Virginia Tech massacre

[Darth Mandarb]

I don't mind when somebody says something negative about my country.  There are, as I've stated several times, some very negative aspects of the U.S. (just as there are about every country/nation).

What I mind is when it's a baseless insult for the sake of insulting.

There are countless examples of this in the GenGen (several in this thread alone).  If you want to make a statement/insult about something that the U.S. is and/or does (whether it warrants an insult or not) then you need to back it up with some kind of reasoning and/or explanation.  Don't just throw out, "Just another [typical] American" or "Only the U.S. would be that stupid ..."  It makes you sound childish and ill-informed.

Reminds me of some of these college kids who get out into the real world for 2 months and suddenly think they know it all and they start spouting off the last bit of verbal-garbage they heard some professor prattle off.

Everybody just ignores (or worse, goes along with or even worse, deny it's happening) the America bashing ... yet if I were to make a generalized blanket statement about another country there'd be two pages of arguments/flaming towards me for being an ignorant American which would then turn into several more pages of American bashing.

Ohhhhh the hypocritical irony of it all.

[MrColossal]

Any example threads off the top of your head that you could point me to?

[Darth Mandarb]

Any example threads off the top of your head that you could point me to?

Damn you for makin' me take the time ...

Should guns be outlawed, not because of what they are, but because American society breeds people crazy enough to use them?

While I feel for the victims of the university, I can't help but feel America's created this problem all by itself.

Also, with my previous statement that while I felt for the VT victims, I couldn't help but think America brought this onto itself, I meant exactly that.

Still, afaik, it's not even up to a tenth of what's in America...

[MrColossal]

no I ment of people saying X country that isn't america is dumb and then the thread going on for pages yelling at that person.

[Helm]

Any example threads off the top of your head that you could point me to?

Damn you for makin' me take the time ...

Should guns be outlawed, not because of what they are, but because American society breeds people crazy enough to use them?

While I feel for the victims of the university, I can't help but feel America's created this problem all by itself.

Also, with my previous statement that while I felt for the VT victims, I couldn't help but think America brought this onto itself, I meant exactly that.

Still, afaik, it's not even up to a tenth of what's in America...

It's obvious there's some interference then, because I don't see any of these quotes as HATEFUL BASHING of america.

[Darth Mandarb]

It's obvious there's some interference then, because I don't see any of these quotes as HATEFUL BASHING of america.

No kidding?

I'm not going to make the effort (not worth it) to re-read all the posts in this thread ... but I don't think I ever called the bashing "HATEFUL".

However... hateful or not, interference or not, it's still bashing without explanation.  Which is what the point is.

[Helm]

I suspect a culture clash in this case. As to what constitutes an opinion, what an attack, what is warranted and unwarranted.

I've ran into this mainly with americans (see this isn't a bash, this is an empyrical observation) on the internet who are seemingly insulted by that I have opinions, and that I voice them in their presense constitutes an attack. They treat opinion as antagonism whereas I voice opinion for discussion.

I attribute it to that the US has no history of heavy cultural declaration or political dialogue whereas at least I come from greece (and many european countries like Spain or France) where it's hard to walk 10 steps without someone getting into a heated dialogue about the goverment's lackings in policy with you. It's alright to have opinions, though that means it's alright for other people to have opinions also and you should be prepared to endure them in all their seeming ignorance or wrongness. You'll notice I've never ever ever on this forum tried to tell people to stop saying something. I might disagree with what they say hugely, but I will not tell them to cut it out. It's suprizing for me that for example, Nacho, who when we were sitting at a table in greek mittens drew a whole political map of Spain on a tablecloth to explain the current political climate there, now asks self-censorship on the part of forum users in matters of 'america bashing'. Since when did it become not okay for people to have opinions on the subject, Nacho? Just because you've obviously had this argument with your real-life aquaintances too much and you're burnt out on it now it's not okay to talk about it on the forum?

Anyway.

It's not just the US, the UK in my opinion the strongest and most rigid class society as well, has its own way to deal with this. They tolerate 'opinions' better than the US people do, just as long as you're not very loud, and are polite. And easy to ignore.

