Am I being political?

So I posted to FB earlier today honoring our fallen, but with the caveat that their deaths were the result of the failure of the world's leaders, THE WORLD'S LEADERS, to find better solutions to conflict. It saddens me that friends and loved ones have died. I feel worse knowing however that they shouldn't have. I was taken to task for my comments implying that I was calling out our country and it's leaders inferring somehow I was talking about Trump, et al.

Yes, I'm a pacifist, a concientious objector, and I lean liberal, but seriously not wanting people to die is not the play ground of any political leaning, group, or person.

I was also reminded that many volunteer to go off to war, to do battle, and to serve. I understand that too. But if there were less of a need for any to volunteer I'd be a happier person. Why can't the leaders of the world put their egos aside and find a better way to coexist and settle disputes?

I am deeply disappointed and I prefer to think that we as a species can overcome any obstacles to peace, but lately less so.

No offense intended to anyone but the world's leaders who seem to regularly fail us.

Edit:. Original text from FB.

On this day when we remember the fallen men and women of our armed services don't forget it is the failure of world leaders that puts them in harm's way. When egos and ambition blind those in power, then it is our young who pay the ultimate price. I am sorry for your loss but more so disappointed with those who profess to lead.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The uniformity seems to be in people looking for a conflict, rather than reading the message at hand. Unfortunately, a lot of those people tend to err on the side of politics, whether or not it is warranted.

People read stuff online and interpret it how they want, not necessarily how it was meant.

Not really political, but you carelessly brushed a bunch of people's political tripwires. I could see that one coming.

In reply to vwcorvette:

You were entirely correct. Military action is what happens when politics fails.

I'd like to think that we could rise above it as a species but given the past 5,000 or so year history, I think we're destined to bash each others' heads in for eternity. Our clubs have just gotten better.

GameboyRMH wrote: Not really political, but you carelessly brushed a bunch of people's political tripwires. I could see that one coming.

Is it careless though? I said what I said and I mean it. Am I supposed to tiptoe lightly around because someone might be offended by what was and is intended to be a statement of true sincerity? Most of the blow back has been from some I might label of having a warrior mindset, not "snowflakes" as the common euphemism is employed. What's so wrong with not wanting people to die? And, I am by no means attacking you here.

BTW, what exactly does being political mean? Maybe I'm the one who's clueless?

I think it's a weakness of their belief system if they felt "attacked". Sort of like how two straight people, one comfortable around anyone who is "other" and one who is homophobic will react to certain situations very differently.

You're just running into politiphobes.

vwcorvette wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Not really political, but you carelessly brushed a bunch of people's political tripwires. I could see that one coming.

Is it careless though? I said what I said and I mean it. Am I supposed to tiptoe lightly around because someone might be offended by what was and is intended to be a statement of true sincerity? Most of the blow back has been from some I might label of having a warrior mindset, not "snowflakes" as the common euphemism is employed. What's so wrong with not wanting people to die? And, I am by no means attacking you here.

You have to tiptoe if you don't want to risk offense, whether you want to risk offense is up to you. If you didn't want to risk offense, the post was careless. If you were OK with risking offense, then you shouldn't be surprised that some people were offended.

What you see as not wanting people to die looks like a brazen political attack to people of a certain mindset. Those are the tripwires you have to be aware of.

KyAllroad wrote: I think it's a weakness of their belief system if they felt "attacked". Sort of like how two straight people, one comfortable around anyone who is "other" and one who is homophobic will react to certain situations very differently. [B]You're just running into politiphobes.

Of which there are many in this climate.

Thanks for the words, clarifications, and comments.

This forum really is THE place to learn things, even about yourself.

Gameboy has the gist of my opinion.

Who is being the snowflake? You said something and are upset that people were mock offended (no one has ever really been offended by fake friends on the internet). People by and large are ignorant jackwads who do not like their firmly held beliefs challenged even if it only sounded like something vaguely different from what they "know in their hearts to be true".

Say what you want, but harden the berkeley up. You are going to get grief for it.

Yes.

You made, what is basically a political statement. Some people didn't agree. That is human nature.

Facebook isn't the best site to post anything remotely political. FB has some use as news feeds, friends and relatives updates but politics is not one.

mndsm wrote: Perhaps, perhaps not. The uniformity seems to be in people looking for a conflict, rather than reading the message at hand. Unfortunately, a lot of those people tend to err on the side of politics, whether or not it is warranted.

