Exploring Anti-Americanism by Khyron

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would love to. I spent a fair bit of time trying to get a few articles to link, but since I only half-remember the titles, I've gotten nowhere, fast. Anyway, I gotta go do some child-minding. Maybe tomorrow.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by clarkent913:
But, you're right. Afghanistan seems to drop out of view, when people demonstrate or just disagree with the war. And there's more than just Americans there, there's Canadians, British, Australians...on and on (The coalition of the willing, remember ) And it, too, seems to be a losing battle, the Taliban coming back, troops being killed, no end in sight.

In my world-that-should-have-been fantasy, I imagine that instead of going to Iraq, we'd taken a third of the Iraq troops and plunked them down in Afghanistan. The suicide bombings that we're seeing now didn't start until after the Iraq war started--that's what really galvanized the jihadists. Interestingly, Afghanistan was remarkably calm until Iraq started up, and only then did things start going downhill. Now, if the Afghan government had really gotten a chance to get on its own feet, and if the Afghan National Army had been given the kind of training, equipment, and backup we're pouring down the drain in Iraq, the country would likely be much more stable today. I got a stake in both--I deployed to both with Naval Special Warfare. And if we ultimately fail in both places, I'm going to feel like I wasted 10 good years of my life.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And what of those of us who want the government to leave us alone and instead address the social problems? I'm not poor, I got health insurance, I don't have a substance abuse problem, I'm not (dangerously) crazy, I don't commit crime, I don't engage in unprotected sex, I try to be environmentally responsible - I just want to be left alone to live my life. I do think that people who are poor, etc. should be helped by the government. I don't think the government should care who you have sex with (if it's safe), who you marry, what you worship (or not), how you keep from having babies, if you got guns in the basement(if you don't shoot folk with them for no good reason), etc.

So what kind of American am I?

Well, note that I said those are simplifications. That's obviously not the sum total ideology of either side.

You seem to be that coveted middle ground; the much sought-after "undecided" voter.
Don't tell Rue, though; she's got you pegged as foaming-at-the-mouth conservative

Myself personally, I don't think the government can adequately address social problems without unduly interfering with individual liberties. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why don't the people help those who are in need? Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it? The demand that the government take care of every problem seems somewhat like the grown-up version of, "Mom, where's my backpack?"

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:34 PM

Last thing @ DesktopHippie:

Many of the criticisms you level are legitimate. But some just seem analoguous to what you're accusing us of doing. You decry our country for things like not having socialized healthcare or for having the death penalty as though it were already established that it is objectively right to have one and objectively wrong to have the other. You make this claim in the name of "progressive" Europe. And you implicitly call us backward and pat yourself on the back. But how is that not a similar sort of thing to what you accuse us of doing? From where I sit, it's an open question whether socialized health care is objectively good and whether the death penalty is objectively bad. That is to say, I think there is still room for debating on those points. So why do you criticize us for imposing our will on the rest of the world on the one hand, then on the other demand that we meet the standards of "progressive" Europe? Who objectively decided that the European standards are the right ones? And, what is more, in virtue of what would those standards be objectively right? For objective moral standards to obtain transculturally, a higher authority than culture has to be invoked in virtue of which those transcultural values obtain. Judging from the tenor of your post, you're not going to want to appeal to a deity to justify transcultural moral standards--in virtue of what, then, are you justified in assuming that the standards of Europe are objectively morally right, and the standards of the US are objectively morally wrong?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:38 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Yep. your quote was an example of generalization as insult. No irony intended. I do like the conceit that you display in thinking you can describe all the 300 million people, with a multitude of backgrounds and beliefs, living in a country as big as all of Europe, as "ugly and hateful". Wow! A masterpiece of generalization indeed.

It goes to demonstrate the depth to which anti-Americanism has been legitimized in certain circles. If we were talking about Jews or Africans (even African-Americans) no one would ever risk such a bigoted and hateful comment, but because we are talking about America in general, some people feel confident that such language will appear sophisticated and erudite. Clearly, some people, regardless of their nationality, are ugly and hateful. But Americans are no more ugly and hateful then anyone else. This is just bigotry and a pretty disgusting display of it. What else could it be? And it demonstrates precisely what Webb is talking about.

I can remember sitting in a café in London next to a French woman who began to tell me what she thought about Americans, unaware evidently that I was one. She told me that Americans were dogs and they should all be treated like dogs. And as she said it she had one of those smirks that people get when they think they’ve said something clever and stylish. She really thought she was something because of what she had to say about Americans, but in reality, all she was doing was towing the Nazi line. And as she sat there, so proud of herself for her hatred, I thought to myself, thank god America is a strong nation, because if we weren’t, what would people like this woman do to us if she was in power?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:24 PM

FMF and Finn, good posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
As for the students at the "large foriegn -language school" ask those students how many of them would like to EMIGRATE to America. I venture to say quite a few.

Yep. I have no idea who said this, but it was in a televised debate between political commentators a few years ago and one of the participants said that if you go to the Middle East, to a part where there are lots of young people who love nothing more than to declare their hatred for the US every chance they get, and if you set up two booths, one giving away free memberships to a terrorist organisation and one giving away free Green Cards, probably 90% of them would queue up for the latter. At the time I thought it was the most sensible comment in the debate, and the jist of it is probably true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And as she sat there, so proud of herself for her hatred, I thought to myself, thank god America is a strong nation, because if we weren’t, what would people like this woman do to us if she was in power?

