Communication Making The World Less Tolerant 326
angkor writes "Interesting NY Times magazine article with a contrarian viewpoint: "In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." " Reg. required blah blah - but the point the author makes is interesting - what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?
In a way, that does make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In a way, that does make sense (Score:2)
Unfortunately, many people only see what their personal devils and demons tell them to see. And some people like their demons, keeping them well fed.
I am sure anyone here could come up with at least one example of this.
yep, it is demons, not daemons [vt.edu], but that works as well. daemons of the mind. Socrates and all.
TV and the Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
1. annoyed
2. suffering from a short attention span
or both!
Re:TV and the Internet (Score:2)
suffering
I'm sorry. What was that? I missed it.
On a more serious note, the 'less understanding' comment makes a bit of sense because you can now find news and entertainment that fits with your worldview, and you no longer have to confront alternate views about, well, anything.
Instant communication requires different education (Score:5, Informative)
I've wondered this many times about how the media affects people and how instant media changes the dynamics. I remember the repeated instant images on Spetember 11th and the sheer hysteria that has occurred.
Having taken several courses on film and media, I know that all media is filtered. While we seem to find that the news is objective, we fail to understand that instant news is as subjective as possible, as instant coverage of an even often presents only one side to the story.
The sad thing is that our education systems don't teach us to question the news. I remember being in my social studies class and we read the the news and treated it like it was all the facts.
I think sites like Alternet [alternet.org] are a great counter-culture to mass media. People need to learn to look at several news sources, as well as read up on the background behind the stories.
Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history and world cultures in education.
Education is the key (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Australia, we in High School (senior year) had a term topic called "Representations of Truth" which basically drilled into us a distrust of everything the media says. Apparently, courses like this come up about every ten years or so but, usually, they're gone in a year or two. Someone doesn't like it.
IMHO, the article's right. The big problem is the one-sidedness of the media. The Egyptian youth only see pictures glorifying suicide bombers, while we only see pictures of barbarians who dared to attack the West, the torchbearer of everything that is good and just in the world </sarcasm>.
The people who said global media would bring peace weren't wrong. We just *don't have* a global media. We have two separate propaganda machines, one on the Islamic side (or wherever) and one on our side. We need full, unbiased reporting, not the fear and hate mongering that has filled our screens since September 11. The media shapes public opinion. Most people will believe what they're told to believe.
But then again, I'm just a kid. What would I know?
Re:Education is the key (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that the people who view the media don't want unbiased reporting. See the whole flap about Reuters refusing to lable the Sep. 11 bombers "terrorists."
Reuters has an interesting point. While to US citizens, they were "terrorists," to members of the Taliban and Al Queda, they were "freedom fighters". Maybe the T&AQ are wrong on this account, but lets move into Basque sepratists, the IRA, the Ulster liberation front, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Venesualians, the Iranians, the Contras, the Viet cong, the Jura sepratists, the earth liberation front, PETA, the WTO protesters ... there's a lot of grey area we can get into.
But we don't *want* unbiased news. We want news that reinforces our preconcieved notions. If it questions them, it makes us feel uncomfortable. -uncomfortable is BAD- So instead of admitting we might be wrong, let's blame the messanger!
Not only does the media shape public opinion, public opinion shapes ther media.
Re:Education is the key (Score:2, Interesting)
Education may not help (Score:2)
Re:Americans don't know what they don't know (Score:2)
Very nice city. I was there in 94 around July 4 and was one of the first group of people who got to visit the parliament building (it was opened to the public for the first time then). Beautiful building, I drooled over the bookcases. That queen's chair thing has got to go though.
But what does that prove? Half the US population don't know the capital of their own state, nor their senators, not the answer to 2+2 !
More than half the population of the US can't enumerate the guarnatees provided by the Bill of Rights and can't distinguish between "right" and "privilege".
Most of the kids in school today lack courtesy and respect for anything but themselves, a result of their baby-boomer parents and a "self-esteem" focused curriculum in the public schools.
When kids can't read for shit or do simple math I find those that want these children to know more about world cultures to be ridiculous. Because the damn hippies will go for this and ignore the fact that education in the US is already a joke and they won't focus on the basics.
It doesn't do a kid any damn good to know the capital of Canada if s/he has no freaking idea how to figure out how much tax they need to pay on their purchase or they can't read a newspaper.
Re:Americans don't know what they don't know (Score:2)
i know you were trying to make an important point and i got it, BUT....
the more generalized form of the application would be...
"Nobody Knows What They Don't Know"
so the belief in Western intellectual tradition is that in evaluating information given to us be complete strangers, we would use our analytical and reasoning skills to separate the likely from the probable from the improbable from the "Are you smoking rock?" You neatly point out that the average public elementary education in America blows chunks, BUT, you still talking ONLY about our Western set of preconceptions and perceptions
many other traditions do not embrace Western rationalism as anything more (and frequently less) than just another modality of thought
The mystic/spiritual tradtions such as Zen, Shinto and other Buddhist variants, as well as Sufism, and YES, ISLAM...do not necessarily perceive and analyze the world the way we do in the West
This goes well beyond the superfical disconnection of "suicide bomber" versus "homocide bomber", those are both viewing the act through the Western pardigm of "terrorism" and "national liberation struggles"
from the earliest and most malignant days of Western Colonialism, most citizens of the West have always assumed that our idealized model of democratic, pluralistic and cosumer/technologically saturated nations as being the current "Best Practices" for ALL the peoples of the world
yet, in the lengthy and well-documented history of the Middle East and Asia, NOT ONE democracy has spontaneously arisen the way they did in Europe and North America
Not to be percieved as biased, the same holds true of Latin America....
The few extent democracies that arose (say Monrovia and Israel) were exports from other countries and cultures and many of the extent democracies in the world are struggling.
Face it, there are approximately 300 nations in this world, and depending on how generous you are with your defintions, there are only between 2 and 3 dozen democracies...
yet virtually ALL of these nations have their own national/local media, whether print, radio or TV...
you can be sure that most of the countries in the world have highly controlled and contrived media and that they will publish or broadcast those items that serve the purposes and goals of the ruling hierarchy....
the American and European media sure do, why would we expect the media in a "42nd world" country to do any better...
