Only selfimmolate if you care about what foreigners think
Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Megdad. What a crazy regime!
Someone self immolates and explicitly states it is a form of political protest in Hometown. What a crazy person!
Edit: What −5 already? What is giving an example of how people never take the outside view of their own society that bad a topic for the discussion section? Also disclaimer both Hometown State and Megdadistan Republic are fictional countries and no actual examples where given, to avoid mind killers.
2nd Edit: Wow I really need to spell this out? The media of Hometown are more likley to treat an immolation in Megdad as due to a legitimate grievance worthy of attention and down play any mental health problems or details that might paint the person in an unflattering light compared to someone who self-immolates in Hometown. And I think this effect is mostly not due to government enforced censorship or pressure.
Noble act of defiant self-sacrifice is far. Suicidal crazies are near.
The only way to get good coverage to acheive social change is to count on foreign media to paint a kind picture of you. And supposing your people care about what the media of Megdad say about your country.
3rd Edit: −15 Pretty clear that I’m wrong .
Self-immolation in Tunisia seems to be what recently provided the spark that caused the whole country to rise up against its rulers.
So frankly, you’re being historically ignorant. Ludicrously so given how recent the real counterexample is. Moreover you’re trying to provide fictional evidence in an attempt to support your point, and you somehow think you actually gave an “example”.
No. If you want to open a discussion about the topic, either you ought use some actual evidence, or atleast you ought put slightly more effort to your fiction, to make it remotely interesting or believable or insightful.
You’ve just earned a downvote from me as well.
You do realize there have been plenty of self-immolations in the West and elsewhere that have sparked no such things in the past decades (example: an American man self-immolated to protest family courts not more than a little over a month ago)?
I’ll say they can be a spark, but that’s all they are. Sooner or later another one would be there. Had media censorship been more thorough, or had the Western media not picked up on it and showcased it as another example of how horrible those places are it would not have had such an effect. Or had the people simply not cared about what Western media say in the same way most Americans don’t care about what Russian media say about them.
Well I suppose generalising from one example is better than fictional evidence… except that I assumed my fictional evidence was a summation of common knowledge. Apparently its not. The vast majority of people who self-immolate and explicitly state that it is for political reasons do not spark any kind of change. And the majority of those who have or at least become notable have had the sympathy and later foreign support for their causes.
Using it as an instrument of change even in unstable times is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket. Due to media bias its only a usable tactic if foreign media pick up on it and people care what these foreign media say.
But he probably sparked even less of a change in how foreigners think of America. The fact that nobody over here (in Greece) heard of this American man—what does it suggest to you about the veracity of your claim that foreigners’ opinions are the only valid reason for a self-immolation?
A rather obvious observation.
But that’s not the position you took in your post. You stated instead “Only selfimmolate if you care about what foreigners think”—clearly indicating that you believe self-immolation has more of an effect of foreign opinion than on local opinion.
That’s a far different and far stronger claim than “most self-immolations don’t lead to revolutions”.
Are you positing that the Tunisians had their revolution primarily because they cared what western media would think of Tunisia? Is this the claim you’re making?
I didn’t say that such protest always sparks interest abroad, only that when it does its far more likley to receive sympathetic coverage than when it sparks interest at home.
But you do have a point. Perhaps Greece isn’t really foreign? It probably has family court practices not that different in their basic premsies. A criticism of say American principles is a also a criticism of Greek family court practices. Also Greek media probably take their ques from major respectable Western sources on what to emphasise, at least the media in my country do. Western media share a pretty uniform outlook when it comes to institutional criticism compared to kinds of instiutional criticism that say Iranian or Chinese media would emphasise.
Or maybe Greeks have far more pressing issues dominating the media landscape at this point?
When it has effected change in the past this has been true.
Tunisians would have not revolted had all the media they where following told them there is nothing to get worked up over.
It’s your theory, what does “foreign” mean in your theory? Right now you seem to me to be fudging the evidence so that they fit into your theory, instead of letting the evidence verify or reject the theory.
So is your theory now that it’s not about whether something is near or far, local or foreign, but rather about the specific principles attacked or supported by said self-immolation?
And yet you imply that Tunisians are mainly following Western media? Your argument might make sense if it specified Al Jazeera instead, which the Arab world indeed follows and which is indeed foreign media to Tunisia (it’s Qatar-based) -- but if you consider Greece non-foreign to America, even though Greece and America have different religions, different languages, even different alphabets… you probably don’t consider Qatar foreign to Tunisia (both Sunni Muslim-majority nations that speak Arabic).
What Aris said. Also, outside view is predicting behavior based on typical cases of a reference class. If you think, “This self-immolation will trigger a successful revolution because from the last 20 self-immolation cases, 15 did just that.”, then you’re taking the outside view.
Its overwhelmingly obvious that most people who feel that they are selfimmolating as a form of poltiical protest, and most people who state that they are selfimmolating as a form of poltiical protest acheive nothing, unless…
I might have retweeted the original four sentences if they came up on Twitter, but a tweet usually isn’t enough for a good Less Wrong post. I think that many of these downvotes are due to the form rather than the content.
The main problem isn’t that you’re wrong in your conclusion (though I think you are) , but that you don’t bother telling us how the evidence ought lead to that conclusion. You just make unsupported assertions both in your claims of what is, and your claims of what people ought do.
LessWrong is a site about refining the art of rationality—in both the discovery of truth, and the pursuit of utility. Explain to us how your conclusions are correct about the former and the latter: don’t just make unsupported assertions and expect us to applaud.
So basically your position summarizes to “a nation’s establishment is more likely to control the media of that same nation instead of the media of a foreign nation?” That’s indeed highly probable, yes.
Does that mean that Palestinians are more likely to see Palestinian suicide bombers as “suicidal crazies” and less likely as “noble and defiant self-sacrificing heroes” than an American is? Palestinians are far from America, and near to other Palestinians, so isn’t that the sort of prediction that your near/far theory about sacrifice vs crazies would make?
I actually like this quote. But this isn’t something you write by itself as an article, even on discussion. Also what ArisKatsaris said.
You could do with less certainty for your evidenceless claims
Failure to parse.