If there's no hate, there's no bash, Darth. I could say something that is ill-founded or not founded at all about your country's faults, and we can discuss if it's founded or not, but it never becomes a bash unless there's malevolence involved. I might say 'to the best of my knowledge dolphins are fish' and someone can come in and correct me that they're mammals and that doesn't constitute an attack on how awesome dolphins are. I can theorize something, like a connection between violent culture and violent crime in a country without this meaning that I want to see said country in flames for its faults.

You're just super defensive, even for an american.

[LimpingFish]

Should guns be outlawed, not because of what they are, but because American society breeds people crazy enough to use them?

I was not making a statement of fact, or even a statement of opinion. I was just extrapolating from an earlier comment about how it isn't the availablity of guns that are the problem, but rather a number of facets (possibly even failings) of American society that enable situations like this to develop.

Society in general has these failings, or elements thereof. But mixing them with a culture where guns are "easily" available, and otherwise law-abiding citizens feel the need to arm themselves, can prove a deadly cocktail.

It seems that a number of Americans(majority or minority, I couldn't guess)think of the gun as no more that a method of security, like a steering wheel lock or personal alarm.

A society that, intentionally or not, instills such fear into it's citizens must have problems that go beyond simple xenophobia(real or imagined).

[Huw Dawson]

Out of interest, what do you lot think would actually happen if someone came out tomorrow and said "guns are now completely illegal everywhere in the USA"? I honestly can't see any difference in the end to the vast majority of cases...

... so why does the law exist if it promotes the use of killy weaponry for no actually gain to the american public? Is owning a gun just for owning a guns sake these days? If the law does not in fact do anything, it should be removed IMHO.

- Huw

[Darth Mandarb]

I think my point is being overlooked here.

I don't mind the bashing if it's backed up with the reasoning behind the bashing.  I'm happy to "discuss" and "debate" most issues.  There are things about America that I wouldn't mind bashing myself.  However, were I to do so, I wouldn't make a generalized blanket statement and just leave it at that.

But, as with the examples I provided from this thread, statements were made without any explanation as to why they were made.

Whether opinion, attack, warranted or unwarranted, hate or no-hate, it's bashing.  Maybe it's semantics or just differrent opinions as to the definition of "bashing" that's causing the confusion here.

It's very easy to just say things like:

You're just super defensive, even for an american.

Which is very cleverly (if a tad on the childish side) written.  Because if I respond to it in any fashion other than this I'm just being a "super defensive" american.  However, it's worth noting that it's a rather generalized blanket statement by itself.

Now ... I can't speak for other countries (Greece, Spain, France, UK ...) as to their "history of heavy cultural declaration or political dialogue" but I haven't been able to walk the streets of the U.S. in years without hearing and/or seeing some kind of political dialogue.  Have you spent a lot of time walking these same streets in the U.S. to know this for fact?

I'm not going to comment on anything about Greece.  I've never been there to experience it for myself.  The only experience I've had with Greeks are the people that owned a restaraunt in my home town.  I found them all (the ones I dealt with) to be very rude and loud and not very polite to their customers.  And I wasn't the only one because most people felt the same way, stopped going to the restaraunt, and they went out of business beause nobody liked their rude service.  Now ... should I assume that all Greeks are this way?

I've ran into this mainly with americans (see this isn't a bash, this is an empyrical observation) on the internet who are seemingly insulted by that I have opinions, and that I voice them in their presense constitutes an attack. They treat opinion as antagonism whereas I voice opinion for discussion.

I have no problem what-so-ever with folk expressing their opinions if they back it up with some explanation.  This is common sense and to imply that I don't tolerate other's opinions (empyrical observation or not) is just ignorant.  It's not because I'm an American.  It's not because I'm "super defensive".  It's because, like everybody else involved in this debate, I'm putting my point across.  Which is kind of the point in a debate.

As I commented above about my experience with Greeks ... I don't say anything about you based off the country you come from (though I have had empyrical observations of Greeks in the past - and not just on the internet).

Seems to me, at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  My point was that statements (bashes) were made with no explanation given.  Plain and simple.  Now it's turned into another rant on Americans.

Shocking.