Then again, if America weren't strong there'd be less of a reason for people like her to hate it.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:53 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Catching up, brace yourself, its a *long* one. Please be warned that it is being presented as is, without much look over. Grammar and spelling will be awful. Also, I wrote this post in an editor while reading the thread. Thus I /may/ have mistakingly left a prior name while quoting someone else. Please let me know if this is the case, and I'll fix it.

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:

Okay, with nothing but love for the posters here and a huge amount of generalisation and in no particular order, here are some of the issues I have with the US as a whole:

...

Wow. Will you be my friend

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

For the most part, I consider it futile to prove bigots wrong. They will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of how rational it is. What can I do? And how much should I really care?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Oh and there is a big side helping of envy in there too.

These just say it all; just drips with arrogance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Hating America is an accepted and somewhat fashionable type of prejudice, and while anti-Americanism is certainly borne out of principle in many cases (with some justification), it's mostly so popular simply because it's just trendy. Sort of the lowest common denominator of political statement (some of those involved might even call it philosphical movement or principle). It's become the Myspace or Pop Idols of ideology.

While I'm not going to disagree with it being "trendy" I am going to disagree with your "some justification". I have a list longer than my leg of reasons why I... dislike the US.

That isn't to say that there aren't certain people that happen to be Americans that I do _not_ dislike. Here is where I think part of the problem is. Namely that people don't understand that there is a difference between hating Americans and hating America (or what it collectively does).

For instance, as I said above, I very much dislike America. But, at the same time, there are a number of people on this board who are Americans that I fully respect and quite like.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

It's like a child rejecting a disappointing role model, I think, ignoring that a role model is just a projection upon a person.

I respectfully disagree. IMO, it's more along the lines of people seeing that a country is projecting a certain image. Then after they find out what the reality is, they become rather irriated. Basically, these two images are... different. Enough really that it can be considered a lie.

As an example one only needs to watch almost any American movie. You'll see what a wonderful thing the US is, and what wonders it brings. Then if you look at reality, you see indiscriminate killing around the world that's been going on for decades. Not to mention that US corps have actively worked to destroy other cultures around the world to make profit e.g. When Coca-Cola moved into India, it worked to destroy the Tea industry to improve the sale of the significantly more expensive product.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Yep. your quote was an example of generalization as insult. No irony intended. I do like the conceit that you display in thinking you can describe all the 300 million people, with a multitude of backgrounds and beliefs, living in a country as big as all of Europe, as "ugly and hateful". Wow! A masterpiece of generalization indeed.

The generalization is valide because it is about what a country does as as whole. NOT what each and every individual does as you seem to imply.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I get your point on the actions-taken-in-my name thing. But I'm thiking more internationally. If an American warplane intentionally dropped a bomb into a crowded market and killed 150 people, there'd be an international uproar. But just a couple of weeks ago, a car bomb exploded in a Baghdad market killing about that many. Where's the international outcry over that?

This is an unfair comparison. A military such as the US military has certian obligations (e.g. _not_ randomly killing, _not_ having high colateral damage, etc) because it is largely capable of doing so. The others guys... well we expect guerrilla tactics to have such outcomes. Not saying that it isn't bad, just that it's expected. People don't "freak out" when things are expected.

But, if you'd give us proof that "the other guy" has access to the level of military tech that the US has, I'd be happy to be part of the international outcry.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

We only have two neighbors, and one of those is nearly identical to us, culture-wise (though I think they might disagree on that score).

...

That said, if you're going to try to talk about international issues, you'd better do your homework.

We're only /superficially/ "identical" (though this is starting to change). No offense, but if you'd done your homework, you'd know this.

The rest of this post, which I omit for breivity, is sophistry. It doesn't take someone going out of there way to stay ignorant for the US at large to be ignorant. It just takes the US at large to not respect education enough to not pay attention at all. Which is largely the case.

I mean seriously, when all it takes is the curiosity and an internet connection/library card/etc to get the knowledge, people got no excuse. It does _not_ take a trip to another country to not be ignorant of other countries. If that were the case, then Canada would be just as ignorant as the US is, which certainly is _not_ the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Not to get all overly philosophical on you, but it seems like the trouble is that one can't accurately talk about a large group of people without some amount of generalizing. The danger to that, of course, is that there will obviously always be people who don't fit the generalization. But if one doesn't engage in some degree of generalization, how can one ever talk about a large group?? It's a quandary.

Which is why I differentiate between the group and the people in the group. Theoretically speaking, it /is/ possible for the group to behave in a complete opposite way to the individuals' wishes that comprise the group (I hope that's understandable

). But, this is the beauty about complex issues and where most counter aguments fail.

Basically, the typical counter agument is "I don't fit that! Therefore, your entire arugment is crap! Whaaa Haaa Haaa!!!"