Welcome to Babel...
it will be getting worse before it gets better....
That's easy, Washington DC (Score:2)
Really Canadians are just a slower, less pushy, better mannered sub-species of Americans. Even though the occasional Quebecois throwback pops up (for novelty value these throwbacks arn't culled)
Re:Get Over It (Score:2)
Perhaps we need "getoverit" training.
True enough. Given the over-emphasis of the American Revolution, I can't tell you how many times I've heard idiots remind Brits "We kicked your ass!". I mean, it's all well and good, but failure to understand that the "revolutionaries" were only about, maybe, a third of the population leads to these huge myths.
The most amazing thing about the creation of the U.S. is not its Declaration of Independence, but its Constitution.
Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:5, Insightful)
I read a really interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly Journal, not too long ago. The article discussed how the Muslim world used to be the center of art and science in the world. They were way ahead of the rest of the world. So the article investigated why that changed.
It made a very persuasive argument that openness and freedom of expression were the primary reasons. Though it may be a coincidence, I doubt it. At the time that the Muslim world was leading art and science, it was much freer and open than other nations of the world. As west became more open and allowed more freedoms, and the Muslim nations did the opposite, the balance began to change and has been that way to this day.
Oppression doesn't work. It stifles growth and it breeds hate. Many of these countries are very successful of blaming the west for their lot in life. It's always easier to blame others for your problems than it is to look inside and see what YOU are doing wrong.
Eventually, this open communication, however, will have a positive effect, I believe. I don't expect it to happen overnight, and there will always be periods of years or decades when there will be heated differences (as we're experiencing now), but the overall trend, as seen from the point of view of a century, I believe, in the end, will show that the world will have grown closer and more enlightened because of the growth of free communication.
Re:Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a second problem I've always wondered about, though (I almost did a research study on it during the beginning of graduate school): people often choose the media they monitor. The problem with this in terms of opening communications and what not is that people will largely listen to what they want to hear. Media anywhere is often a matter of preaching to the choir rather than preaching to the unconverted, so to speak.
I'm all for more media, more communication, more openness. The problem is that most, if not many people, use the internet, TV, etc. to reinforce their own views rather than to seek out alternative perspectives. When you click on a link, it's because you're interested. And more often than not we are interested in what is similar to us.
For example, I browse the web all the time. But what do you think I read? Conservative ezines? No, at least not relatively speaking--I go to Salon, Slashdot, The New Republic, Utne Reader, etc.
I think there's always trickle-over of alternative viewpoints if the media source is trying to cater to a heterogeneous enough audience with multiple topics, and has a goal of being representative. But I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
Anyway, I think part of the problem is that these things won't go away overnight. I do think, contrary to the article, we've become much more aware of alternative viewpoints overall. But I think many of our viewpoints are also just reinforced in seeking out media. I think that's got to change, probably by educating consumers.
Re:Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:2)
I agree that the problem will not go away overnight. But I also think that it's going to just get worse. Technology has made communication so simple and fast that we can spout off opinion left and right, without stopping to think about it first.
Re:Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:2)
The christian one found that science will allow man to find god, whilst the muslim found that science will distance man from god.
So, since that time, the christians pursued science whilst the muslims shunned it, and you see the result right now.
Re:Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:2)
A marginally less simplistic argument for the development of western democracy (advanced in the recent BBC Islam series) is that Europe had more conflicts than the Ottoman empire, and these were only resolvable through elaborate political structures (think modern N Ireland).
very true (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that if I spend a day programming or what not then I'm great with people. But as soon as I start surfing the net and chatting with people I become way less tolerant of everybody.
I think it has to do with how long it takes to communicate a thought. Online you see the entire thought in one shot, whereas in person it takes time to hear the whole conversation. Basically a speed difference. The speed is the main difference.
In terms of tolerating people of other ethnicities I notice no difference, in fact I'm more likely to talk to people within my own group of online g33k friends in real life. We talk fast and keep it short.
I think this bodes well not unless I cut down on my internet time. Perhaps all my fragging is gonna finally backfire.
Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't like the way the idea of tolerance has been appropriated as a good thing. Tolerance in itself has no values, its the things you choose to tolerate that do.
Baz
Re:Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:2)
Tolerance in itself has no values, its the things you choose to tolerate that do.
No, it is more subtle than that. If we followed your logic then there is no value in tolerating Hinduism, only value IN Hinduism. So we should decide whether to tolerate it based on its intrinsic value. And we should determine its intrinsic value...how? Through a rational comparison to other religions and belief systems? That's not going to work! We need to work from a point of view where tolerance is the default mode and intolerance is only triggered by some form of injustice or harm. That's what people mean when they say: "tolerance is good."
Re:Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:2)
Tolerance is the opposite of blind hate. There can't be too much of it in the world.
Do you believe in death after life?
Re:Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:2)
While someone may have a reason for acting the way they do doesn't mean it's an excuse. I wouldn't tolerate a nazi, or any other racist, no matter how much I could understand what made them small minded to begin with.
IMHO there's a big difference between what you do to yourself, or with consenting others, and what you try to force on people. Being tolerant of people with wacky ideas has nothing to do with most people's idea of tolerance, which involves letting idiots push you around.
I'm okay with living in an world with flat-earthers, or the religious, even wacky religions. But I'm not okay with them pushing their beliefs on me. I'm not okay with them demanding the right to hurt people, and so on.
If I was in a tolalitarian regime I'd want someone to come and get me out. I wouldn't want to have to then believe what the new people believed or anything, but if they were offering honest freedom, I'd prefer them over like-believing thugs. So I think we have the right to use "our" might to try to set things right. To give people the chance to peacefully and unobtrusively believe whatever wacky things they want.
To do this though might involve crushing a few people who stand in the way. I'm well aware of the irony in the idea of peace through bloody war, but I think it's sometimes the only way. The powerful leaders won't step down voluntarily and where their will is directly contradictory to that of the people, I think they should be removed.
