To be honest, this isn’t entirely accurate. For instance, if you aren’t familiar with the history of the United States and the grievances set forth in the Declaration of Independence, you may not fully appreciate the importance of the second amendment to us. Also could be true of someone who lived in a society that had been disarmed by government. It’s not that an outsider lacks understanding, it’s that they lack perspective.
For instance, I may see the terrorist activities occurring in Germany and know that this is evil. I may also conclude that Angela Merkel’s party is responsible and should be replaced. But I don’t know enough about German politics to know who they should replace her with.
Likewise, someone on the outside looking in could not likely penetrate the veil of lies that the networks, CNN, and MSNBC have surrounded this administration in to know just how evil and anti-Christian the Democrats have become.
I think this is an excellent perspective.
There was a thread by another user about "fake news" in British media. I was only inclined to agree based off a one-sided narrative that is seen in the media in the U.S. and how it drowns out the "space" for more useful discussions.
I'm not going to speak to the term "fake news" because it differs from what most people that use the term mean by it. However something that is riddled with opinion and hardly any facts and is somehow newsworthy I do not understand.
I care hardly at all for Brexit personally. I can see global implications and can "guess" how it might affect the lives of the average Briton, as well as the lives of anyone personally connected to such a thing. However, I'm not "in their shoes" and I could not possibly speak from experience as I am not there. Even if someone in the U.K were not affected by it personally, it's still an issue that sort of hangs in the air that you'd hear about and have it take up some sort of thoughtspace. Much like the impeachment proceedings.
I listen to the BBC during overlap hours with NPR (this is usually during 4am-6am EST I think). Where no one is broadcasting on NPR, so the BBC just gets played in the U.S. It's a global show and hardly focuses at all on the U.S.
So I can develop opinions on certain things that would be "cast" by something one sided, but wouldn't really care to dig any deeper. It'd be similar to a European listening to CNN casually OR Fox News. It takes time to pick out nuances, and it makes sense that you would need some sort of vested interest to do so.
A good argument can be made that when something is "close to home" an outsider is unwelcome with particulars. Generalized advice based off similarities can be made certainly.
It's like someone being suicidal, and let us say you had been there before. You aren't them, you can offer rather good advice based on experience and what the Lord has brought you through, but you can't speak to specifics because being in that "headspace" is unique for each person.
I could talk for hours on what makes for good reporting, how covering something and not covering something else can appear conspiratorial and skew perspective, even if that happened to not be the intent, but then that'd be off topic alas.
Adding an important aside...this is all relatively generalized and for me is just humanistic wisdom. Your post and the other thread allowed me to think a little deeper on that element so thank you. However, of course the Lord can work in someone to give them personal burdens of understanding in ways that I don't believe we can on our own, at least not past our own point of view. It is unrealistic to assume that even when he does, that we would be able to understand all things as if we had lived it, unless it were for a particular mission. There are a lot of things that we don't "need" to know to the fullest extent to be an effective witness.
1
1
1