But, when 80-90+% fits the agument, this type of counter arugment is obviously... in trouble.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Most overseas military bases are in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. I don't remember us taking any of them over since we gave Germany and Japan back to the Germans and Japanese after WWII. Sure would make a BMW cheaper.

I'd hate to tell you this, but you wheren't the only ones in Germany. In fact, large portions of that country were held by other allied forces.

I must point out that it's this type of statement (or really the mentality behind it) that *really* helps giving you guys a *very* bad name. Basically, if you guys weren't the only ones doing something, you shouldn't make statments that imply that you were. Like you did here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

We're good at making money. What can I say?

At who's expense? There's a human cost in making that money that as well gives the US a very bad name.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

The UN doing anything about Darfur yet despite our urging?

The flip side of this is why isn't the US itself doing anything about it? We all know that you guys are ok with unilateral action. Why not here as well?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I agree, but calling the entire population of a country "ugly and hateful" reaches beyond just discussion and into prejudice. If I were to say that all members of a certain ethnic group were "shiftless and lazy" I'd get criticized, and rightly so. "Ugly and hateful" or "shiftless and lazy" are not the comments you use, to quote Rue, "in the spirit of a debate". They're what you use in rants and hate speech.

Unless statistically speaking such comments are true i.e. there are *always* exceptions to rules when talking about complex systems. You're not getting all PC on us are you?

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

It was the biggest terror attack ever.

Right but those are spread out over months and huge geographical areas, I'm not trying to say that they aren't important just that the impact is lessened when it is essentially in a country-wide warzone.

Pardon?!?!?

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The fault for this goes to the politicians, any good military will be extremely aggressive, it's the politicians who set them loose though.

I think that the point is that the US military is aggressive in very bad not terribly effective ways.

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The main objection to these is that they would require tax increases and even the people who want to kick out anyone who doesn't desperately love the U.S. can't bring themselves to willingly pay the taxes their government wants.

One /could/ take the money out of the ridiculously large military budget. Hell, it's so large, people might not even notice. Though the people getting health care might

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The UK leads the world in surveillance cameras per capita.

What is more dangerous is that they are starting to have people actively watching with speakers on the camaras now. Nothing like getting ridiculed if you litter.

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

Be happy that there are a number of us over here who see things exactly (or at lest mostly) like you do, we aren't all myopic assholes.

Thank you for being an exception

Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

better a wine-sopping Frenchie than a beer-swilling redneck

LOL, that's brilliant!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

What is it in our national character that makes us so willing to divide our nation into "real" and "false" Americans?

From the outside? "You" arrogantly assume that everything should be as "you" see it. So, if "you" see a deviation from what is "the way, the truth and the light", it must be wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Odd, since it's written into the consitution. I'd be interested to hear what led you to this conclusion, other than the carricature of the U.S. you get from your news sources. Right, because we must all be theocratic lunatics. That's about as accurate (and nearly as offensive) as saying all Brits have bad teeth.

Churches getting public funding for programs. The 10 commandments being put in court buildings (I think this was resolved by putting them in the back). Religous issues being constant forefront issues during political campaigns (and in general).

You must understand that there is a big difference between what thing /should/ be and how things /are/. The US is said to be a *very* religous nation and with good reason. Every time you turn a corner, religous issues are being talked about.

Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

As an "American" living in Canada, which someone here referred to as being similar in culture (and they would be right,

On mass we are *very* different. But, if you're living in BC or Alberta, I can understand if you're confused. Just look below the superficial and you'll see that.

Quote:
Originally posted by FredDGiblet:

The only nation to use an atomic weapon yes, the only nation to use a WMD no. By our current definition the British, French and Germans did in WW1, and Iraq did more recently.

Not terribly recently though. In fact, not since /before/ the Guif War I. One could say that the sanctions/etc against Iraq were working.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I fail to see how the fact that some people on the right are extreme in their view would validate something like the statement that America's bad reputation is fully and wholly the fault of America's conservatives.

When the leader of the party is one of the extreme people (or close to them) it validates, at least partially, this opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

But oh yes, everything's my fault: I'm a social conservative.

You're making a personal link where none exists (I think). You yourself have said that you're _not_ one of the crazy extreme people. So, the only link would be if you voted for an extreme person (i.e. GWB). If you knew Bush is extreme, you bear part of the blame. *But*, if you hadn't realized it yet, then you're free and clear; just a mistake that I imagine many made as well. Live and learn.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I think something popped lose in his brain after 9/11.

After?

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I'm just embarassed to be in the same ideological category as him, because he doesn't represent us very well at all.

I'm not sure he represents many people very well at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

On the other hand, of course, we'd be leaving behind basically the same sort of milieu that Al Qaida emerged from, which is not a comforting thought.

Really? I actually find that comforting.

The way I see it, you guys leave which leaves a fairly significant power vacumn. This will probably be resolved by a fair bit of blood. But, IMO, it is /much/ more preferable than decades of continued hostility and instability. Basically, IMO, it's better to get the bloody part over with quicker (and probably less bloody) than a prolonged crippling conflict (for both sides).

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So the parties swing progressively further apart, at the expense of the more centrist conservatives and liberals.

