- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Babies: 6 - 9 Months
Options
NBR & Highly Controversial re: Mosque near Ground Zero
This discussion has been closed.
Re: NBR & Highly Controversial re: Mosque near Ground Zero
I 100% agree with the bolded section - and you are right; kimi is absolutely entitled to her opinion. However, most of us form opinions based on more than just feelings, and offering up the Olympic bombing was meant as a way of providing broader context. We experienced acts of domestic terrorism that were religiously motivated prior to 9/11 - we simply didn't talk about the religious aspects as much because the majority are Christian. I don't think it was a straw man, and it most certainly wasn't meant to belittle Kimi.
As for the gay bar, fine - super. It's legal and the right of the owner to open it. If his motives are to break down barries, cool. If his motives are to piss off Muslims, it's kind of douchey but it's his legal right.
Kimi, I appreciate that you are not suggesting that this community center be prevented from going up. And I appreciate your willingness to talk more about it.
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
I'm sorry...I just have to differ with you on this. If something happens and it doesn't make it any discussion at my DH's work or in his Marine's email newsletter that goes around, any discussions on FB, or brought up while I'm out and about while in public....it must not be "that big of a deal." I'm just looking at the facts here. If it happens, and you don't hear about it at all. Ever. Until it's "old news" and no one cares about it any more...how could it have been that big?
I don't think he meant you, epphd. I believe he meant that those who belittled me by saying "OMG! I can't believe you didn't know about the Olympics bombing!! You're so ignorant and you should be ashamed!!" had straw man arguments.
I don't think that means what you think it means. (spoken with a Spanish accent)
: an awareness of one's own personality or individuality
Is this a weird call-out? A joke I'm not getting? Wha?
Maybe the topic is too much to take on with some on this board. I guess we will see.
You know, "I" am the one to misread your post. You are completely correct. I apologize. (I was trying to read several of the posts on this thread, and got this one mixed into the one after it.
I agree with you. (The spanish accent was "Domingo Montoya")
/read me trying to be funny to lighten the mood.
OMG. So if a world event is not discussed by the Marines or on Facebook, it is not that big a deal? Am I reading you correctly?
Look, just admit that you don't care about everything that goes on in the world. No one has to be hyperaware of every single political event or tragedy that takes place. But to conclude that if little old YOU doesn't hear about them, they're not really "big deals" is a pretty goddamn myopic viewpoint.
You two ladies seem to have forgotten to include DH's workplace discussions as well as anything I am exposed to while out in public.
Again, sorry y'all don't agree but that's how I see it. If something isn't big enough to be discussed by ANYONE around me by the time it becomes old news and no one is talking about it anymore...why should I care about it? Explain that to me, and maybe I'll see your point.
Oh, noes! We forgot about the workplace discussions of your husband! You're right - so very silly of us to dismiss these as part of your extensive information-gathering.
Why should you care? Because you live in the world, ffs. Because big domestic and world events influence each other. Because you possess and want to express opinions about something as potentially impactful as allowing the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, yet clearly have no intellectual curiosity to understand the context of this event other than "it wasn't on Facebook."
Of course you can have opinions. But some opinions are better informed (and, I'm sorry, more valuable) than others.
I obviously do have intellectual curiosity. Just because I don't read the newspaper or watch the news does not mean I don't gather facts any other way. I simply cannot understand why you ladies can't grasp this concept. Can you tell me of one recent event that's happened that didn't make it onto your Facebook page or you didn't hear about it from a friend or you didn't see something about it while in a store or out in a restaurant or just out living your life? Yes, I miss things but the truly big things get talked about.
Also, can you cite one time in this entire discussion where I incorrectly stated something because I'm not "better informed"?
I could cite dozens of them. But you'd probably think I was making them up, since you've heard about all important things in this world
Never said that. I said that I hear about big news. I know that what's important to some people aren't important to others.
Uh, yes, you said that if you didn't hear about it, it's not a big deal.
Ok. Let's test it. Tell me what you think the 5 biggest news stories are right now--besides this mosque bs.
I'm sure you don't think genocide is important, so I'll offer that the Khmer Rouge trials probably don't make your top 100.
Right. But since I can't rightly define what's "important", how can I say that I've heard about all the important things in the world? Can you define an "important event" for me?