I suppose I should thank you, as you proved my point rather nicely.

[evenwolf]

Cho Yun Fat = Cho Seung-Hui???????? We've found the missing link!  This case is solved.  Lock up asian cinema.... and asian actors while you're at it!

[vict0r]

I never said he did. I'm saying that I drew connections between the different sets of pics because of their similarity. I'm very intrigued by this person actually, and I'm trying to understand what he was thinking, and why excactly he did what he did. It might be that he drew connections between Oh Dae-su's life and his own. But I don't know and I might never know.

This is just my theories!

[evenwolf]

See my edit.   Sorry it took some time.   A good ten minutes to prove that those photos mean jack squat.  You want to understand the killer?  He was mentally ill and bullied over his race and intelligence.   And he wanted attention.  You can stop being intrigued now.

[vict0r]

No... No, I can't. I know he was mentally ill. Maybe even insane! But still..

And if you actually read what I said, you'll know that I never said that I thought that any of them had anything to do with eachother.

[evenwolf]

Yes, you did.  You proposed that Cho Yun Fat had some sort of movie poster influence on the kid.

Cho Seung-Hui is the definition of insanity.  Are you kidding??  You do not understand mental illness.   Please do more research on the topic than you do on this teenager.  75% of what ALL news stations guess about the boy will be wrong.   You are buying into their hype.   Cho wasn't sending you some secret message.   "Ax ismail" isn't rosebud.

Read about every other serial killer and you'll find most were sociopathic.  Charles Whitman, the clock tower sniper that killed 16 people had a history of mental illness.   You will find trends.   But you will never understand insanity.

That's what's so insane about it.

[voh]

Darth, criticism != bashing.

The two aren't synonymous with one another. Oftentimes they come together into the same thing, but right now I don't see it like that.

When I say I feel that America has partly brought this upon themselves, I'm not saying that to say "BOO AMERICA BAD DIE", but I'm saying it out of a sincere worry that things are going in the wrong direction. I don't hate America, I don't hate Americans, but I do think that there are things over on the other side of the big pond that make me go "I honestly can't fathom why".

Am I then not allowed to state that, on danger of being seen as a basher by those who are inclined to take the defensive side? Or am I making a point that may or may not have merit, a good starting point (or midpoint) to a discussion? When you say our statements are 'bashing' statements, you're shortchanging them and making them look worse than they are (and us with it).

America is a major world power, and I'm sorry, but when you've got that position, you're under scrutiny from the world, as we're all influenced by what America decides on certain issues.

While this may not be one of them, we're still concerned. We seem to feel that there are some discrepancies between what the gun laws were meant for and how they're now used/abused. This is concern, this is a discussion.

No bashing done. Not from me, Limpingfish, Helm, not in this thread as far as I have seen.

I can understand why you're defensive, really, I do.

If someone came along and started going "Yeah, the Dutch are all stoned, abortion-committing, gay marrying, clog-wearing tulip eaters", I'd get pissed and defensive too. But if someone came along and made good points, I'd try to argue with them based on facts - and I'd never resort to calling them bashers, as that's just not going to do the argument any good.

But whatever, man. If you feel we're bashing, believe that. I think we know better what we intended with what we wrote than you, and we've explained many times over that we're not posting to bash (and definitely not with the intent of bashing), but if that doesn't mean anything, I guess that's that.

This is exactly why debating anything over the internet is doomed to fail. People lose nuance, because there's no body language and subtle details like tone of voice and such. It's a shame, but I guess it's something inherent to the medium.

[EagerMind]

In the language you use there are the signifiers of a whole mentality that is mostly ecountered en-masse in the US in my opinion. You live in a huge country, and you've been led to fear people you don't know constantly (by whom and for what reason is a different discussion). I don't think if boom! tomorrow all guns are outlawed in the US, the citizens won't find ways to kill each other (though probably in less numbers and possibility of success). I think it takes a long period of hard work on many levels to undo the damage in the US that an intentionally cultivated culture of ignorance, fear and violence has created.

So Americans who are gun activists (or I guess you're saying all Americans) are ignorant pawns brainwashed into an acquiescent state of fear and violence by some unnamed group. I'm having a hard time trying to determine whether or not I'm supposed to take this seriously.

