Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

A claim that a reporter started the idea? Link. please.

I don't believe Clinton suggested having American Muslims tracked and for American Muslims to be required to wear faith-based I.D.

You can't logically just choose only those parts of the context that suit your purpose.

[steki47]

[buravirgil]

[wangdaning]

[steki47]

[steki47]

[buravirgil]

[buravirgil]

[buravirgil]

[steki47]

[steki47]

[roadwalker]

As an American of the U.S. persuasion, I'm thinking the general fearfulness and hand-wringing and pants-wetting that goes on in the general public and is echoed in the major media, is partially due to a legacy of relative safety. Sure, we shoot each other a lot, but we're so used to people carrying guns so that we occasionally venture outdoors anyway. (There's racism involved in this, though: a group with a name like "Young Black Men for Second Amendment Solutions" would cause pandemonium, as would "Open-Carry Muslims for Freedom".) And we have a lot of people living under the pressure of poverty, with pressures that aren't experienced to such an extent in other wealthy countries, such as medical bankruptcies. But we're used to that too, and we even blame other people in our own boat for those indignities and threats, rather than those who profit from our indignities. We blame the victim until it is ourselves, and only then, we see the system is rigged.

On the other hand, we haven't had to deal with a major war and large-scale death and destruction since the 19th Century. Two exceptions that spring to mind are Pearl Harbor, and the hijacked airplane attacks of 2001. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was a lot further away from the minds of the general population in 1941 and indeed, Hawaii wasn't a state at the time. Only the attacks of September 11, limited to a one-day attack with terrorism as the goal, (as opposed to territorial expansion, say) caused actual large destruction on the mainland, and to spectacular effect. Most of us saw it on television, however. There's a big difference between being there and watching from safety. I think the distance adds only to the fear, where the actual up close experience of the destruction and then reconstruction brings a closure that isn't as widely experienced.

In the more popular horror movies, it's not the carnage that terrifies, it's the uncertainty and the expectation of bad things that move the audience; the suspense. We Americans watch a lot of war happening in other places, usually involving our military, even if we don't see the gory details. But we know it could happen, if only like another 9/11, rather than a full scale invasion. With the media used as a propaganda tool to echo the fear and tamp down reasonable, rational responses, it's no wonder that a significant portion of the population lashes out against fellow human beings who don't actually pose a threat.

Also there's a lot of money to be made in war and fear. I wonder if anyone has figured out that angle. Hmm.

[wangdaning]

[buravirgil]

[buravirgil]