I think its also fair to point out that the political spectrum has also shifted further and further right over the last century. In fact, as a Canadian, the political middle I see here is no where even close to the political "middle" that I conclude would be the US "middle". At least for most things that are "the topics" nowadays (e.g. environment, war, etc).

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I suspect that when push comes to shove, most would say that we were right in attacking Afghanistan after 9/11. The Taliban clearly had a connection to Al Qaida in general and bin Ladin in particular.

Count me not part of the most. Sure, the Taliban apparently had ties to Al Qaida, but the Taliban didn't attack the US, nor were they poised to do so. It's one thing to say, we're coming into your country to get some people that just killed thousands of our citizens. It's an entire other thing to say, we're ousting you because of what one of your friends did.

Basically, you "can't" change a govnerment because you don't like what they're doing in there own country. Nor can you oust a government because of the friends they keep.

The US is in bed with Uzbekistan, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

And there's more than just Americans there, there's Canadians, British, Australians...on and on (The coalition of the willing, remember

One can infer from this that you think that Canada is part of the "coalition of the willing". This is not the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

The thing is...If Americans think they're better than everyone else, and everyone else thinks they're better than Americans...is anyone really the better for it?

You're missing the point. We are _not_ saying that we're better than you. We're saying that you're _not_ better than us. There's a difference. Also, we're just pointing out when the US does horrible things. It isn't our fault that it's been a long constant ride lately.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Myself personally, I don't think the government can adequately address social problems without unduly interfering with individual liberties. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why don't the people help those who are in need? Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it? The demand that the government take care of every problem seems somewhat like the grown-up version of, "Mom, where's my backpack?"

You're presuposing that solutions to social problems will cause interference with civil liberties and relieve responsibility. Justify. Because I know that Canada, and Germany to a large degree, are a good counter examples to your conjecture.

I would imagine that most people don't want to "help there neighbour" b/c Americans tend to be quite self centered (not saying it's intentional). Also, in another thread, 6ixStringJack pointed out that when he helped once, he ended up with $10,000+ medical fees. So, I imagine that that would be a good deterant as well.

Also, no one is saying that the government should take care of /every/ problem. That's just silly. What people are saying is that there are specific problems that the government should be taking care of for the social good.

I'm not going to get into details as it's personal. But, my Grandmother recently passed away. And I must say, that if we didn't have universal healthcare, her last days would have been... unpleasant. Instead, she had proper care by trained professionals and ended up having happy last days. And the people in our family didn't have to get a second mortgages on there houses to do it either.

Wasn't it Book who said something along the lines of "How we take care of our dead differentiates us from those that did the killing." I'd widen that to include the sick and dieing. No offense, but turning someone away because they can't write a check is barbaric.

And btw, your comment to DesktopHippie was completely unfounded. IMO, she didn't take the high and mighty view that you are imposing on her. I suggest you re-read the post.

In closing (yes, it's almost over) I was playing Max Payne 2 (NO I haven't gone out and shot anyone) and noticed that the title of Part 3 (I think) can be used to describe what's going on here:

Waking up from the American dream

EDIT: Adding in a post while I was writing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

I have no idea who said this, but it was in a televised debate between political commentators a few years ago and one of the participants said that if you go to the Middle East, to a part where there are lots of young people who love nothing more than to declare their hatred for the US every chance they get, and if you set up two booths, one giving away free memberships to a terrorist organisation and one giving away free Green Cards, probably 90% of them would queue up for the latter.

Let me see, when someone is given the choice to sign up for war, or going to another country to live, they choose the latter. Go figure.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Then again, if America weren't strong there'd be less of a reason for people like her to hate it.

IMO, it's not that the US is strong. It's what it does with its strength that causes "the hate."

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal,

Q Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
A Whatever happened to corporate responsibility?

Q Why don't the people help those who are in need?
A Why don't corporations help those who are in need?

Q Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it?
A Why do corporations absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that nobody does it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal,

Q Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
A Whatever happened to corporate responsibility?

Q Why don't the people help those who are in need?
A Why don't corporations help those who are in need?

Q Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it?
A Why do corporations absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that nobody does it?

With all due respect Rue, asking other questions isn't the same as answering the initial ones. I do think that corporations can be evil and exploitative (which is why I never ever shop at Wal-Mart), and that they shouldn't be. But how's about you answer the questions, instead of dodging them?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:12 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

"Notice" isn't the thread" - and you apparently don't understand ironic understatement.

Ironic understatement, like humor, doesn't type well. Just say what you mean.

Quote:
"you do actually consider Americans ugly and hateful" - just the ugly and hateful ones.

Which is still, in your opinion, all of us.

Quote:
"the US, '...has an essentially sociopathic economy/culture.'" That argument has been made by sociologists, anthropologists and economists. I can't take credit for it.

What Causal said. Also, is this an accepted theory, or out on the fringe? Are these sociologists, anthropologists and economists French, by any chance? (See. That last sentence is a joke, but without verbal cues might be taken for a serious statement.)

Quote:
"an irrational prejudice against Americans" I have some well-founded criticisms, while you seem to think ANY criticism is unjustified.

Well I call bullshit on that. I've criticized American homophobia and interference in reproductive rights. I've noted than changes need to be made in financial laws and development of a mental health system. I've expressed displeasure of politicians of both parties.