Countries maintain standing armies (ostensibly) to protect themselves in the unlikely event that they're attacked. Similarly, people spend quite a bit of money insuring their property and valuables in the unlikely event of loss, theft, or destruction. However, as soon as someone expresses the opinion that owning a gun is good insurance against the unlikely event that a criminal might break in or attack them, they (actually, their entire culture, given the statement above) are suddenly accused of being pathologically ignorant, brainwashed, fearful, and violent. I really don't understand this reasoning.

In greece, where there's quite strong gun control - in cities at least - the constitution says that in the case that a goverment seizes power from the people and therefore becomes a dictatorship, the citizents have an obligation to take arms and overthrow this dictatorship.

It seems a little disingenuous to codify in law what you're allowed to do should the rule of law fail. I'm curious, how do you exercise this clause of your constitution? Does the government issue weapons to the population with instructions that they may only be used if dictatorship takes over? Are there weapons depots available for civilians to access if the government is overthrown? As expressed â€" “you're not allowed to have weapons, but feel free to resist us should we decide to oppress you” â€" I suspect that this may not really mean anything at all.

Gun control isn't an issue when you're fighting for democracy. I don't know if it's your misinterpreting the second amendment or if the founding fathers of your nation had a strange idea about causality, but the two things don't necessarily interfere.

Gun control certainly can be an issue if the people trying to fight for democracy don't have access to the weapons they need to oppose dictatorship. Perhaps this is what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the amendment. Outmoded thinking? I don't know, haven't really thought about it. But volumes have been written on the subject, and constitutional experts disagree to this day about what their “true” intentions were.

But regardless, I don't see what's so baffling and morally reprehensible when a society where gun rights are codified in laws founded upon resistance to oppressive government, and culturally enshrined by the fact that a large part of the country was settled by individual families making a home on the frontier, has different opinions on gun ownership than other societies. It seems to me that if you grew up in an environment where guns were readily available, handled responsibly, and your parents taught you how to use them out in your backyard, you might have a more permissive view of guns without the requirement of being ignorant, morally misaligned, or pathologically violent.

... is this civilization, democracy and mild tempered tolerance?

Sure, why not? I have to wonder which society is more civilized: society 1, where violent crime doesn't exist because weapons are outlawed so potential criminals can't get weapons, or society 2, where violent crime doesn't exist because everyone has weapons so potential criminals fear reprisal. Regardless, it seems a bit overkill to dismiss a society as uncivilized simply because you disagree with one aspect of its culture.

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

So you (and many others) are indirectly attributing the idea of gun ownership to a culture of violence and general disregard for human life. That sounds like a straw man to me. Actually, you've made this argument explicitly in your opening statement, along with claims of societal manipulation and programming, based on nothing other than your opinion, and have subsequently been unwilling to present or consider evidence supporting or refuting your opinion. The implications of this are somewhat unsettling.

If someone wants to talk numbers, go right ahead. I know numbers can be read any way people want too, it's not going to magically make people agree on this thread.

Isn't that the whole point of going to the facts â€" to formulate one's own opinions by combining fact with one's own system of beliefs and morals? I don't understand where this requirement for everyone to be in agreement with “The One Correct Opinion” comes from. Dealing with facts certainly can be inconvenient when they don't support your opinion, or when different people reach different conclusions from the same facts, or when the evidence provides no clear right or wrong answer, but they're all we have to work with. Consequently, disagreement is probably the one sure thing you can count on entering any argument. So it seems to me we can either resign ourselves to repeatedly pounding on the table and yelling “No, you're wrong!” at each other â€" which I find is the normal course of events â€" or prepare ourselves to try and understand the other side's viewpoint, possibly bringing our own into question, and come to some constructive compromise or common ground. Might the latter method lead us to that goal of civilized, democratic, mild-tempered tolerance regardless of one's opinions?

[vict0r]

Yes, you did.  You proposed that Cho Yun Fat had some sort of movie poster influence on the kid.

