• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Theres been a bombing

    Place is implied. The logical implication would be local to the speakers.

    Theres been a bombing in some place

    We know the bombing took place elsewhere.

    If you were in Afghanistan, and a bombing took place in america, “theres been a bombing” would imply it’s local to afghanistan.

    • soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s been a bombing

      Place is implied. Could be anywhere in the west, if i’m in France it works for the south//north of France, the United Kingdom, America, Australia, or any country i feel like i belong to, that is in my tribe.
      But if you say afterwards :

      There’s a bombing in some place

      And that place is in the Middle-East, or in Afghanistan, we would say “yeah, of course, like yesterday and probably tomorrow, no need to be surprised”

      It’s more about an event happening often or not than a geographical positioning. No need to be surprised if it happens frequently, which is perhaps mainly what striked me in the sentence, we grew accustomed to something that shouldn’t, while accepting as normal that we(sterners) were/are the ones doing the killing(, and acting as victims when a few of our civilians die by terrorist attacks, without once discussing the cause(s), and even less the possible solutions).
      But thanks for wanting to correct me, it’s nice to have a chat with other people than from Lemmygrad for once.

      • macniel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        do you know how the English language works? The place hasn’t been implied at all. And thus it default to local (to you) when there are no further question to clarify.

        • soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And what you consider local is the countries you consider yourself belonging to, i.e., the west, ⟳ .
          If you’re a separatist from southern France you can say “who cares about what’s happening in the rest of France ?”, there’s no need for anguish in your voice. Yet when the twin towers fell, or something similar, french people could say “there’s been a bombing there” with as much anguish as it happened in France, i think that you’re omitting the term “anguish” too much in this conversation.

          For example, you wouldn’t say « There’s been a bombing in the Middle-East ! », because we(sterners) would say « Yeah. And ? », that was the whole purpose of this thread, yet you focused on the omission of the location.

          • macniel@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude of course local means local to me and with that I mean my town/city in my country on the continent I live on. Not the West or the East or the North or South. That’s a pretty limiting world view you have.

            • soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Interesting, so criticising our tribalism makes me the one with a limited world view, how so ?

              We care much more about what’s happening in countries we’re allied with(, whether they’re on our continent or not), that sucks, we should help each other and not fight [insert a way too long list of countries here…]

              It’s not that world peace is difficult, but that our refusal of unity is difficult to overturn, we(sterners) are the f*cking prime wagers of death&destruction, didn’t know that ten years ago.

              • macniel@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i mean, we are tribal yeah. we care about ourself first, then our family and allies then the rest. Thats simply how organised life works.

                You cant possibly care for EVERYONE at the same capacity. I mean you could but then you would be having mental breakdowns all the time and despair.

                Its about self-preservation. And if you deny that to yourself… well, good luck in the real world out there, you will need it.

                • soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks, because that’s how we should behave, not only towards humans but non-humans as well(, and it’s easier to care about humans as a whole once you care about non-humans b.t.w.).

                  • macniel@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    , and it’s easier to care about humans as a whole once you care about non-humans b.t.w.).

                    citation needed

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                so criticising our tribalism makes me the one with a limited world view, how so ?

                No, you fucking invalid. Your worldview is limited because you don’t understand what “local” means.

            • soumerd_retardataire@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And your answer wasn’t a counter-argument

              But in the end, if i’m the only one finding this sentence interesting then there’s no point in discussing it, i’ve lost interest in it as well.

              Just that it shouldn’t feel more normal when we’re bombing than when we’re being bombed, i guess that’s ~all i aimed to point out, yet we’re only surprised when we’re on the receiving end, nothing new.