You, on the other hand, have never had one positive thing to say about America. You provide unending criticism, often in bigoted and insulting language. You ignore any positives, and give any potential negatives the worst possible interpretation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:27 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Myself personally, I don't think the government can adequately address social problems without unduly interfering with individual liberties. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why don't the people help those who are in need? Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it? The demand that the government take care of every problem seems somewhat like the grown-up version of, "Mom, where's my backpack?"

"Leave me alone, government" and personal responsibility aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of private service organizations I can help or provide funding to. If I want, I can get involved in trying to get my taxes spent on social problems. I can do this and still think it's none of the government's business if my neighbor wants to marry his boyfriend, aside from providing the license.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I get your point on the actions-taken-in-my name thing. But I'm thiking more internationally. If an American warplane intentionally dropped a bomb into a crowded market and killed 150 people, there'd be an international uproar. But just a couple of weeks ago, a car bomb exploded in a Baghdad market killing about that many. Where's the international outcry over that?

This is an unfair comparison. A military such as the US military has certian obligations (e.g. _not_ randomly killing, _not_ having high colateral damage, etc) because it is largely capable of doing so. The others guys... well we expect guerrilla tactics to have such outcomes. Not saying that it isn't bad, just that it's expected. People don't "freak out" when things are expected.

But see, that's what I see as hypocritical. The US accidentally kills civilians? International protest. Iraqi insurgents intentionally kill civilians? Silence. Why? According to you, because "it's expected". I say we should have higher expectations. Nobody (yes, the U.S. military included) should have a free pass on slaughtering people. Not to be outraged at the intentional killing of civilians is just hypocrisy.

Quote:
But, if you'd give us proof that "the other guy" has access to the level of military tech that the US has, I'd be happy to be part of the international outcry.

Right, because we should only be angry if the slaughter takes place using technologically advanced weaponry. If they use something simpler, like a car bomb, it's OK. Gee, I hope you weren't upset over the genocide in Rwanda; that took place mostly using machetes.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Not to get all overly philosophical on you, but it seems like the trouble is that one can't accurately talk about a large group of people without some amount of generalizing. The danger to that, of course, is that there will obviously always be people who don't fit the generalization. But if one doesn't engage in some degree of generalization, how can one ever talk about a large group?? It's a quandary.

...

Basically, the typical counter agument is "I don't fit that! Therefore, your entire arugment is crap! Whaaa Haaa Haaa!!!" But, when 80-90+% fits the agument, this type of counter arugment is obviously... in trouble.

I'd like to see the data that you have that supports your use of statistics. 80-90% of Americans fit the stereotype? You'd better come up with something more compelling than "in my experience" or I'll just accuse you of sophistry and move on.

Seriously, this reminds of the racist comments I'd ocassionally overhear in years past: "I don't hate all ________; obviously some of them are great folks. But let's be honest: 90% fit the stereotype." That sort of thing just makes one sound self-righteous in their bigotry. Seriously, if the sorts of language being used about Americans were used about ethnic groups, people would be a lot more worked up than they currently are. Why? Because it's wrong to stereotype and prejudge. We had this discussion in another thread a while back. If stereotyping and prejudging is wrong in one case, the burden of proof lies on the stereotyper (if you'll pardon that word) to show how what the relevant moral difference is between the wrong type of stereotyping and prejudging and the right type.

Quote:
You must understand that there is a big difference between what thing /should/ be and how things /are/. The US is said to be a *very* religous nation and with good reason. Every time you turn a corner, religous issues are being talked about.

You'll have to pardon me, I'm just an ignorant American after all. But I don't think it's a bad thing that Americans are religious people. Now, it's an open question exactly how far the influence of religion should extend and in what ways, but it's not bad to be religious as such.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

And there's more than just Americans there, there's Canadians, British, Australians...on and on (The coalition of the willing, remember

One can infer from this that you think that Canada is part of the "coalition of the willing". This is not the case.

I guess those were just people pretending to be Canadian I served with in Afghanistan, then.

Quote:
I would imagine that most people don't want to "help there neighbour" b/c Americans tend to be quite self centered (not saying it's intentional).

And Canadians tend to be self-righteous prigs.

Wait, no, I don't believe that at all. I served with Canadians in Afghanistan, and quite enjoyed their company, especially for the insight it gave me into North American politics. I found them to be pleasant, thoughtful, open-minded, professional men. So I hope that you can appreciate how humiliating it is to have you just say something like, "Americans tend to be self-centered." Do Canadians not tend to be self-centered? Do Brits not tend to be self-centered? Again, this is the kind of rhetoric that, if applied to a ethnic group, would be exceedingly inflammatory. Hell, even reverse application would no doubt be offensive to you. I guess the point is that these sorts of generalizations help nothing. Do Americans tend to be selfish? Yes; but this is in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, not in virtue of the fact that they are Americans.

Quote:
Also, no one is saying that the government should take care of /every/ problem. That's just silly. What people are saying is that there are specific problems that the government should be taking care of for the social good.