And that seems to be some of the core reasons people want to fight.

From a simple internet fight, to a fist fight, to a full blown war (the more I learn about WWI, it really stuns me that so many people died for that- it was far more about saving face than it should have been- for monarchy- of which, most were relatives of each other).

Seems as if there are as many people who want a conflict as those who don't. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other does.

The problem I would have with it is you brought politics in to a place that should be kept non political. It is not that you are wrong with your assessment it is just that is a time and a place for comments or the interjection of politics and Memorial Day is not the place. Out of respect for the family's I would never make the comment that you did. What you are saying to those that lost friends and family is that there loved ones death was for nothing. If you can not understand why this may get people irritated with you I don't know what to say. You are intentionally making an inflammatory statement to those that are hurting. I really am surprised that you don't see this. There is a time and a place to have a discussion about the issues you raised. Today is not the day.

actually, if you look at the big picture, we are what geo-political scientists call "the long peace" since WW2, we had very few wars, and none of them between the big powers that be. Yes, we have had conflicts, long stewing pseudowars, and a few genocides, but as far as history is concerned, it is rare to have this much peace for such a long time.

Toyman01 wrote: Yes. You made, what is basically a political statement. Some people didn't agree. That is human nature.

Just so

In reply to mad_machine:

Is it because we stopped declaring wars and just had a bunch of "military actions"? I'm not going to argue too much though because it means my fat lazy ass hasn't been drafted.

Chadeux wrote: In reply to mad_machine: Is it because we stopped declaring wars and just had a bunch of "military actions"? I'm not going to argue too much though because it means my fat lazy ass hasn't been drafted.

I think the Long Peace declaration is based on the number of combat deaths, not number of wars.

KyAllroad wrote: In reply to vwcorvette: You were entirely correct. Military action is what happens when politics fails. I'd like to think that we could rise above it as a species but given the past 5,000 or so year history, I think we're destined to bash each others' heads in for eternity. Our clubs have just gotten better.

I agree, but that's not what Memorial Day is about. Remember that it's not the politicians that go to war when diplomacy fails. The purpose is to honor those that have made sacrifices to protect our freedom, not to say "thanks, but you signed up for it and you're getting paid so it's not really that big a deal".

In OPs case it might have just been better to say nothing

As unpolitical as it should be, anything and everything about Memorial Day can, and often is interpreted in a political manner. I don't disagree with your sentiments. It seems it went downhill because it was kept vague enough to not "point fingers" that it could be openly interpreted to "point fingers" at anyone. Politics is 50% of why I got out of social media.

Mad Machine, I agree. The real question is why has it been a time of relative peace. I think it is part the existence of the UN keeping small conflicts from growing the way WW1 did, and part the deterrence of atomic weapons. Although I'm sure there is more, I don't want to thread jack any further.

Am I being political? The answer is always "yes" because each of us has acquired traditions and beliefs that shape who we are as individuals. These traditions and beliefs will always offend some part of the population. This is an inescapable part of a free society but "inclusivity" and "tolerance" should allow us to interact with others without undue conflict. Those who are easily offended should HTFU.

I think your post could've been taken either way. Ive never had FB. I know I'd piss people off and not give a berkeley.

"Died for your/our freedom", I hate reading that. It's so overused.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting people to die. Truth is, people are people, and human nature is human nature. We can try to say we will overcome it, but there is nothing any of us can do to keep others from starting a war. There are as many reasons for a war as there are people to start them. The majority of history it has been because one group of people or country had something the other wanted. Many, like what is happening in the world today, are religious based in terms of terrorism. Russia simply wants to get back to the old USSR territories, North Korea is simply nuts.

How are you going to reason with those people? I submit there is not much of a way until THEY actually want peace. We do some business in the middle east and former Soviet block countries, and the way they think is quite different than the way you and I do.

And to comment on what Huckleberry brought up, I am sooooo sick of everyone being mock offended. I would have no issue at all with what vwcorvette brought up whether I agreed with it or not. When did we get so offended that we cannot even have disagreements and discuss the issue? This is what I consider to the biggest problem, not someone that disagrees with my position. Everything today is stated as absolute fact with no room for discussions or disagreement, but that's the very thing that has formed our country throughout it's history.