Check this out. Thought it might provoke some thought in this area since we all are getting warmed up on the subject of what is important or a big deal. As we all know, it is a relative concept.
The Monkeysphere
https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
or more clearly, Dunbar's Number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
basics:
Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.
I'd add to this list:
flooding in Pakistan (one of the largest natural disasters in history
Israel/Iran (will they attack the nuke sites?)
the CAPRISA 004 microbicide trial
the extradition of Viktor Bout
the Benin pyramid scheme that seems poised to bring down government
the ISI declaring militant groups within Pakistani territory a greater threat to national security than India
Sarkozy's crackdown on the Roma
Vincente Fox's declaration that Mexico should decriminalize drugs
Germany's impressive economic recovery
Of course I'm sure these are just things that are important to ME, not to the wider world
.
3 of these have been on my FB. Also, although it's a good idea to friend NPR or other news to get my news that would sort of defeat the purpose of my "filter". I don't want to be exposed to all the blood, guts, and gore of the news and I don't need to hear about every single serial killer or child abuse case. It's just depressing and I choose not to expose myself to it.
Has it ever crossed your mind that there is also a lot of really interesting, good and inspiring stuff happening every day around the world? By blocking out the news you're missing that too.
So wait...going based on your previous list of "big news"...1 was good. Tell me again why I should wade through all the other stuff that the news puts out just to get 1 out of 9 good news articles.
You're not making sense though. The stories I just named are among some of the most widely reported in the world right now. So no, you're not being exposed to them without reading the newspaper or watching the news because you've just admitted that you haven't heard of any of them!
The flooding in Pakistan has affected more people than the Haitian earthquake, the genocide in Darfur, the Indian Ocean tsunami and Cyclone Nargis--COMBINED. Don't you think it's a little bit disturbing that you haven't heard about it?
Um no. At least 3 of them can be considered objectively good. Others have good aspects to them. It's telling that you know so little about what is going on the world that you assumed all of those things were bad!
Yes, we all hear about things in our everyday lives, but by relying on your DH or your FB friends as your only source if information is what bothers me. Everyone has bias. What you are "hearing" is filtered through however many sources before you hear it. People will also either intentionally or not put a spin on something. Sometimes we don't even realize it when we are relaying information. You need to consider that what you "hear" and are exposed to may not be the unvarnished truth.
I understand that you don't want to hear about all the "bad stuff." Every once in a while DH will call/email me and say don't read such and such story because it is horrible. (It is usually about some horrific child abuse case.) But I don't censor all news because of one story.
With all due respect, I wouldn't call my listing a bunch of random events "exposure." You really know more about the CAPRISA trial than you did before? I highly doubt it, since you referred to it as a "bad" event.
I think what you're not understanding here is that getting information from third-hand sources is not effective. Why on earth would you believe a random person on the internet's (or even a random coworker of your husband's) interpretation of events? I could tell you that the CAPRISA trial proved that vaccines cause autism. Why should you believe me? Wouldn't it be better to read an unbiased account of it from a respected newspaper?
https://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-aids2010-caprisa004-20jul10-98825884.html
There. Happy? It's a gel to help stop the transmission of HIV. So far it's 39% effective. You're right. It's a good thing. I get it...all I'm saying is I get my LIST of top news from day to day life then take it upon myself to research said list instead of hearing what the news channels and journalists have to say about it in the newspaper or on the news with 20 different stories about child abuse or neglect or robberies or murders in between. I don't see what the big deal is.
Also, as far as the bold print goes: I'd know if that were the case, it would have been plastered all over TB for days.
You know...I get it. You all don't like my methods of getting news. I honestly don't care. You get yours your way, I get mine my way. The point of this whole post was supposed to be about how we feel about the mosque being built near Ground Zero. Why, when you ladies found out how I get the "headlines" of my news stories, are my opinions all the sudden invalid or any less important than the rest of yours? I fully research the subject to form my opinions and even if I hadn't...I never tried to pass them off as anything but my opinions. Why do you care how I become informed about today's events? Whether I'm informed about them all or not, I'm still informed on the one we were originally discussing. I don't enter into conversations I'm not willing to put the effort into finding out about...I just don't get why it was so important to you "ladies" to trample all over my choices.
