soumerd_retardataire

Our medias and politicians, i'm from Lemmygrad on my main account if my personal opinion ever mattered.
But we(sterners) have double standards.

I admitted my formulation was poorly written here

If i may, here's an other excerpt from C.Johnstone who's saying that even admitting this double standard between civilians and terrorists isn't enough for us to currently support Israel/westerners :

No man, we care much more about deaths in the west than outside of it, e.g. in the u.s.a. instead of Iraq, or Israel instead of Palestine, partly because we divide between supposedly good western civilians and evil terrorists with human shields, tsk.
5.4 million people have died in Congo between 1998 and 2008, wouldn't we have cared much more if they were westerners ? Because i never heard of that before, and the examples aren't lacking, it only depends if they're allies or enemies. And how many die because of our selfish/nationalistic neo-colonialism ?

You're absolutely right, the truthfulness of this sentence doesn't teach us that someone is tribalistic by assuming it happened locally.

It's only my assumption that an answer to "in the Middle-East" would be "Ah ? Ok, i was afraid for a while(, i thought it was on our side)" that made me thought that. I understand that it was received as an unfair accusation yet i included myself in this and found this assumption more interesting by its truthfulness.

As i wrote in the selftext :

In the end, i found this statement more interesting than it ought to be, as if it taught us something. Our actions are tribal/destructive and there's enough proof for this, but this statement isn't one of them.

Thanks for asking !

I'll take more time tomorrow to answer in more depth(, even if only for me[, edit : probably not in the end, unless you're willing to have a discussion on this topic, i'd prefer to receive counter-arguments or engage in a conversation before developing this]), but for now i can quickly say that this set of rules/conditions won't be defined by a single person(, much less myself), as i see it it would take at least 25 years to build, and 5 years before the first (theoretical )experimentations. It'd be, after all, one of the most important thing that humanity could do.
This disapproval of other values can easily be solved through propaganda, we naturally aspire to peace and thinking that our side is better than the other doesn't imply we need to wage war against the "inferior ideologies", even for their own good, we should aim to change them only through the proximity of our example(, if they accept such proximity).
An obstacle i can see is our leaders, they'll think that they have to act for more supremacy while they still have time(, or continue with neo-colonialism to prolong it), and may honestly believe that the pax americana is desirable, or at least preferable to the alternative of an "anarchic" world. They won't immediately believe that we could make rules that can't be broken, such that "showing kindess" won't turn up against us in the end.
Among many other goals behind the experimentation of such rules, we'll have to think of every possible way to break these rules/conditions, and devise the most effective counter-measures ever thought of, i don't see any other way. A world army is an example of condition(, ~only used for humanitarian reasons), and has the advantage of pointing out the need to have trust in such set of rules/conditions, including the promise to be allowed as much diversity as possible(, as long as it doesn't break the unity).
The fear of a tyrannical world government forbidding diversity is also a reason for why such set of rules shouldn't be able to be corrupted, such decision shouldn't be taken lightly anyway, 25 years of preparation&testing seems long but may be too short, yet i don't see a better way, and the status quo of states fearing for their security isn't desirable(, i mean, i don't think you realize how many wars&destruction we caused, in the name of our vaguely defined interests or whatever, we could do better if we want to( let go of hegemony)).
If we ever plan to be an interplanetary species then it'd be great to have solved the problem of war without uniformity/hegemony before that.
There're certainly other problems to tackle, do you have one in mind ?

• We can harmoniously be united in diversity ;
• We can be united without diversity ;
• Or we can be disunited in diversity.

I obviously choose the first option, you'll probably agree with me, but our western leaders somehow prefer the second one, and they're the ones with the power to improve things.

Then we agree 👍

That's a topic i love and i don't often have the possibility to see someone not thinking it is possible(, i've never met someone arguing that it is not desirable).
If you pointed at our arrogant/selfish desire to be "on top" of the other, then my answer would be to explain why everyone would gain and be more powerful if we're united, and it must be lonely at the top, with only one culture, if we have friendly countries who are really different in many domains then it's better to be friends with equals, we have to think of infallible measures against treason but that's not impossible.

Tribes or nationalism, what's the difference except perhaps size ?
I'm just explaining why i saw an interest in this sentence.

And if it's a commentary on human nature, then we're fucked, i like the current meaning of being humane. I know we're capable of the best, we're simply not perfect and must improve, abandoning tribalism/nationalism and helping each other has been asked for millenias and it may happen but i hope it won't be at the cost of our diversity.

Don't move the goalposts. You didn't say we don't. You said we aren't able. We absolutely are.

Oh, i agree then, except in the case of apology of terrorism/enemies.

And indeed Palestine is easy( tell that to our medias and governments though), but i'd be interested if you know of a counter-example to our double standards(, at least once we're interested in a conflict, it's at this moment that we attribute a range of good and evil people, and are disinterested in the fate of the supposedly evil ones).

And the initial thread was more, since it is showerthoughts, that i haven't thought of things that way, it is indeed a true statement, and more because of tribalism than the way language work, but w/e if i was wrong(, and one option doesn't exclude the other anyway).