Independent Thought
…seems to be a commodity which is frowned on these days. You have to buy in to whatever the national mood is, else you’re a sicko and a freak. I remember when Princess Diana died. It was kinda sad, but I didn’t know her. I was more sad when my cat died. This is not because my cat had inherently more worth than her, but because my cat had a bigger impact on my life than she did.
Similarly, long-time readers may remember that I got a little bit shouted at by rabid people with a CAPS LOCK problem when I said that while I hoped she was found safe and well, I thought Madeleine McCann was probably dead. To be fair, more readers actually pointed out that I was being perfectly rational than made comments along the lines of…
YOU CRITISE THE MEDIA FOR ALL THE ATTENTION ABOUT MADELEINE, BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR SELF LOVING SITE, YOU ARE DOING THE SAME !!! ONLY ITS YOUSELF IN THE MEDIA, AND YOU ARE LOVING IT!!!YOU ARE A VERY VINDICTIVE PERSON DEVOID OF ALL COMPASSION.j jay
This kind of brings me to the problem. I’m all for people getting a chance to have their say, and put their point across, but I am an intellectual snob. I try not to be, as it’s not a very nice thing to be, but when I see a comment like that, the following sorts of things start popping into my head:
- You obviously don’t understand netiquette: it is not considered polite to type in ALL CAPS
- You can’t spell
- You don’t seem to understand that people can make a perfectly rational point that is different to what you believe without them being somehow inherently evil
…and it becomes more difficult for me to take the point seriously because of the way it has been presented. That’s unfair, as it’s an ad hominem judgement, attacking the person rather than the argument. And that is the problem with being an intellectual snob.
Sadly, it appears that this rent-a-mob mentality is increasingly prevalent.
It has become increasingly popular to be seen to “support our troops” who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq risking their lives (I presume that this is not supposed to apply for anyone who has joined the Taleban or Iraqi insurgency and are risking their lives that way), whether or not you think that they are right to be there in the first place. I have to say that I am generally in broad agreement with this argument: it’s the politicians who got us into this; and therefore I don’t blame those poor guys and gels risking their lives for it.
But, on the other hand…
I came across a group on facebook called remove and ban the group who say soldiers are not heroes. And I thought eh?
Some people think soldiers aren’t heroes, fair enough. Why should this point of view be removed and banned? What is inherently wrong with people holding this point of view?
So I decided to take a look at the group in slightly more detail. And what do you think I found, ladies and gentlemen?
BEFORE YOU PASS JUDGEMENT, READ THE TITLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS GROUP IS NOT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH HOWEVER IT IS ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ABUSE THE RIGHT!!!
SO IF YOU AGREE JOIN THE GROUP AND HELP GET THIS SICK TWISTED GROUP REMOVED!
WE ALSO NEED YOU TO REPORT ITTTTTTTTT!!!
Facebook Group: remove and ban the group who say soldiers are not heroes
There are fourteen exclamation marks in the first bit. Fourteen. I presume that a number of people seem to have been swayed by the extra exclamation marks, the multiple Ts and the fact the entirety of the thing is in block capitals, as the group has more than 27,000 members.
Sadly, the group doesn’t actually explain to me why it is so offensive someone doesn’t think soldiers are automatically heroes, or why a group of people who believe this are sick and twisted. Perhaps if I go and have a look at the other group, and see what that has to say?
This group is intended to point out the absurdity of the many groups on facebook that portray all soldiers to be heroes and shower the armed forces with unconditional praise.
Putting on a soldiers uniform and becoming part of a murderous organisation does not make you a hero.
Supporters of the group generally agree that the wars that our armed forces are participating in at the present time and in recent years are unecessary and unjust. Therefore we don’t feel that we should be pressured into offering ’support’ to people fighting and killing innocent people for causes that we don’t believe in.
We recognise that the government are mainly to blame but also think that members of the forces need to take responsiblity for their own actions in choosing to support these causes. Soldiers have free will and the opportunity to not sign/re-sign up if they feel they are being asked to participate in an unjust war, so they also deserve a proportion of the blame if they choose to stay.
Okay, I don’t necessarily agree with all of this: I agree with the no unconditional praise bit; I agree that some of the wars are unjust, and that innocent people are getting killed; I agree that the government are mostly to blame, and that the excuse of ‘just following orders’ is not sufficient. But I disagree that the organisations are inherently murderous, and also with the implication that the soldiers are only killing innocent people.
What is slightly amusing is that this group only has 1,600 members. Therefore the first group is helping this group spread its message to thousands of extra people who it had not previously reached. That, Alanis Morissette, is ironic. Not your spoons/knives scenario.
What do I feel? Some soldiers are heroes, and some aren’t. Just the same as the rest of us. Simply being a soldier doesn’t make you a hero, any more than being an insurance salesman means that you can’t be a hero.
But I do also resent the fact that I am seemingly being pressed into unthinking support for people serving in the armed forces. So where do I stand?
Well, using my capability to make rational decisions based on the information provided to me — and not simply the number of exclamation marks — I have arrived at the conclusion that while I have some sympathy for the second of these groups (partly because I think they are being picked on for no good reason — reading the ‘wall’ of the first group is quite disturbing), neither of these groups accurately and fully represents my own views, and so I am not a member of either.
Independent thought. I do not have to follow the herd and bleat. I can make my own decisions.
…although I did also consider joining both, just for the hell of it.
Hello. I am 
On a tenuously connected note, and between you and me: you WOULD NOT BELIEVE (good caps, eh?) the difficulty I am having getting people to sponsor me on the 40kms cycle ride I’m taking part in in support of sufferers of multiple sclerosis. On average, five people A DAY are diagnosed with this debilitating illness (in Australia alone).
In sharp contrast, $15 million has been raised (mostly from individuals) in the last week in support of victims of the Victorian bush fires. Under 200 died and many people, some of which were insured - some of which weren’t, had their property destroyed. There are also plans to sue the government (although I’m not sure how that will help anyone) and the electricity company that was found responsible for some of the larger fires.
I think maybe once a year we should have a headline like “another 1825 people contract incurable motor sensory disease, bringing total to x”. Perspective is a wonderful thing, but so is media saturation…
Going back to your idea of the national mood, I recently got some disapproving looks for not expressing appropriate sympathy for Jade Goody
Yeah, I nearly mentioned that one myself. “Woman I don’t particularly like is dying of cancer”. Well, it’s obviously a shame for her and her family, but plenty of people who haven’t got on my nerves die of it too, and they don’t get on the news…