You seem to be really wary of learning about specific types of stories, and I think maybe you are looking at the wrong news sites. There are definitely some great news websites that focus on stories that go beyond the five o'clock gore that some local news channels seem to focus on.
Here are some that I like:
https://www.npr.org/
https://www.reuters.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
https://news.yahoo.com/ (this is actually my go to since it has news stories from a variety of sources.)
Sure, it's not always sunshine and roses, but life rarely is.
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
Personally I care because I think it makes for more interesting conversations. I like being challenged in my viewpoints as long as the challenger can back up her side. I also care because I get the sense you are actually a smart person and that you might enjoy learning more extensively about current events. This thread took a turn - that happens all the time and it isn't always a bad thing.
Last, I care because it makes me sad to see a woman who chooses to remain uninformed - or at least, prefers to limit how informed she is.
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
Upon doing further research on mxolisi's list...I found this. This is more "blood and guts" than I prefer to expose myself to. Here's what I would censor myself from by not listening to NPR:
I have a right to choose what kinds of things I get exposed to, and I choose for them not to be about torture and bad images like those listed above. Yes, I get that this story is about one of the men responsible for these atrocities being held accountable finally, but I just don't like reading news articles about the "good" things like this because the journalists never put it into a good light. They always have to expound on the negatives and make sure they pull the audience in with their horrible details of the prison and how the people were kept and killed and then buried in mass graves. Why can't they just skip over the gory details and say that he's being held accountable? That's sort of my whole point with this...I don't enjoy all the horrible details about what humanity has the capability of doing to one another. If I'm going to hear about this, I'd rather hear from my dad or a friend of mine that "The Khmer Official was sentenced to 35 years in prison." I can then say "Who's that?" and they'll say (knowing me and knowing that I don't like all the horrible details) "A guy that was responsible for mass genocide in Cambodia a while back." Then viola! I'm up to speed without having to hear about how the prisoners were kept and the blood still splattered on the wall. I choose to censor what I see and hear. I choose to allow my loved ones to be the ones that do that for me.
See my post above. I'm sheltered. I like it that way. Call me "old fashioned" I suppose, but I prefer not to be scared every where I go or over exposed to the blood and guts and gore of the world.
What I don't think y'all understand is that my world is a lot of sunshine and roses, but that's because of how I choose to live my life. I don't let the bad stuff in. Do I know it's out there happening? Of course. I'm not stupid (despite what some of you have insinuated). Do I know that bad things can happen to me? Yes. Again, I'm not stupid. Do I choose to expose myself to all the bad stuff that's going on in the world that I live in today? No. That's my choice.
**Edited to change "below" to "above" since referenced post is above this one, not below.**
So you didn't find the conversation interesting before everyone found out I don't read the newspaper or watch the news or vote? Were you not challenged in your viewpoints and could I not back up my side?
I am a smart person, but the only current events I wish to learn about are those that actually have something to offer as far as benefiting my or my family's lives. Call me selfish, but that's the bottom line. Obviously if something like the mosque discussion falls into my lap and I have the time, I'll research it then too. Otherwise, if it's not beneficial I ignore it.
Why does it make you sad that I choose to limit how informed I am? What is sad about my situation?
No, you couldn't back up your side. You threw out a story about a church that was being "prevented" from being rebuilt - and it wasn't accurate.
You can see my post in your FFFC as to why it makes me sad that women disproportionately seem OK with sheltering themselves from information.
If you are happy with what you learn and what you know and don't know, that's great. However, when you weigh in on subjects that are controversial, and then respond to a legitimate question about your position with "I don't read the news", you open yourself up to an attack on just how knowledgeable on the subject you are. Your opinion carries less weight as a result. If you're fine with that, super. I would not be.
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
I think it's sad because I think people have a responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the world and how their choices impact it.
You are absolutely right that there is a lot of bad stuff in this world. And I want to be as sure as I can be that I'm not directly contributing to it--whether it is child slavery on sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic,pork processors locking their illegal immigrant workers in the plants where they work or American cotton subsidies placing an overwhelming burden of poverty and debt on Sahelian farmers.
I do have power to not contribute to these situations--and even to better them, but I can't exercise that power unless I make myself aware of what is happening. In the religious tradition in which I was raised, to be willfully ignorant when we have the power to act is as much a sin as knowingly causing harm.