This sort of claim (that is, that the governments have a moral obligation to take care of certain things) has to be justified by something. For transcultural moral obligations to obtain, there has to be a moral authority that supercedes culture. As I said in a post above, I'm guessing that you're not going to want a deity to be that authority. So in virtue of what are you justified in thinking that there is some transcultural moral obligation on governments?

Quote:
And btw, your comment to DesktopHippie was completely unfounded. IMO, she didn't take the high and mighty view that you are imposing on her. I suggest you re-read the post.

Which comment? I made quite a few.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
"an irrational prejudice against Americans" I have some well-founded criticisms, while you seem to think ANY criticism is unjustified.

Well I call bullshit on that. I've criticized American homophobia and interference in reproductive rights. I've noted than changes need to be made in financial laws and development of a mental health system. I've expressed displeasure of politicians of both parties.

You, on the other hand, have never had one positive thing to say about America.

Or anyone to the right of her, ideologically, or anyone in the Republican party.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 4:22 AM

CHRISISALL

I just wanted to take a moment to say how proud I am to be even peripherally associated with this thread and all the posters on it; intelligent discussion has hit a high here on RWED. I've honestly never seen heated debate conducted here with more decency.
Keep it up Browncoats!

*fears he just jinxed it*

not anti-American Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 4:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER-

Quote:
SignyM quotes factoids, which have no meaning in and of themselves, but are meant to lead one to believe that the US is all about military takeovers, manipulation of the world economy, and our complete control of the UN.

Since when is a military installation anything but a projection of military power? :shakes head: It may be welcome, it may be unwelcome, it may start out being welcome but wind up being resented, but no matter how the government or the population respond to it, it IS a projeciton of military power. In and of itself.

So, afa examples of when a government asked us to leave and we didn't? Well- do invasions count? "cause then I can list a whole BUNCH!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Somewhat akin to the British empire's "divide and rule" strategy.

What do you mean, somewhat akin? That's exactly what we're doing, we got bored of that sickening smell of garlic from the French fighting the war of independence so we let you have it and tried something else. Has to be said the King thought it wouldn't take this long but it is coming along nicely.

We're going to start thawing him out this June...

...Ask PirateNews he'll tell you all about it. King George, frozen using Antarctic ice in Bohemian Grove...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Q Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

A. So often the people that make the big deal of personal responcibility think OTHERS should take personal responcibility. In reality, its actually quite rare for people to take responcibility for their own actions, unless forced to do so, and it always has.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Q Why don't the people help those who are in need?

A. I believe people do, it's called charity. Though in representative government surely demanding things such as free health care, is, in a way, helping those less fortunate?

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Q Why do they absolve themselves of responsibility and demand that the government do it?

A. Surely, with a representative government, demanding the government do it, and being prepared to pay for government action, is taking responcibility?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 5:05 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just wanted to take a moment to say how proud I am to be even peripherally associated with this thread and all the posters on it; intelligent discussion has hit a high here on RWED. I've honestly never seen heated debate conducted here with more decency.
Keep it up Browncoats!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
3) What do you mean by "rank ignorance"?
DEPENDENCE ON AMERICAN NETWORK TV FOR NEWS

This thread surpasses ANY network/cable news show in terms of rational thought. I truely wonder if our politicians/supposed leaders think this much about the issues...because they should. My guess is that meeting with thier consultants about the last focus group/study results takes up too much of thier time.

I couldn't agree more chrissisall!...darned fine thread...even learnt a few thangs!

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 5:55 AM

SAHARA

In reading this thread I've realized that the cultural ignorance (or ignorance in general), perceived superiority and xenophobia attributed to Americans isn't exclusive to Americans.

Hello Pot? It's Kettle.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:01 AM

CONSTANCE

I just saw "Jesus Camp" a documentary about evangelical (I think thats how its spelled)christians in the US. An interesting movie, and rather scary. But it is yet another documentary focusing on the negative sides of american culture and politics. We europeans love this ofcourse, its comforting to have a nation in the western world that we can blame evereything on, and laugh at.

I think that a lot of the critisism of the US is justified and right, but hating the US isnt going to solve any problems. The politics of the Bush administration might serve as a symbol of what is wrong with western civilization, and the war in Irak has certainly not helped matters. But a more thourough and balanced analysis of the state of things is needed if one wants to understand whats going on and maybe do something about it.

Constance

"What the....?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Causal,

"With all due respect Rue, asking other questions isn't the same as answering the initial ones. I do think that corporations can be evil and exploitative (which is why I never ever shop at Wal-Mart), and that they shouldn't be. But how's about you answer the questions, instead of dodging them?"

I was curious as to your stance.

I thought about it and realized I should have posted 'response' (R) rather than 'answer' (A), but if you look at the time (I was doing laundry at stupid o'clock) I hope you'll understand why I didn't go back and correct my post.

The current US structure in unduly inhumane. What about the women who spends all her life working then goes into deep debt to treat her cancer? What about the families with an autisitic child who have to decide between services for one or education for the other? There are circumstances far beyond an individual's control and therefore beyond their responsibility.

I don't think people here are looking for a lifetime free of work and responsibility. But recent US policy is to promote the extreme opposite. I don't think that should be the goal either.

