Why you shouldn't politicize a tragedy

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

A couple months ago, I remember making a post about how there was a right time and a wrong way for immediate activism after a tragedy. Basically my problem with people on something like the gun-control debate, is that they act like legislators won't pass gun reform despite knowing it will be a solution to prevent future mass shooters. That's simply not the case, and republicans have made it well known that's not what they believe. They don't pass gun reform, because they don't think it will make a difference. This really leads to a bunch of people who just talk over each other, because they're presenting arguments that are mute. If republican legislators thought that gun reform would have made a difference in the amount of mass shooters, they would have done something about it seven mass shootings ago. I could make a whole other thread about how that actually is something republicans in places like Florida now have to worry about - since they've changed their standard to exactly that, by passing new gun laws - but that's another topic for another day.

This is essentially to say that another mass shooting doesn't actually change anything about the debate, and I think that's a good point looking to the future. During the parkland shooting, I actually saw a lot of people that I respect coming after this mentality, suggesting that immediate activism is necessary to make a difference. I stand by my position, and while I think my reason above is sufficient, there's actually another reason why you shouldn't try to politicize a tragedy.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/sevent ... -iraq.aspx

The source above includes a couple different polls on public opinion about a potential war in iraq, before and briefly post 9/11. I think that it will illustrate my point quite nicely, even if you don't agree with it, so that's why I bring it up. As you might imagine, the number of people who had a favorable opinion about sending ground troops into iraq was highest within the coming months of 9/11, 74% in November of that year, before it quickly stabilized into a much more balanced general view.

Obviously the point that I'm getting at is that public opinion changes very quickly. What the people who immediately demand action hope to do, is exploit a temporary majority to act on their abrupt emotions, into something that they know they may change their minds about very soon. In fact, anyone who is doing it because 'it will soon be forgotten about' are doing it openly and are fully aware of what they're doing.

If you opposed the people who demanded action in iraq shortly after 9/11 knowing that their rationale may not be in the right place, or whenever there's a sudden uptick of people who want to 'ban all muslims' after a terrorist attack, then in principle, you should oppose it in all situations.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It was never a war, and as Iraq never had anything to do with 11/9 I don't see what your point is (unless it's to show that Americans are fucking morons and warmongers, which everyone knows anyway).

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It was never a war

I realize it was technically a conflict because there was never a declaration of war, but I think you're just being facetious because I'm almost certain you've called it a war yourself. Either way, it's really beside the point.

The point I'm making, is that people make very rash decisions when something tragic happens, and then they very quickly change their minds. The poll is just (what I thought) was a good example of that, and why we shouldn't politicize a tragedy. Not for war, not for immigration, and not for gun-control.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It was never a war

I realize it was technically a conflict because there was never a declaration of war, but I think you're just being facetious because I'm almost certain you've called it a war yourself. Either way, it's really beside the point.

The point I'm making, is that people make very rash decisions when something tragic happens, and then they very quickly change their minds. The poll is just (what I thought) was a good example of that, and why we shouldn't politicize a tragedy. Not for war, not for immigration, and not for gun-control.

I've never called it a 'war'. It wasn't even a 'conflict'. It was an invasion by an evil bully on the weakest target it could come up with. The numbers were pretty high before the 'tragedy' too.
But I agree about the politicising. There is far too much of that now. People seem to think the truth depends on whatever their political persuasion is. It's pathetic.