This gets into the futility of modern war though, where we're willing to kill Sadamm's whole army to stop him, but we stop at the idea of sending in a "murder squad" to kill him.
Anyways, this ventures a bit off the strict topic of tolerance/pushover, but I think context is needed for what might sound like very inflamatory opinions.
The problem of interpretation (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me pick some of your own examples to try to explain it.
Child abuse is hot topic everywhere. But then one must define a child. An 8 years old is probably a child everywhere, but eleven year old girls are eligible for marriage in many parts of the world. Is this good? I don't think so, but that is the way things are in those regions.
Dictatorships are usually violent and always inefficient in the mediun/long run. But the definiton of what is a dictatorship is much, much harder to achieve. Just last week the US government was pretty busy first denying then spinning all they could, their clear involvement in a coup the took down for 48 hours the democratically elected president of Venezuela. And during the brief "provisional" government, during which the coup leaders tried to dissolve the Congress and the Supreme Court, the US government and the IMF treated those guys as the de facto Venezuelan government. And the US press, CNN International in Spanish leading them, concurred all the way with the Washington view and with the provisional government view (to the point of hiding up to the last minute the mass protests that defeated the coup and brought back the elected president).
Pollution is another problem very linked to eye of the beholder. After Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty, we in the rest of the world find it very amusing when CNN talks about pollution problems elsewhere. Sounds pretty like "Do what I say, not what I do". Naturally, the same goes for a lot of things.
So, there is a fundamental problem with US dominated news. And when a non-American media organization gains some proeminence, as Saudi Arabian Al-Jazeera network did during the months after September 11th, the reaction showed that Americans are not better than anyone when it comes to dealing with alternate points of view.
Re:Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:2)
I suspect that racism, child abuse, etc would fall into the category of the "600-1000 dead Nigerians" example given by the article. We'd hear about it one day, then it would be gone from the news the next, leaving us basically unchanged except for a broad sense of guilt. I believe the article called it "omnipotent guilt".
In other words, no, a global media doesn't make us less tolerant of racism, child abuse, etc. We just get to hear about it briefly. That's the article's argument, I think.
Re:Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:2)
LOL
You are right to say that tolerance is not a good in and of itself. It is context and conflicting values that make it a good. The real problem is that that American public is passive. We absorb sound bites and images without acting on them, often without even analyzing them for ourselves.
Going back to the article, I have to question some of the things this reporter implies. I don't think Americans can cure the world's problems. I don't think that America should. Being a superpower is not the same as being god. What we should do is take the time to analyze the information being provided to us. Think for ourselves. That itself would be a miracle
For example, how many people, even in this forum, have taken the time to understand why terrorists target us? In my opinion it's not just that we are relatively wealthy and self absorbed, as the article implies. If that were the case, it would be perfectly justifiable to throw up our hands and brand "terrorists" as pure evildoers. The thing is, they probably don't think of themselves as evil, they see themselves as just. How could that be?
If you dig under the covers a little bit, you may start to question the US sponsored support of Israel, which has conducted a campaign of assasination an subjugation for decades. Or the fact that Sharon was responsible for brutal acts against non-jews, but still (or perhaps because of this) managed to rise to power, without condemnation from the US. The press glosses over the moral bankruptcy of the Jewish state, in my opinion. Add that to the list of things we should not tolerate.
Of course I could be completely wrong, but at least I took the time to dig up the facts and I wasn't passive. I challenge you to divine your own truth, and tolerate mine even if it is different from yours.
We are becoming more tolerant but also more aware (Score:2, Interesting)
On a larger scale you also become aware of something which cannot be tolerated in other parts of the world. Eg. Faked elections, no human rights, unbalanced distribution on wealth, etc.
My conclusion is that the "global village" are making us more tolerant. But also more aware. And the media likes head lines like "Election scam in Albonia" instead of "Germans are just like us!"
Timing (Score:5, Insightful)
In the years before the Internet, most of our communication was with people in conditions very similar to our own. Homogeneity breeds similar viewpoints.
In the short-term, as many different cultures and types of people begin to interact, there will be a lot of conflict as different viewpoints come across. In the long-term, though, as these viewpoints are reconciled, either through debate, conflict, or even violence, the community of shared viewpoints becomes larger, and the differences in opinion should lessen
The Internet should lead to a more unified world community, but certainly not in the short-term.
Maybe, maybe not (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe, maybe not (Score:2)
The article makes a good case. Third world nations see images of American wealth and self-absorption, and resent us for having what they don't. We see images of poverty and suffering from around the world. While we pity the sufferers and desire to help them, we also resent them for making us feel selfish and helpless, and for knocking our comfortable illusions out from under us. Even if we were on more level economic ground, we'd still have trouble understanding other cultures that are filtered into our living rooms, and news services compound the problem by focusing on the weird and salacious.
I saw this in practice on the Today Show this morning. We were treated to the rantings of an unnamed Saudi "religious leader" who called Jews "the rats of the Earth," and prayed to God to kill them all. Then we were shown excerpts from Saudi educational materials which pointed out the warnings in the Koran against having Christian and Jewish friends.* Obviously, we're supposed to be repulsed and outraged by this. I've gotten the impression that such feelings are very prevalent throughout the Arab world, so it may not just be selective bias.
But ask me what it did for my feelings of "tolerance."
The situation in the Middle East has created a climate where moderate Arabs dare not speak out for fear of reprisals.
* The Saudi representative claimed that the quotes were taken "out of context," though I can't imagine a context that would make them palatable.
Re:Maybe, maybe not (Score:2)
However, it would be consistent with al-Riyadh's recent (retracted after criticism) two-part article on Jewish dietary customs with regards to Purim (notably, repeating the ol' canard that Jews celebrate the holidays by torturing and eating Gentile children), and the Saudi ambassador to the UK writing a poem that praised a recent Palestinian suicide bomber, writing that the gates of Heaven were opened to her. Oh, and the recent Saudi telethon that raised money for Palestinian "martyrs". And it's the same Saudi government that concurred with the OIC's decision to support the US war against terrorism... but also declaring that the Israelis were the only terrorists in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
News Sources (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead of being confronted with opinions contrary to those with which you percieve the world, you can be safely confronted with the spin about the world that you already agree with.
