Does Your Feeling Of Moral Superiority Solve Anything?
Recently, 129 people (and possibly still rising) were killed by Islamic terrorists. The immediate reaction was to be sad and concerned for the horrible nature of this tragedy.
Then very quickly the next reaction was to share one's opinion on social media. Opinions of how much you care, by changing your Facebook picture background to the French flag. Then throw in some memes about how we can not blame all Muslims. This makes one feel morally superior, to some unknown person they are preaching to. And it does indeed beg the question: Who exactly are these people talking to?
I do not know one person that "blames all Muslims for ISIS." But that is exactly how various superiority farts were dolled out all over the internet. Are these moral crusaders speaking to their own friends? Surely they would not be friends with people that think this way. So you are telling me they are just wasting their time and energy speaking to no one? Or rather, simply making it known they are better than other people? Just in case you were unawares.
I used to get tired of the phrase "straw-man argument." Because a few years back, it seemed the only answer anyone ever made in an online debate. As if this was the secret word we all now knew to drop the mic and walk away victorious, in any discussion. The often brilliant show, Newsradio, thought the word was "Tublacane." It might have been then, but by around 2010 or earlier, it was "straw-man."
So I do not drop this all inclusive, win any argument for free word lightly, when I point out that lately social media is FULL of straw-man arguments. This one below is one such example of an argument that sounds convicting and emotional, but has nothing to do with what almost anyone is proposing or arguing.
"If only we had a seasonally appropriate story about middle eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless."
AWW, SNAP!! He used the story of Christmas on those Christian hypocrites!!
Only, there are almost no Christians unsympathetic to the plight of refugees in need. To say otherwise is a false argument and a lie. They are certainly not "heartless" as pointed out by this witty status.
What they tend to be, are people conflicted with how best to help the refugees, while also trying to not endanger the lives of themselves and their loved ones here. To talk like that is a selfish act is ludicrous.
The alternative and "loving" way to respond from the morally superior, is to roll the dice and figure, "well, what are the odds I end up in the middle of a terrorist act?"
This way of thinking not only shows a lack of foresight, but is judgemetal and ignorant against people not only using their head to try and think of a solution, but are putting their money where their heart lies.
One example would be the listeners of Glenn Beck. I am no fan of Beck's. But I think its safe to say his listeners would make up the demographic of "heartless" that so many are looking down upon right now. In just a short amount of time, they have donated 12 million dollars to help aid the refugees.
This kind of almost works
I see the above photo all the time when a tragedy perpetrated by Extremist Islamist's happens. Of course, it doesn't make complete sense. It is merely the closest analogy people can come up with. And they break their arms patting themselves on the back once they post it.
But beyond being a weak example, what's the point? Is the reminder truly "friendly?" Or is it passive aggressiveness, that is about as passive as a ton of bricks?
Again, not one person I know blames "All Muslims" for anything. Who are these people talking to?
Oh and as just an aside, maybe don't claim to be an expert on a religion if you have not read their book or studied their beliefs. Was that passive aggressive enough?
One can come to an educated opinion that a religion is not peaceful, while realizing the majority of people that follow that religion are.
Victimhood Is Celebrated
I remember when people insisted on not being labelled "victims." Now it seems some sort of contest, who can claim the larger victim status.
I think this somehow plays into how so many people are willing to defend anything. There are people who lost close friends in Paris, that do not blame the terrorists as much as French and American policy.
The terrorists are not evil, they were just made this way. I mean really, if you had their life, you would brutally kill people too. None of which has anything to do with their religion! Which is peaceful. Shooo. That was a close one.
Pretty sure they are ok with you calling them evil
- In Paris Neighborhood Heavily Hit by Terrorists, Residents View Attackers as Victims - World News -
'They’re stupid, but they aren’t evil,' says Parisian woman who works in 11th arrondissement, and in Place de la Republique, no one wanted to talk about Islamists or the Islamic State.
She Thinks This Is
Equal to this
We all want the same thing
We all want the same things. The vast majority of people want to help in the best way they can figure out. Some just think its also important to not endanger the lives of people here in the process. Keeping this country safe and powerful would enable us to continue to help those far away.
Sure, there are a very small minority of people that just hate Muslims and well, probably anyone not exactly like them. But 7% of people in America are convinced Elvis Presley is still alive. So take that small percentage of nut jobs for what it is.
We should all be on the same side here. Trying to figure out how to make everyone safe. Refugees and the citizens of our country, people have taken an oath to protect.
The answers are not as simple as a clever and condescending meme. But a true and honest discussion on how to solve real problems, would go a lot further. Even if it gets less "likes."