Argh... No! Read my posts again! I love Cho Yun Fat's movies and I doubt that he had any influence on what happened. What I'm saying is that the school shooter might have drawn connections. I'm not saying he did! Most likely, it's totally random that some of the pictures were similar! As you proved with your pictures...

I'm not trying to understand or define insanity. I'm trying to possibly understand what this guy was thinking.. And please don't say that I think that he was trying to send out some secret message. But there probably was a reason for him to send out that package. Probably to get attention, but maybe not.

[Darth Mandarb]

Darth, criticism != bashing.

I agree.  However, one person's criticism does equal another's bashing!  It's a matter of interpretation.  (more on that in a bit ...)

If someone came along and started going "Yeah, the Dutch are all stoned, abortion-committing, gay marrying, clog-wearing tulip eaters", I'd get pissed and defensive too. But if someone came along and made good points, I'd try to argue with them based on facts - and I'd never resort to calling them bashers, as that's just not going to do the argument any good.

I would agree that the examples I pointed out in this thread weren't particularly "harsh".  But as I stated above, my point was simply that these "blanket" statements were made that weren't clarified.  Again, I have no problem with people who have/take issue with the U.S. (in a lot of cases we deserve it).  I just don't like it when opinions aren't backed up with any kind of explanation.  If somebody has an opinion (even if they just have an insult) I'm happy to hear and consider it.  So long as it's backed up with their reasons for saying it.

However, if I disagree with it, I'm not going to keep quiet about it for fear of being called a "super defensive" American.  I'm going to respond to it, defend it, whatever.  Just as others are allowed to express their feelings/opinions/etc. so am I.

But whatever, man. If you feel we're bashing, believe that. I think we know better what we intended with what we wrote than you, and we've explained many times over that we're not posting to bash (and definitely not with the intent of bashing), but if that doesn't mean anything, I guess that's that.

Yes, you would know what you meant better than I would.  However, when one is expressing one's opinion it's important to take into consideration how those reading it will interpret it.  In fact, I think it's more important that others get what I'm trying to say more-so than me.  That is, after all, the point of expressing an opinion right?

This is exactly why debating anything over the internet is doomed to fail. People lose nuance, because there's no body language and subtle details like tone of voice and such. It's a shame, but I guess it's something inherent to the medium.

I totally agree on that one.  It's one of the reasons why I never talk with women I'm dating over IM

I know that [most of] the people I 'bump heads' with, on these forums, are the kind of people I wouldn't mind having a drink with in the real-world.  I'm not a gun-toting, money crazed capitilist pig of the west.  I understand (and in most cases don't blame) that some people get that impression of Americans due to the actions of our governement and our pop-culture.  And yes, while I do know some Americans that fall right into that classification we aren't ALL like that (not by a long shot).  Just as I'm sure all Greeks aren't like the rude restaraunt owners I mentioned in my last post.

I know the U.S. is the super-power of the globe and, as such, a target for much scrutiny and criticism.  As the main super-power of the world should be!  But again [beating a dead horse here] a person should clarify what they're saying.

As you said, these internet debates never end well and sort of just taper off after awhile and to be honest, as much as I've enjoyed it, I'm probably gonna mosey on out of this one.

Believe it or not, I like you all.

Even you Helm.

[voh]

Aww, I'm all warm inside now :p

When I said that we've made it clear we didn't intend to bash I meant just that - us saying we weren't trying to be unrealistically harsh. When a clarification like that doesn't hit home, frustration can take the better (of me, for example) and I pick an even harsher way of saying it because obviously it wasn't understood the first time. When I get the same arguments back (which aren't even directly about WHAT I said but more about HOW I said it), I get annoyed.

And while I intended to stay away from this topic after I said that thing that made people go "I agree." (which made me feel quite amused), I just couldn't.

Because I believe in what I'm saying, just like you do in what you're saying.

The funny thing is, I haven't seen any gun-toting, arrogant Americanisms yet. You're not a gun-toting, arrogant American, and nobody's implied it as far as I can see. When you say you aren't one, it comes across as if you feel we've implied it. I, for one, haven't, and wouldn't, because I don't like assuming things about someone I hardly know.

So, when are we gonna go get that drink?