Can 'the world be brought together' if everybody is reinforcing their own preconceptions about everyone else? Most likely not.
Television is not the Internet (Score:2, Insightful)
This article highlights the differences between television and the Internet. TV is a passive medium: you don't usually have to think much (or at all) while watching it and you don't get the whole picture because you only see what the person (or organization) that is broadcasting wants you to see (or is able to show you).
If you read about the same situation from credible sources on the Internet, it doesn't provide you instant gratification and it makes you think more (and hopefully investigate more) about the situation. You are more likely to get different viewpoints on the same topic depending on who wrote the information. While this is a longer process, I would argue it facilitates more tolerant view points from the person doing the reading and the research. Instead of taking up arms, the boy mentioned in the article may have decided to evoke change through peaceful means and become a future leader of his people instead of taking up arms and putting himself at risk of dying a senseless death.
Television is a wonderful entertainer, but a poor educator. (Are you reading this, parents?)
Douglas Adams predicted this circa 1979 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Douglas Adams predicted this circa 1979 (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind\-bog\-gin\-gly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thin\-kers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloddier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
My analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
I liken the world before the Internet to a group of really small colleges, and the world after the Internet to a huge university. People come to both with their own little prejudices and idiosyncrasies. If you find people who share your prejudices or idiosyncrasises (or do not conflict with them), you enjoy their company. We call such people friends.
In a small college, it is really hard to find people you like, especially if you deviate from the mainstream in any way [as most of us do at Slashdot ;)]. OTOH, in a big university, you are more likely to find people who share your view of the world. It's not unusual to see very weird (read: different) groups spring up in a big university, whereas each individual would probably have been a loner in a small college.
The kicker is that in a small college, you have 'x' number of people you don't like. That number is obviously magnified several-fold in a large university. It's up to you to decide how much of the world you want to make your playground, so you meet the people you want and are not so bothered by the people you don't really care for.
There are two sides to this... (Score:2)
It is easy to accuse technology for our shortcomings, but that's not true.
We must first learn to dissociate what we see on TV from what is really
happening. So, the call is for depth and objectivity instead of reach.
Let's make a distinction between CNN and /. here. (Score:2)
If we look at a truly interactive forum like
Also, the premise that simply having more knowledge results in more tolerance is an ignorant and uneducated assumption at best. Simply knowing "the facts" isn't necessarily going to change anybody's thinking or behaviors. If this naive assumption were true, there would probably be more vegetarians than there are today.
However, human interaction and communication is what we, as humans, are all about and it's not as though tolerance is the yardstick by which we judge whether that is the right thing. So even if someone came up with impressively persuasive statistical evidence that communications technologies like newsgroups or
In the case of this editorial though, I don't think the examples are particularly persuasive.
Re:Let's make a distinction between CNN and /. her (Score:2)
A couple of points (Score:4, Insightful)
After September 11 (even months after it) by comparison to European news networks it was extraordinary visible how much CNN concentrated on the "War on Terror" and "Live State Department Press Conferences" and "Brave American Soldiers in Afganistan" while all that time the situation in the West-Bank degraded into extreme violence (one side with Tanks, Attack-Helicopters and Fighter-Bombers the other side with Human-Bombs).
2) In order to even start to really understand a Country and it's People one has to live there. Television, magazines, radio and newspapers will NEVER give you enough of a background and people-feeling to allow you to really understand the issues. Going there on vacations doesn't work either - you will always get the "Special Turist Treatment" and the fact that you dress different, behave different and even worse - don't know the local language - will always guarantee that people (even unconsciously) will act differently towards you.
Re:A couple of points (Score:2)
Is it surprising that Palestinians still talk about Palestinian land, "from the river to the sea", or that "In the Palestinian lexicon, Israel has no place on the map" (Frontline interviews [pbs.org])? Not really; even a "peacemaker" like Arafat has made, well, pretty much zero concessions. Ever. Other than saying, well, that he'd consider destroying Israel with demographics (unlimited "right of return" to Israeli land) than with military force.
And as a result of Arafat going against even his own negotiators and screwing over both Barak and Clinton by never making concessions, let alone a peace plan, and stipulating only additional demands, they got Gen. Sharon. The results are obvious.
Well (Score:2)
The Internet does not give most a new viewpoint on foreign culture. Poeple still tend to stick to the news they know. People still worship their local news programs (Americans love CNN. BBC News in teh UK, etc). World views are still largely influenced by school and society.
The only way to truly understand and accept more cultures is to get out of your safe little homeland and go travelling.
He's looking at the big picture, but the wrong one (Score:5, Insightful)
Stalin and Mao killed literally millions per year while US college students studied their form of government and wondered whether it wouldn't be more fair than their own. After the end of the USSR, historians went in to try to figure out how many had been purged, and literally couldn't determine whether it was 20 million or 30 million -- that's how closed their society was.
But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed.
The situation in the middle east is that some cultures are still very closed. When UBL announces on several video tapes that he WAS in fact responsible and a majority of a culture still doesn't believe that fact, something else is going on there. But this is a short-term situation. The fact that al Jazzera exists and provides even a little competition in the war for people's minds, and the net is widely available, means the culture will slowly drift towards openness. I hope...
Unless TV don't show that square (Score:2)
Has it? Last week some rich Venezuelan company owners, backed by some sectors of the Armed Forces AND by the US government, took down the democratically elected president and put in his place the president of the Venezuelan Federation of Industries.
In 48 hours the so-called "provisional" government was taken down by massive popular protest in Venezula's capital, Caracas. The Venuzuelan private networks AND CNN (both Spanish CNN and International CNN) never broadcasted the protests that brought the legitimate government back while they were happening. And not for the lack of cameras, the rich-people staged protests that some days before led to the coup were lavishly covered.
So, what good is the camera if the networks will not let it turn to the real facts when the real facts disagree with the "correct" point of view?