Oh, and I wanted to reply to this: "I think you should take some philosophy courses!" I don't subscribe to the Platonic notion that everything in reality is some corrupted version of an 'ideal' reality and that words refer to that 'ideal'. I tend to go with the mathematical model of what seems to happen biologically, which is fuzzy logic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lots of flame-baiting here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

"Notice" isn't the thread" - and you apparently don't understand ironic understatement.

Ironic understatement, like humor, doesn't type well. Just say what you mean.

Quote:
"you do actually consider Americans ugly and hateful" - just the ugly and hateful ones.

Which is still, in your opinion, all of us.

Quote:
"the US, '...has an essentially sociopathic economy/culture.'" That argument has been made by sociologists, anthropologists and economists. I can't take credit for it.
What Causal said. Also, is this an accepted theory, or out on the fringe? Are these sociologists, anthropologists and economists French, by any chance? (See. That last sentence is a joke, but without verbal cues might be taken for a serious statement.)

Quote:
"an irrational prejudice against Americans" I have some well-founded criticisms, while you seem to think ANY criticism is unjustified.

Well I call bullshit on that. I've criticized American homophobia and interference in reproductive rights. I've noted than changes need to be made in financial laws and development of a mental health system. I've expressed displeasure of politicians of both parties.

You, on the other hand, have never had one positive thing to say about America. You provide unending criticism, often in bigoted and insulting language. You ignore any positives, and give any potential negatives the worst possible interpretation.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:18 AM

CHRISISALL

Conservaties love America/Liberals hate America doesn't fly anymore, peeps. We all know it's not that simple. It's too easy to say that wanting to address terrorism is a hawk mentality, and disagreeing with the Iraq War is a give-up mentality.

Right? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You America-hating liberaloid with your nuance ! (That's supposed to be funny ...

Well, at least I'm trying ... ba-dum PShhhh)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And now for the nuanced conservative approach:

Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/04/27/10_differenc
es_between_conservatives_and_liberals

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 6:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Chrisoidisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

As an "American" living in Canada, which someone here referred to as being similar in culture (and they would be right,

On mass we are *very* different. But, if you're living in BC or Alberta, I can understand if you're confused. Just look below the superficial and you'll see that.

But then you're saying that Canadians are outside the box, when it comes to generalizations. Granted Quebec is 'very' different than BC or Alberta, but I could say the same thing about Massachusetts and Texas, to varying degrees.

And I've lived here now, for quite a while, so I'm beyond the 'superficial'. And I can say, without a doubt, that Canadians feel they are better than Americans, I've been told as much from many different Canadians. (Which is funny, to me, cuz Canadians deal with this same issue, in their own microcosm, with different parts of Canada thinking they're above other areas.) One of my good friends here lived in the states for a few years, Michigan and then Alaska and we've talked, at length about how little difference there is between our countries, there are some, but they are 'very' subtle, with Quebec being the exception, of course, but then many of them don't consider themselves Canadians anyway

.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack Canadians, or even say they're identical to Americans. In many respects I think Canada is more the country that American intended to be than America is. (freedom of religion, open mindedness, all that.)

And you're right. Canada wasn't part of the coalition of the willing (really hate that term :P ) They did, originally have troops in Iraq but, wisely, pulled them out. Though they do still have troops in Afghanistan (which is what we were talking about)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since when is a military installation anything but a projection of military power? :shakes head: It may be welcome, it may be unwelcome, it may start out being welcome but wind up being resented, but no matter how the government or the population respond to it, it IS a projeciton of military power. In and of itself.

So? Was the projection of military power that kept the Soviets from flooding through Fulda Gap into West Germany a bad thing? Or the projection that keeps Kim Jung Il north of the DMZ? Military power is a tool, and can be used for purposes good and ill.

Quote:
So, afa examples of when a government asked us to leave and we didn't? Well- do invasions count? "cause then I can list a whole BUNCH!

Okay. Name me a country we currently have a base in, established by treaty, invasion, whatever, where the current government wants us to leave.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ClarKent913:

The thing is...If Americans think they're better than everyone else, and everyone else thinks they're better than Americans...is anyone really the better for it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

But that's just it, I don't think I've read any American here say they were better than anyone else, it's all just been implied.

I've certainly never said it, never heard it said, except, as I've said, by Canadians. I don't judge all Canadians by those few, that have expressed their belief. But I've been judged, by Canadians, by the few Americans that stumble through Canada, as tourists, making fools of themselves, or the news they read or watch. And then, I don't get upset with them, because they usually have no idea I'm American, and are quite surprised when they find out.

I don't know how to resolve this, how can we all come together on this topic? What can 'we' do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Name me a country we currently have a base in, established by treaty, invasion, whatever, where the current government wants us to leave.

Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_%28Cuba%29

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by somebody (Sigma?):
We are _not_ saying that we're better than you. We're saying that you're _not_ better than us. There's a difference.

In my experience, many non-Americans are saying they're better than Americans. They look down upon America as being culturally, intellectually, morally, technologically and/or socially inferior. Anti-Americanism isn't just a cry for America to become more modest (although that's a part of it).

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Name me a country we currently have a base in, established by treaty, invasion, whatever, where the current government wants us to leave.
Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_%28Cuba%29

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

There's probably a few more than just Cuba, I know, a few years ago, we were asked out of Tonga or Samoa, something like that, because we were using one of their islands as target practice.

