9/11 anniversary: Attacks made US stronger, Obama says

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Which creates a semi-related question:

Can a person by his/her own reasoning become a supporter of what authorities say? Because it seems that whenever people are being called to think for themselves, it also includes the implication of disagreeing with the authorities. I for one agree with quite many things that my country's authorities do and say, while disagreeing with others. Am I a brainwashed sheep?

No it doesn't!
Of course there is a big difference if you actually approached it in a reasonably intelligent manner beforehand, then decided that you agree with it. But many people dont do that
They just follow popular opinion and are instantly willing to belive anything the government or media tells them at face value - which is increadibly trusting when you consider the frequencey they have been proven to lie and spin.

Bringing you truth and accuracy is WAY, WAY down their list of priorities. Why? because they aren't required to, too many are willing to swallow up any old crap they come out with. So if its in their interest to spin it in favor of their political alignment, shareholders or corperate ties or whatever, they will quite happily do so, they dont care about morality.

The same can be true of those who follow unpopular opinion for aguments sake, lets say you joined the '9/11 truth movment' based on one persons argument or some crappy video of building 7, if you failed to actually reserch their allegations properly first, that would make you sheep too!

Doesn't matter who tells us what, its the way our though process responds to it (if at all).
Everything deserves a fair anaylasis no matter how plausible or implausible it sounds at first, thankfully most everyday things only require a few seconds or less, but politics and major events require a hell of a lot more than that, since they are rarely black and white!

Trouble is, people often make an automatic assumption based on what and who we would PREFER to believe.
Honestly? eveyone could do a bit better than that if they bothered to try.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by JU_88

But many people dont do that
They just follow popular opinion and are instantly willing to belive anything the government or media tells them at face value - which is increadibly trusting when you consider how often they have been proven to lie and spin.

True enough. But as you pointed out, some people also base their thinking on the idea that if the majority thinks X, then X must be wrong. These people are usually the first and loudest in making their individualism known, which I find mostly disgusting egotripping.

Especially the most major media outlets, bringing you truth and accuracy is WAY, WAY down their list of priorities. Why? because they aren't required to simply because too many are willing to swallow up any old crap they come out with.

Media also has to sell. I haven't often seen media spouting outright lies, but "colored" truths are fairly common. Still doesn't in my opinion justify the "don't believe anything any media ever says" attitude that some people have. You just have to understand that it's text written by people for people.

Trouble is, people are often make an automatic assumption based on what they would PREFER to beilive. Honestly? everyone could do a bit better than that if they bothered to try.

And here we find nothing but agreement.

[Dowly]

What world needs is more objective thinking.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

True enough. But as you pointed out, some people also base their thinking on the idea that if the majority thinks X, then X must be wrong. These people are usually the first and loudest in making their individualism known, which I find mostly disgusting egotripping.

Yup, those people end up as (if not more) narrow minded as the people they are against. same thought process - just at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Media also has to sell. I haven't often seen media spouting outright lies, but "colored" truths are fairly common. Still doesn't in my opinion justify the "don't believe anything any media ever says" attitude that some people have. You just have to understand that it's text written by people for people..

Never beliving anything the media say, is just as stupid as beliving everything they say. Questioning on the hand is quite different... And that means questioning where appropriate, not just for questionings sake. If a small part of us thinks something isnt quite right, it shouldn't be ignored.

Im saying, at least take it with pinch of salt and maybe flick between more than just 1 or 2 sources for the important stuff.
In my book, spinning is already half way to lying. When you spin infomation, you are not telling as it is - simple as that.
Maybe if we meet two opposing spins in the middle we might actually have soming accurate? (that is a joke of course)

Of course there is a big difference if you actually approached it in a reasonably intelligent manner beforehand, then decided that you agree with it. But many people dont do that

Its double edged, you have people who do that and will approach issues in an intelligent manner, but they can suddenly and without reason become bleating sheep based on nothing but nationalism or national myths.

If you want at a really telling example you have to look no further than the last republican debate and the sheeplike "patriotic" reaction Ron Paul got over 9/11

You are so predictive mr objective lol

Accurate though, you will without doubt as soon as your country is in a major topic again adopt your bunker mentality and try and defend everything long after your arguements have fallen apart once more.
A perfect example of looking through the white and blue glasses.

[JU_88]

@Tribesman

That is what people do in hard times, be it war/ terror, economical, natural distaster or what ever... they huddle round the leader / look to the higher order, in religious countries they look to god, in capitalist countries we look to our governments to act.
Its perfecty natural in time of crisis (and in 9/11's case, a time of shock.)

Where things can go wrong is when a government DOES act on its peoples initial emotions, by way of a 'knee-jerk' reaction.
People need a little time to calm down and collect themselves. Actions based on emotions are not usually rational or clever ones.
(Such as calling for nuke strikes on afghanistan, or beating up 'middle eastern looking' people.
those hysterical people needed to get a bloody grip!)
In the long run, you certainly dont want political or military decisions to be influenced by these 'lash-out emotions'.

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

@Tribesman

That is what people do in hard times, be it war/ terror, economical, natural distaster or what ever... they huddle round the leader / look to the higher order, in religious countries they look to god, in capitalist countries we look to our governments to act.
Its perfecty natural in time of crisis (and in 9/11's case, a time of shock.)

Where things can go wrong is when a government DOES act on its peoples initial emotions, by way of a 'knee-jerk' reaction.
People need a little time to calm down and collect themselves. Actions based on emotions are not usually rational or clever ones.
(Such as calling for nuke strikes on afghanistan, or beating up 'middle eastern looking' people.
those hysterical people needed to get a bloody grip!)
In the long run, you certainly dont want political or military decisions to be influenced by these 'lash-out emotions'.

We probably would disagree on many occasions about what in YOUR opinion is "jerk off" decision.
Its all matter of perspective available data or viewpoint you had been represented.

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

They just follow popular opinion and are instantly willing to belive anything the government or media tells them at face value - which is increadibly trusting when you consider the frequencey they have been proven to lie and spin.

I have never in my long life met someone like that. I have however met plenty of folks who just assumed the person they were talking to did, but it's always because that person holds a viewpoint they don't share.