Re:He's looking at the big picture, but the wrong (Score:2)
When did he say that? I've seen a couple tapes, but nothing where he says he did it. Perhaps people read in what they want to.
Re:He's looking at the big picture, but the wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The Americans had been going after Osama for years. Clinton was trying to get him relatively early in his term. That Osama was involved in terrorist acts against the US, and that his mob were the most formidable anti-US terrorist organisation, is hardly a point of contention. If you don't believe the evidence, what are the alternative possibilities ?
Sources of the evidence (Score:2)
Nearly anything is possible. Can you prove that all of the evidence that we have seen (such as it was) wasn't faked? Can you prove that the government didn't do it itself?
I can't.
Re:Sources of the evidence (Score:2)
Can you prove that the government didn't do it itself?
This is absurd, and doesn't pass the plausibility test. For a start, there is no plausible motive for doing this. If they did want to fabricate an attack to justify a war (they could have IMO justified sending troops to Afghanistan purely on the grounds of the Talibans illegitimate and brutal rule), they could have done so without dsabotaging their economy and killing thousands of Americans.
Re:He's looking at the big picture, but the wrong (Score:2)
Repeating propoganda from Newsmax isn't going to make it true. You're dead wrong here. Allow me to interrupt with some facts:
While it may not have been tanks... (Score:2)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tiananmen/Story/0,276
Seeing people at their worst ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the same problem with the media; we are always seeing the culture at it's worst or only seeing the worst parts of it's culture. You don't see the bakers, clerks, teachers, nurses, doctors, scientists of a culture you see it's brutal armies and tyrannical leaders, it's terrorists and suicide bombers.
This is the real source of intolerance -- you never see anything from the bulk of foreign cultures that are worth saving.
Re:Seeing people at their worst ... (Score:2)
Then on the flipside you have people in the United States who are becoming absolutely indignant toward their own government. Depending on who you ask, the strife in the middle east is all the United States' fault, damn those dirty scumbag Republicans. It's a series of knee jerk reactions that only escalate.
For my own part, I canceled my cable subscription a long time ago. I rely on IRC and word of mouth for my news. Less drama and politics that way.
Slanted news stories. (Score:2, Insightful)
The other problem that may be related is a lack of language skills. I only speak english, so reading or searching for information in another language is useless to me. Yeah, theres the fish, but thats no help untill after ive found the article i need to read.
Some points... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, we give too much credibility to the media. Think about how mainstream media covers, often, news about a technology you know well and you know the stupidities that they say, don't you feel upset and think they completely misunderstand? Why should it be different with other kind of news?
We should be able to have access to other points of view (language is a barrier here) and try to look at them with an open mind, this would be more information about one another, not what we have now.
Re:Some points... (Score:2)
Rubbish... (Score:2, Funny)
...I hate everyone equally.
TV and Conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
Television long ago learned that the highest ratings come from controversy; people watch fights - not shows where people get along.
As a result TV stirs up controversy whenever it can to increase ratings. This is the real reason that the so called 'fairness doctrine' where both sides of any dispute are required to be presented continues; people watch conflict.
Given that TV principally shows conflict - it creates the impression in the viewers that conflict is all that exists; how could it do anything but make relations between people in the world worse?
Sorry, "fairness doctrine" is long gone. (Score:2)
Unfortunately for your argument, the "fairness doctrine" (a former FCC regulation) was deleted as a government requirement quite a few years ago. This was in response to complaints from the networks that minor parties were demanding equal time as a result of every news item showing a major party politician, and covering them was not practical and distracted from coverage of the "important" news.
Immediately after the fairness doctrine was removed the electronic media began a massive and unified move to the far left - in news, entertainment, and even children's cartoons.
The change was so universal, extreme, and consistent that now even a moment of air time covering a centerist or moderately conservative view brings complaints that the network has gone to the far right. Actual right-wing viewpoints just don't make it to the air on television, nor do libertairan views, nor anything from most non left-wing-urban-US cultures.
The only exceptions are the exposure of Moderate Conservative (as opposed to right-wing) viewpoionts in talk radio and as PART of the coverage on cable television's Fox News. (The latter has led to some coverage of Conservative views on other cable news channels.)
Now if the media were after REAL conflict they'd be busy covering all sides of the issues, to maximize it. Instead the mainstream media still cover coastal urban and inner-city issues and viewpoints exclusively, with others merely characatured when they appear at all.
The exception of the Moderate Conservative coverage in talk radio and cable news appears to have occurred solely as an economic fallout from the US's culture war: With the Progressive side covered and the Pluralist not, about half the potential audience was not served at all by the mainstream media. Conservative talk radio tapped into this potential source of advertising revenue, as did Fox News when it provided SOME coverage of their cultures' issues and news items.
But you're still on target with the observation that "people watch conflict". It's just that dramatized artificial conflict is much more eye-grabbing than the real thing. So the media plays to their target audiences' biases with stereotypes and fictions, rather than risking offending them or making them more diverse and harder to predict by exposing them to accurate coverage and portrayals of other viewpoints and cultures.
Meanwhile the officials who make the laws and policies are largely isolated from the actual people, but exposed to the media's news coverage. So the media can obtain considerable political power by feeding them false information about the opinions and likely voting behavior of the country's population. Thus they have a strong incentive to avoid any (non-belittling) mention of any political or social viewpoints other than their own and to run rigged public opinion polls whose results can be misrepresented.
Re:Sorry, "fairness doctrine" is long gone. (Score:2)
Conflict every where else is ok with them.
Thanks for the information on the 'Fairness Doctrine'.
Re:Sorry, "fairness doctrine" is long gone. (Score:2)
The change was so universal, extreme, and consistent that now even a moment of air time covering a centerist or moderately conservative view brings complaints that the network has gone to the far right. Actual right-wing viewpoints just don't make it to the air on television, nor do libertairan views, nor anything from most non left-wing-urban-US cultures.
Do you have a speck of evidence for any of this or are you just parroting what the media tells you about itself?
