Alkanadi:But, it is funny and ironic because Zamenhof made the language so that we can all get along with each other.

Maybe Esperanto is a language of unpeace.

vincas:

Alkanadi:But, it is funny and ironic because Zamenhof made the language so that we can all get along with each other.

Maybe Esperanto is a language of unpeace.

I think having a common language is a useful tool to achieve peace. At the very least, it is a start to the solution.

Also, I noticed that people on the internet are vicious to begin with. When people can hide behind a keyboard, they are cruel. It just goes to show how morality is determined by a person's proximity to others - just as psychologists say. The closer we are to people, the higher our morals are and vice versa.

So anyway, maybe Esperantists are nicer to each other in person.

Tempodivalse:I think the wide variety of opinion - even if I personally find some of it implausible or ignorant - is better than a mass conformity of thought. It is good to get exposed to people and ideas that one might not normally come into direct contact with due to the language barrier.

For example, English-language (in particular US) media and news outlets have one set of biases, the Russian-language media quite another. These biases become quite obvious once you compare them to each other, but most people can't, due to the language barrier. Consequently, people's vantage points are restricted to whatever is written in their language, and this leads to an incomplete understanding (or even just ignorance) of the US/West or Russia, which they mistake for the "full picture".

With an Esperanto-language media, this barrier would at least be lessened and there would be more opportunities to actively engage with opinions and beliefs outside one's own sphere - provided, of course, that the individual is intellectually curious.

Unfortunately, most people aren't intellectually curious, and will just feel threatened by any viewpoint different from their own, which disables their rational thinking faculties. Their reactions are manifested as fear, hatred, and even violence, and can't be solved by a universal language.

Even in the same language and country we have the "liberal" and "conservative" news sources, which display much the same level of bias as we see between the west and Russia's news outlets. The argument still applies about the language barrier, though, since we can at least read or watch the content from the opposition when we understand their language. As you say, though, there is still a lack of intellectual curiosity that keeps people from even reading material from the opposition in their own language.

Alkanadi:

vincas:

Alkanadi:But, it is funny and ironic because Zamenhof made the language so that we can all get along with each other.

Maybe Esperanto is a language of unpeace.

I think having a common language is a useful tool to achieve peace. At the very least, it is a start to the solution.

Also, I noticed that people on the internet are vicious to begin with. When people can hide behind a keyboard, they are cruel. It just goes to show how morality is determined by a person's proximity to others - just as psychologists say. The closer we are to people, the higher our morals are and vice versa.

So anyway, maybe Esperantists are nicer to each other in person.

Is physical distance really a good measure of proximity anymore, though? If anything I am closer to those I have digital contact with than I am to those in my own neighborhood. I would put anonymity higher on the suspect list. Good or bad, your true self is freest to come out when you are wearing a mask. I've seen some quite compassionate/caring interactions between anonymous strangers on the Internet that may equally not have happened if it weren't for the masks.

kaŝperanto:Even in the same language and country we have the "liberal" and "conservative" news sources, which display much the same level of bias as we see between the west and Russia's news outlets.

Actually, the difference between "liberal" and "conservative", at least in the US, is not very great, in much the same way that the two dominant US political parties are not so different on fundamental issues - they are, by and large, funded by the same big money, and accountable to the same interests. It's not easy to find a mainstream English-language source that doesn't have those influences. The closest you can get is English-language editions of foreign sources (DW, RT, Xinhua, PressTV).

But again, you have to want to seek out alternate points of view. If you're an average Bob, you probably won't question whatever you hear on TV, whether your preferred news outlet is FOX News or MSNBC - it will seem like that's the entire range of opinions right there.