Comments on: Website Hijacking to Spread a Message of Protest

By: KanjiHanzi

KanjiHanzi — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:02:29 +0000

>>>I am aware that it’s sort of like bomb throwing to talk about cowardliness and looking the other way. This will inevitably cause a counter reaction creating more “blindness”.

What I meant: It’s better to find other words to describe the process (even if it wasn’t utterly clear from what I wrote ).

Basically I think it’s a matter of information, but how do you get that jewel across to people never reading reliable – as in fairly objective/neutral sources – or try to access the same kind of information on the net or those radio/TV channels that DO offer reasonably unbiased info? The amazing thing is that both American and Israeli people have access to this kind of sources but STILL refuse to digest or even listen to this kind of information, but prefer to remain ignorant.

These questions are very, very difficult, but needs to be tackled. There is NO WAY we can get any decent world as long as media is nothing but a megaphone for the established order. (I hope you read Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, the only blog I read on a daily basis.)

Thanks for everything!

By: Dr. Pamela Rutledge

Dr. Pamela Rutledge — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:29:50 +0000

Thanks for your comment. I wonder about the silence of the majority – is it cowardice as you suggest or is it a need for cognitive consonance to maintain a sense of order in our worlds? I think we need to remember that just as Arabs and Muslims are individuals with individual beliefs and thus NOT all terrorists, so are Americans and Israelis individuals with individual beliefs. It is important to me to question my assumptions from the limited information I receive. With limited information, the acts of a few do reflect back on the whole–human brains make broad sweeping judgments in order to process the vast amount of information each day. This results in stereotyping (which used to just be a description of the process of culling information into mental models for processing and was not necessarily a bad thing.) The intended effect is a good question because I feel very few people (especially policymakers) view the world as a system where actions in one location ripple across the whole and cause a co-evolution, just like a pebble in a pond. – PR

By: KanjiHanzi

KanjiHanzi — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:34:42 +0000

Thanks for this very sympathetic post. (And thanks for using twitter to inform!!)

The main problem is the silence of the majority, IMHO. I am aware that it’s sort of like bomb throwing to talk about cowardliness and looking the other way. This will inevitably cause a counter reaction creating more “blindness”.

Nevertheless it’s now and then required to be perfectly frank. What is the result of this silence? Of course a lot of “embedded” guilt! This is not very constructive, is it?

Gabrielle>> It’s not politically correct to have an opinion that does not align with the media, in my humble opinion!<<<

But why care about what is politically correct? Why not put Honesty on top of the list? It’s perfectly possible to be honest without being offensive (even if I’m not very good at that!).

Ah, I’m just rambling. The Israeli-Palestine “conflict” – read: slaughter of Gaza – has ripped the entire world apart, and both Israel and USA has created more terrorists that the entire occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan managed to do. Moderate Arabs/Muslims are now militant. In thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions. Was that the intended effect?

By: Casey

Casey — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:13:41 +0000

I have not seen this hijacking happen before but now will look out for it! Interesting-