The more the media slides to the right, the more it screams about its "left-wing bias". But aside from empty-headed Hollywood celebrities being given free reign to have their leftish political opinions heard by a wide audience (which is worth griping about) I NEVER hear anyone express an opinion on television that is left of center.
As for cartoons- well I don't watch cartoons anymore, so maybe they're glorifying Stalinism.
Reminds me of that Twiligt Zone episode... (Score:2)
evolution (Score:2)
Re:evolution (Score:2)
What's that saying? (Score:2)
"Familiarity breeds contempt?"
Not a new idea...
-Russ
This is obvious. (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans don't like Democrats, Anglophones don't like Francophones, Catholics don't like Athiests, thin people don't like fat people, vegetarians don't like omnivores, IT staff don't like lusers, and so on.
Most people have a partially tolerant view, that "as long as I don't have to hear/see/agree/participate, I guess it's okay", but that's the extent of it. As for say, racism, the rule still applies, despite all the political correctness we've tried to nurture. (Sure, things are better, but it'll never be perfect.)
Case in point: take a traditional urban black male and put him in a traditional white environment. Who's uncomfortable? Both sides. Tiger Woods aside, since he dresses, talks, and acts without any of the stereotypical "black" affectations. He doesn't "axe" people questions, and he doesn't rap through interviews. I'm deliberately exagerating the point here. While we've damped racism down enough that visible minorities CAN get ahead, they have to act like the majority to do so.
We don't LIKE different. The Internet exposes us to different. Therefore the Internet exposes us to things we don't like. Screw tolerance, I'd just be happy if all those AOL'ers out there would die, die, die.
You know the old saying... (Score:2)
Exposure to others can aggravate existing prejudices. Also, though, exposure can prevent prejudices from forming.
One think worth noting, however, is the role of censorship and bias. If all anyone sees of the U.S. is what a government hostile to the U.S. wishes them to see, then the "global village" is really just a propaganda machine. Information can always be distorted to simultaneously suit opposite views -- watch any political debate and you can see that in action. And in reality, there is bias in all media (the U.S. is no exception). The stronger the bias, the greater the chances that it can be used to generate hostility.
Heh... (Score:4, Funny)
worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is so much information all over.... (Score:2, Informative)
Same with any real world interaction -- e.g., if you have good friends and read "good stuff", chances are you'd turn out to be good.
Is it just me or anyone notice people going into a rage everytime they see the news or read newspapers? The same old eternal problems seem to occupy front pages every day (tanks rolling in/people bombing, people killed in communal violence, to drill or not to drill in Alaska, Microsoft says OSS is evil
Here is my attempt to "categorize" experience on the net:
News: Plusses -- Essential ; minuses -- Enraging/helplessness
Discussions: Plusses -- Sense of community, wide range of views, healthy debates, find out past discussions ; minuses -- too much content
Information: Plusses -- vital for learning, enriching, easy to get ; minuses -- might end up at the same pr0n site/games site after a few hops
Misc: Plusses -- Health tips, inspiring readings, past literature, depressing reading!
In case one person wants to read it (Score:2, Insightful)
The globalization of the media was supposed to knit the world together. The more information we receive about one another, the thinking went, the more international understanding will prevail. An injustice in Thailand will be instantly known and ultimately remedied by people in London or San Francisco. The father of worldwide television, Ted Turner, once said, ''My main concern is to be a benefit to the world, to build up a global communications system that helps humanity come together.'' These days we are living with the results -- a young man in Somalia watches the attack on the south tower live, while Americans can hear more, and sooner, about Kandahar or Ramallah than the county next to theirs.
But this technological togetherness has not created the human bonds that were promised. In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place. What the media provide is superficial familiarity -- images without context, indignation without remedy. The problem isn't just the content of the media, but the fact that while images become international, people's lives remain parochial -- in the Arab world and everywhere else, including here.
''I think what's best about my country is not exportable,'' says Frank Holliwell, the American anthropologist in ''A Flag for Sunrise,'' Robert Stone's 1981 novel about Central America. The line kept playing in my mind recently as I traveled through Africa and watched, on television screens from Butare, Rwanda, to Burao, Somalia, CNN's coverage of the war on terrorism, which was shown like a mini-series, complete with the ominous score. Three months after the World Trade Center attacks, I found myself sitting in a hotel lobby by Lake Victoria watching Larry King preside over a special commemoration with a montage of grief-stricken American faces and flags while Melissa Etheridge sang ''Heal Me.'' Back home, I would have had the requisite tears in my eyes. But I was in Africa, and I wanted us to stop talking about ourselves in front of strangers. Worse, the Ugandans watching with me seemed to expect to hear nothing else. Like a dinner guest who realizes he has been the subject of all the talk, I wanted to turn to one of them: ''But enough about me -- anything momentous happening to you?'' In CNN's global village, everyone has to overhear one family's conversation.
What America exports to poor countries through the ubiquitous media -- pictures of glittering abundance and national self-absorption -- enrages those whom it doesn't depress. In Sierra Leone, a teenage rebel in a disarmament camp tried to explain to me why he had joined one of the modern world's most brutal insurgencies: ''I see on television you have motorbikes, cars. I see some of your children on TV this high'' -- he held his hand up to his waist -- they have bikes for themselves, but we in Sierra Leone have nothing.'' Unable to possess what he saw in images beamed from halfway around the world, the teenager picked up an automatic rifle and turned his anger on his countrymen. On generator-powered VCR's in rebel jungle camps, the fantasies of such boy fighters were stoked with Rambo movies. To most of the world, America looks like a cross between a heavily armed action hero and a Lexus ad.
