I don’t think this fully qualifies as GD topic, so…
As of late, I’ve noticed that in the spirit of tollerance and a desire not to appear too stongly opinionated on a given subject, the practice of “milquetoasting” the position is becoming an emerging standard.
For example: “I’m against the war in Iraq but I support our troops.”
I don’t know how this is generally interpreted but I see it as a complete policeman’s exit.
Either you are against the war or pro. Pick a position and make it clear. Trust me and other reasonable people to know that you don’t, in any way shape or form, wish that a single hair on the head of a soldier be harmed in the process. Instead, the disclaimer as is, lends the statement a certain lack of conviction. Don’t you think?
I’ll explain my thought process here. It’s a war. Civilians and soldiers are going to be hurt and killed. No matter how much you support the troops, they are in harm’s way and they will be harmed. In a way, being pro war and supporting the troops is a more cohearant message. If you are against the war, the following disclaimer only serves to moderate your position and make you appear less commited to your cause.
(Please understand that I’m not suggesting in any way that the opposite of being supportive of the troops are Vietnam War era demonstrations and villifications of our military forces.)
Why is it so hard lately to state a clearly defined position or opinion without an immediate disclaimer or appology? BTW, I find this more of an issue for the liberal camp than the more conservative side.
It’s just another sign of the Oprahfication of America. Everyone’s so busy trying not to offend anyone that there is no longer conviction, let alone courage of conviction. Blah.
I don’t see what the problem is. What does opposing a war politically have to do with the troops? They have to fight every war, for good cause or no. I don’t see anything wrong w/ appreciating and supporting those poor bastards who go into harm’s way for us, even if I think the reasons they are being sent is a bunch of BS.
This is not necessarily my viewpoint on the war, btw.
I think you might have missed the point here. For the sake of this example alone:
It’s not about whether or not one supports the war/troops/whatever… unless of course one doesn’t. It’s about clearly stating your position and not watering it down.
A consice and firmly framed position on an issue seems to be erroding in daily life.
On the contrary, I think that the full statement “I’m against the war but I support the troops” is (assuming it does fit your position) more accurate and descriptive, which can be good at heading off misunderstanding. If I went around saying simply “I’m against the war” I guarantee you I would get quite a few people jumping all over me for “not supporting the troops,” which is certainly not the case. There are people out there who, in fact, do not support the troops, and will label them “murderers” and the like, and I am not among that group.
You may paint it as being wishy-washy, but I see it as being precise.
That’s my take on it, too. I tend to say that things seem a certain way, not that they are a certain way. When I say it seems this way, that is my observation, rather than saying that they factually are a certain way, which may or may not be correct. For example, I would say that people seem to be becoming less tolerant of each other. I would not say that people are less tolerant of each other, because I don’t know if that is factually correct.
(I am actually a pacifist, and I don’t support any wars, but I do support soldiers, because they’re not the ones to blame for war.)
Well, I’m personally tired of society (American society?) making me feel like I have to have an opinion on everything. Some things are not worth having an opinion on (like the latest company mugs). Some things I don’t have the time or energy to research in order to form a well-informed opinion. Some things I am conflicted about and may state both sides of my personal coin. Some things I may feel definite about, but don’t care to share my opinion. I’ve definitely gotten my share of odd looks saying, when asked for my opinion, “I don’t know”.
[/soapbox]
Now, I guess if you are going to post in GD, you probably should have a well-informed opinion. MPSIMS and IMHO not so much, eh? But I don’t know what’s wrong with saying the OP’s example if the person really means it
I have seen what smear artists do when a political position is less than precise. You can’t be general anymore; those days are gone. You have to fill in the details, exactly, or the vague parts get twisted around and cooked on a spit the next day.
So if I were to say, “I do not, in any way, support PETA”, would I have to further qualify that with, “However, I am against cruelty to animals”, furthermore, “Unless it is in service of furthering scientific knowledge to benefit mankind”. How many of these qualifiers is enough?
How about, “I support legalized prostitution”. Would this need the “But I fully support women’s equal rights.” ?
In Our president clears things up, somebody suggested that the president’s lack of specifics about the course of action with respect to Iran was an intentional cover for plans to have US troops systematically rape and murder the indigent civilian population.
So I ask again, do we really need to be contantly vigilant for these kinds of (intentionally) mean spirited misinterpretations? Do we have to continuously factor for arguments about semantics rather than real ideas? Have we become a nation of people who thrive on majoring in minor things? I know that many would like to blame media for this trend but I suggest that media cators to rating numbers. If people show their disapproval of this kind of low brow journalism by tuning out the show, media will react remarkably quickly to raise the bar.
Finally, to drive the point home. Last night on his new HBO show, Bill Mahre commented on the story about the Harvad professor who suggested that there may be some significant differences in the thought processes between men and women. He noted that the media created a circus show by painting this guy as a chauvinist (if not a misogynist) instead of actually entertaining the professor’s idea as a topic for intelligent and thoughtful discussion. Why? Because reportedly, a woman reacted with extreme anger at the professor’s suggestion and related feelings of extreme anxiety to the point of blinding rage and near blacking out during the professor’s presentation. Once again, the media chose to feed the troll and fan the fires of dramatic over-reaction rather than bother to take a little time and intelligently explore the validity of the professor’s ideas.
Enough to make your point understood. PETA covers anything from promoting vegetarianism to wanting many domesticated animals to eventually go extinct (i.e., we should stop breeding/using cattle, etc.). What, exactly, do you want someone to understand when you make a broad statement like that?
To the best of my understanding, the professor did further discuss his point. You’re blaming the media for truncating it down to “men and women are just different!” and using that as an example? Sounds like a separate thesis to me.
I hear ya. Perhaps to broad of a topic to make a good illustration of my argument.
I have very little doubt that the professor elaborated much further than reported. I’m suggesting that this is a closed loop system where the more sensational and vague the coverage the more of troll feeding frenzy this becomes. The way to brake the cycle may be to have some responsible and consionable reporters begin exhibit and demand a higher standard of reporting from their fellow reporters. Naive? Perhaps. But the alternative is what we have now.
I watched a local crime reporter last night repeatedly describe an attack and rape of a woman as a “Blitz”. “Beat and rape” seems to no longer be sensational enough. It’s a “Blitz!” now. :rolleyes:
But you are right. Complaining about the way media reports this stuff is tangential to my OP. Thanks for the course correction.
