crusade. I'm not religious about my politics and I don't want to be.
"To which you'll probably reply that I shouldn't condemn then." I honestly don't care. I condemn them for what I have seen but that is my own choice. You can make up your own mind, it is yours.
"...lot of people who... watch and read them..." I will object slightly here, although ultimately it is your own judgment. You can only know that these people tell you things and that those things may or may not be lies from their perspective (relax I'm not calling them liars). Even if they never lie, the things they say can only ever be their perspective of the truth. Do you also have a trustworthy source with whom your other sources disagree? If you do then you know what they think the truth is and what others think the truth is. Although imperfect, by assuming that everyone is telling the truth from their perspectives you may be able to form an informed opinion but it will always lack an original source (for which the news is not). Basically, if you want to know what was actually said read it for yourself. This is the information age and you can get a transcript of almost anything newsworthy in a few seconds. Never settle for a second-hand account unless you want to be at the mercy of a foreign mind. Listening is essential but you should never blindly believe. After all, a liar can accidently tell the truth by being wrong about what he thinks the truth is, and a trustworthy man can give false testimony through ignorance. The truth is a complex thing and we are incapable of knowing it because we are limited by our own perspective. There is a way to get close, though: look at the facts first hand, then learn what your 'friends' think is the truth, then learn what your 'enemies' think is the truth, and then order the facts to form a picture that allows everyone to be telling the truth from their own perspective. Obviously, this is philosophical utopianism because people lie. Doing this, however, does help because it can remove possibilities that both sides have an accounted for and sometimes those that only one side can see. I'll repeat that I don't think you're wrong for choosing confidants; ultimately it is your own judgment.
Thank you for a European perspective on post- Great War politics. I have seen a few of these points before from American writers. You look at them differently though and that is helpful.
"...all wars are... avoidable." Some wars I would agree are avoidable but not all wars. Perhaps it is a cultural difference but this looks to me to be naiveté. If someone hates you to the point of irrationality, and they have a big enough following, what can you do to stop them? The American approach of being powerful is no guarantee, prevention only works every time with the benefit of hindsight, appeasement has proven insufficient, and negotiation only works if both parties want to negotiate.
"...War is always a choice made by... man - man always chooses..." Unless nature chooses for him or his environment shapes his person into someone who can go to war. "...History teaches us anything can happen again..." War will come again unless the species changes. Competition for resources is to much a part of us for this to never happen again. It just isn't in Man to end all wars. A man yes, Man no.
"…they usually don't understand the causal connections between events and are easy prey for lies and revisionist propaganda." I have talked with enough foreigners to know this is a universal trait. People do this everywhere and it takes a great deal of work to break this pattern. The old adage "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." is good advice in context.
"If the men and women who fought wars had the courage to speak truthfully about it - and we had the courage to really listen to them - war would end tomorrow." If everyone on earth agreed that death would take the day off would no one on earth die? Wishing on stars never helped anyone.
"...his supporters..." -would shoot him dead themselves, although they would have to beat the secret service to the punch. The most likely outcome is that everyone laughs at him. This is a complete mischaracterization of American culture and Americans in general. Only the very farthest right-wing nuts thought Obama might do this and that was stupid. I can only see this happening in the next four, to eight years *sigh*, if we are nuked, and anything less and no, absolutely antithetical to the American political ideology. Even if we are nuked it probably wouldn’t happen though.
"...US nuclear arsenal." Yah well, if there is other intelligent life out there maybe we would be doing them a favor. MAD will hopefully slow even Trump, but if it doesn't we may all already be dead. However, this is an unhelpful topic as we cannot change it or improve our understanding of it.