Meanwhile, in this country the aperture for news from elsewhere has widened considerably since Sept. 11. And how does the world look to Americans? Like a nonstop series of human outrages. Just as what's best about America can't be exported, our imports in the global-image trade hardly represent the best from other countries either. Of course, the world is a nonstop series of human outrages, and you can argue that it's a good thing for Americans, with all our power, to know. But what interests me is the psychological effect of knowing. One day, you read that 600 Nigerians have been killed in a munitions explosion at an army barracks. The next day, you read that the number has risen to a thousand. The next day, you read nothing. The story has disappeared -- except something remains, a thousand dead Nigerians are lodged in some dim region of the mind, where they exact a toll. You've been exposed to one corner of human misery, but you've done nothing about it. Nor will you. You feel -- perhaps without being conscious of it -- an impotent guilt, and your helplessness makes you irritated and resentful, almost as if it's the fault of those thousand Nigerians for becoming your burden. We carry around the mental residue of millions of suffering human beings for whom we've done nothing.
It is possible, of course, for media attention to galvanize action. Because of a newspaper photo, ordinary citizens send checks or pick up rocks. On the whole, knowing is better than not knowing; in any case, there's no going back. But at this halfway point between mutual ignorance and true understanding, the ''global village'' actually resembles a real one -- in my experience, not the utopian community promised by the boosters of globalization but a parochial place of manifold suspicions, rumors, resentments and half-truths. If the world seems to be growing more, rather than less, nasty these days, it might have something to do with the images all of us now carry around in our heads.
George Packer is the author of ''The Village of Waiting'' and, most recently, ''Blood of the Liberals.''
News Flash: We're all similar (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless of the technological mumbo-jumbo, one thing remains clear to me: all humans are essentially similar.
Humans are generally narrow-minded, self-centered, jealous assholes. I'm not happy about that fact, but there it is. There's little joy in finding out more about people far away, only to learn that they're just like people that irritate me close to home.
And, I expect, they feel exactly the same about me.
Tolerance as a constant (Score:3, Interesting)
People do this all the time. Strong headed people dislike other strong headed people, models dislike other models, fat people dislike other fat people, selfish people see other selfish people as "MORE" selfish. It's a coping mechanism to avoid addressing the problems with oneself.
As we become more aware of what we are doing the "appearance of intolerance" will decrease.
Communication and contact (Score:2)
If they are leaning towards unfriendly relations, then that tendency will likely be reinforced.
It depends on the situation, whether communication and contact have a good effect or not. It appears that it tends to push people away from neutrality and reinforces any current leanings.
problem is in the cure (Score:2, Informative)
Tolerance is _not_ based on aggreement. Thinking that it is spawned many of the problems mentioned here. Tolerance is definitely not defined by selective application of censorship. Tolerance is also not based upon the notion that it can itself be selectively applied. If someone gets on the air or net and says they disagree with a particular lifestyle, a particular policy or a particular action then it is entirely possible that if those opinions are not in sync with the elitists that set our 'open minded policy', that person will most likely get beaten, slandered, cursed, looted and at the very least censored. When this happens it creates a further divide. People who did not have much of an opinion previously are now galvanized, with the majority of those on the side of the victimized person. This process repeats itself at varying levels throughout the country and world at large, thus acting as a force that backs many into a corner. If you ever want to be surpised, back a 'harmless' little animal into a corner and watch how it will rip you a new one.
On a related note is the distribution of resources. I love charities. I think that they give hope and more physical resources to those that need it the most. I also know that they are addictive and contagious, which adds to their merit. However they are the results of all good things in the world... ACTION. However, many feel like everything in life, including choices, opinions and thought, is taken care of for them. The become sheep who give credence to the saying that 'there is life then there is living.'
If you choose to give to charities, you are doing a great service. If you choose to give of yourself (work instead of just passing cash) you are even better, and will get a much better reward. (That proud feeling that you made a positive difference, instead of just the fire and forget aspect that apathetically hopes something good will come of your dollar). However the line is drawn when you in _ANY_ way try to force others to give to your cause. Yes, folks that means taxes... which means any governmental funding. And here is a hint... remember that topic about a cornered animal? That happens here. You will drive away those that would normally give of their resources and themselves.
Congratulations liberal, you are your own worst enemy, and especially are the worst enemy of the causes and people you _claim_ to champion.
Results of Tolerance (Score:2)
We aren't less tolerant. We our outraged by barbarism.
Re:Results of Tolerance (Score:2, Insightful)
As t.v. brings other nations into our homes, we see the results of our tolerance.
Television typically brings "sensationalism" to the front, or else the ratings will fall.
We see the murder of innocent civilians by religious fantatics in the name of their god.
The media emphasizes that. Take for example, the middle east. Lot of palestinian civilians are also killed by Israeli military -- in the name of safety and security.
We see women flogged by the police because they were raped. We see teachers sentenced to death for discussing historical facts in the classroom.
The above statement supports the point of the original article. Would you watch the news if it had coverage on how many computers have been getting internet access in, say Sri Lanka. How many new colleges are coming up in middle east. Or, discussing new cuisines?
The sexier news (unforntunately so) is that of people killing each other, or people being weird. Imagine the CNN saying "Arabs are just like us, no big news this week. To keep you occupied, we are going to show cats, the musical tonight instead of nightly news!"
In my country, the TV shows usually depict stereotypes of Americans -- sex hounds, no morals, no stable families, etc. After living in the US, I have seen that everyone is basically just trying to be happy. Over time I realized that people find my conversations boring. Imagine what must be going through the minds of TV executives.
Rediculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Globalized instant communication is a wonderful thing. It does not make us like one another less. The truth is, we barely know one another.
I remember talking to a Chinese person and her saying, "You Americans really think we're so utterly suppressed over here. I love China." And I remember talking to a person from the Middle East (maybe Turkey?). He said, "I really thought you would be a lot more arrogant, but you aren't at all."
After that, we struck up a conversation about stereotypes we have of one another's countries (of course he had a lot more of America than I did of Turkey). So I'm not a rich, imposing, arrogant Cowboy after all! Good to know.
On the other hand, I once talked to a Palestinian who was so angry I could barely have a conversation with him. He wanted me dead, seriously. And I got angry too.. REAL angry. Of course, I believe this to be a special incident due to our nation's rather unbalanced policy over there.. (in my opinion, don't flame me..) so I don't fault him for it.
You can't stop globalization, and it simply shouldn't be stopped. I think we need to talk more, rather than less.
The babelfish... (Score:2)
- Douglas Adams, THGTTH
Science is undergoing a similar phenomenon... (Score:3, Interesting)
It used to be that people all over would do the same thing in their own way, oblivious to how others were doing it.
Now, with the internet, people discovered one promising way of doing something and then everyone does it that way instead of continuing to pursue multiple paths.
A definite double-edged sword in this case, since it can lead to the avoidance of wasted time and resources on lousy research, but it can also stifle creativity.
The reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Many sociologists would agree (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a large arugment amoung sociologists about what the exact outcome of globalization will be. To simplify, those who look at the process from a modernist perspective believe that globalization will create one monoculture because it leads to efficiency. Those with a more postmodern approach say that globalization will actually work to make new kinds of cultures and increase cultural diversity. In fact, the "geek" culture can be seen as a new kind of culture that has appeared as a resulut of technologies such as the Internet.
If you really want to get the skinny on globalization, you should go find some good academic sociology journals that address the issue. NYT certainly can't go into any depth on such a complex subject.
the key is clustering. (Score:2)
"Communication" (Score:4, Insightful)
Random NYT Login Generator (Score:2)
View the article without registering yourself, and help clog up their database.
Consumptive vs Creative Media (Score:4, Interesting)
The author is (I think) talking about passive media here: sattelite broadcasts and CNN.com. The real value of an interconnected globe will only be realized when individuals worldwide are engaged in creating the media discourse, not merely consuming it.
As has already been noted the current "golbal media" is more like a series of biased propaganda machines with a global scope than anything else. I can read kavkaz.org [kavkaz.org] and get a different viewpoint from CNN.com, but I don't know where I can log into a chat room and actually talk with a real person "over there".
It goes all the way back to the cluetrain [cluetrain.org]: until the people are interconnecting and building the discourse with their own hearts and minds and stories, we will never create a social fabric that can resist being torn by demogaguery, be it from facistic leaders or bias news outlets.
Hopefully this interconnection is already happening, but it's going to take time. We (America/The West) are fairly settled into our consumer culture mode. Unless we really decide to take it upon ourselves to become citizens of our own nation and the world, we're not even going to be able to approach the utopian ideal of a global community.
...less likely to like each other? (Score:2)
Less likely to like each other? (Score:2)
Hmm. I used to spend waaaay too much free time on IRC. I visited austnet a lot and made quite a few friends. I've even been to Australia and met quite a few of the people I useta talk to.
That comment in the heading of this article kind of surprised me. I found the internet to be a better way to find out more about people. I was able to ask people questions on IRC that I just couldn't ask in real life. Persoanlly I think that lead to better understanding and to stronger friendships.
But you know, I think the NYT was talking about the media. The media has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. When I was in Australia, it was during Clinton's impeachment. Oh my... I could not get away from that, even in Austrlia! I could certainly imagine nobody thinking very highly of us when our president's in the news for being human, but there's missiles being fired in the middle east. That did get a little coverage, but not a whole lot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think people will know each other better when talking 1 on 1, but you get the media involved, and I think their twisted values will taint everybody's opinions.
as it should be... (Score:2)
Because of its enormous disparities in wealth, and because of the phantasy world portrayed in the media, the US is a particularly bad example to the world.
Living in the West, we have two choices: either we keep our wealth secret, or we work more strongly towards equality, opportunity, and wealth in all the nations of the world. But if we flaunt our wealth and don't share it, the consequences are predictable.
Re:as it should be... (Score:2)
That's nonsense. The hallmarks of wealth--safety, education, abundant food, shelter, travel, etc.--are not relative, they are absolute.
In any case, it's the rest of the world which has two choices: incorporate within their own governments the rights and system of government upon which western democracies are built,
Western wealth was not built by democracies; it grew out of monarchies, repressive religious practices, undemocractic regimes, conquests, protectionism, and cut-throat business practices. Advising other nations that they can become wealthy by skipping right ahead to 21st century western democracies is deeply dishonest.
Anything else is just waiting for a handout.
I find this smugness really astounding. The West has gotten plenty of handouts from the third world nations. In fact, we continue to get handouts. That's what our wealth is based on: cheap third world labor, third world raw materials, and third world dumping grounds for our problems. We have more responsibility to the world than just to say "it's not our problem". Our economic system would collapse if other countries followed our model.
Dare to think for yourself, ya know? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Link to mirror of article (no reg required) (Score:2)
Re:Link to mirror of article (no reg required) (Score:2)
No troll problem when you cruise the posts at only 2 or higher!
First Reply proving you wrong!!!!!
Re:Don't you just love NY Times stories? (Score:2, Funny)
IGT(H)GSBWSGAA
Re:Don't you just love NY Times stories? (Score:2)
Deep linking. They don't want other sites to link to all their good stories without requiring the users who come in that way some pain. They also want some shot at marketing to people who register there. What the NYT really wants is for you to read the NYT online, not sites that cherry pick the best of different media and present themselves as New Media.
Re:My first slashdot limerick (Score:2)
Re:Don't you just love NY Times stories? (Score:2)
I would really like to know why they rerquire registration, but like anyone with any intelligence whatsoever, I realize that asking NYT is pointless. If they even deigned to answer something, which is a big if, it wouldn't be honest in any significant way.
I do post here. 99% of the time about the content of the story. Its obvious though, that being moderated offtopic has absolutely zero correlation with posting offtopic. Heck, if anything, this was the one exception out of many offtopic moderation.
Asking or stating an opinion about the content, is the same thing as "about the content". Not that anyone like you could understand something that falls so far outside the scope of your tunnel vision.
Re:Karma Whorin' (Score:2)
Re:It's true... (Score:2)
Yes, many of the current aggressors as defined by some of the world happen to be muslim at this point in time.
At one time, they were German. Or Russian. Does that mean Russian Orthodox churches were equally responsible?
Religion is a tool. Islam happens to be abused in some areas.
Think of it this way (Score:4, Funny)
Give ignorant people better communication, and they spread ignorance.
Hate is a disease of ignorance.
Re:Communication Making The World Less Tolerant (Score:2)