But then, when there's a natural disaster, tsunami, earthquake, whatever, America's always criticized for not getting there fast enough. So you have to take your pick, America having bases everywhere, or lack of aid?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by clarkent913:
We are _not_ saying that we're better than you. We're saying that you're _not_ better than us. There's a difference.
In my experience, many non-Americans are saying they're better than Americans. They look down upon America as being culturally, intellectually, morally, technologically and/or socially inferior. Anti-Americanism isn't just a cry for America to become more modest (although that's a part of it).

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

I think the quotes got messed up, prob my fault :P, cuz I didn't say that, someone else did. Like I've said, I've never heard an American say that, I'm sure someone out there has, I won't be so naive to assume there aren't Americans out there that profess as much. But, I've heard it spoken, that such and such country is better than America, by many others. And they might be right, in different aspects, like any person, each country has it's pluses and minuses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Name me a country we currently have a base in, established by treaty, invasion, whatever, where the current government wants us to leave.
Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_%28Cuba%29

Got me there.

Let's give it back, with the detainees left in place.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:00 AM

Geezer:

Quote:
Originally posted by clarkent913:
I think the quotes got messed up, prob my fault :P, cuz I didn't say that, someone else did.

Oh, sorry Clarkent. In that case my response was addressed to whoever said the statement I quoted. I changed the source in my previous post to not be you.

EDIT: By the use of '_' for bold I suspect it was Sigmanunki. Too lazy to doublecheck.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER-
Quote:
SignyM quotes factoids, which have no meaning in and of themselves, but are meant to lead one to believe that the US is all about military takeovers, manipulation of the world economy, and our complete control of the UN.
Since when is a military installation anything but a projection of military power? :shakes head: It may be welcome, it may be unwelcome, it may start out being welcome but wind up being resented, but no matter how the government or the population respond to it, it IS a projeciton of military power. In and of itself.

But projection of military power wasn't what Geezer was talking about. He's saying that facts about spending and bases don't entail the belief that, to quote from above, "the US is all about military takeovers, manipulation of the world economy, and our complete control of the UN. And he's right--it doesn't follow from the projection of military power alone that we are doing those things. That doesn't mean we aren't--it just means that if you want to prove it you have more work to do than just reciting facts about military spending and overseas bases.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Somewhat akin to the British empire's "divide and rule" strategy.
What do you mean, somewhat akin? That's exactly what we're doing, we got bored of that sickening smell of garlic from the French fighting the war of independence so we let you have it and tried something else. Has to be said the King thought it wouldn't take this long but it is coming along nicely.

We're going to start thawing him out this June...

...Ask PirateNews he'll tell you all about it. King George, frozen using Antarctic ice in Bohemian Grove...

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the British Imperial policy of "divide and rule" in colonies such as India, where ethnic differences were played up such that the locals couldn't put together a coherent nation-wide resistance to the Raj.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:21 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I fail to see how the fact that some people on the right are extreme in their view would validate something like the statement that America's bad reputation is fully and wholly the fault of America's conservatives.

I generalized yes, but I see something like this: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ and I see so much of it and all on the conservative side. You make some points that there are extremists on both sides and you are right, but I can't help but see a much more active and larger extremist side on the Right. Groups like Greenpeace are largely ignored by the country at large and the politicians but the extreme Religious Right seems to be considered legitimate as compared to the extreme groups on the left. I can't help but think that the rise of fundamentalism and thus hard Right conservatism in the U.S. is the single greatest threat to world peace /melodrama

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

It was the biggest terror attack ever.

Right but those are spread out over months and huge geographical areas, I'm not trying to say that they aren't important just that the impact is lessened when it is essentially in a country-wide warzone.

Pardon?!?!?

To the first point, I was under the impression that 9-11 was the largest terror attack ever, if I'm wrong please correct me.

To the second, comparing 9-11 to Rwanda-Darfur is like saying "the Battle of Gettysburg was a bloody time for America, but it was nothing compared to WW2" You are comparing things that are two different scales of time and area and that makes the comparison invalid IMO.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The fault for this goes to the politicians, any good military will be extremely aggressive, it's the politicians who set them loose though.

I think that the point is that the US military is aggressive in very bad not terribly effective ways.

Examples please?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The main objection to these is that they would require tax increases and even the people who want to kick out anyone who doesn't desperately love the U.S. can't bring themselves to willingly pay the taxes their government wants.

One /could/ take the money out of the ridiculously large military budget. Hell, it's so large, people might not even notice. Though the people getting health care might

Agreed, I think that with a little more accountability the military could do with much less money and still be as effective.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by FredGiblet:

The UK leads the world in surveillance cameras per capita.

What is more dangerous is that they are starting to have people actively watching with speakers on the camaras now. Nothing like getting ridiculed if you litter.

Only a couple steps away from 1984.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Odd, since it's written into the consitution. I'd be interested to hear what led you to this conclusion, other than the carricature of the U.S. you get from your news sources. Right, because we must all be theocratic lunatics. That's about as accurate (and nearly as offensive) as saying all Brits have bad teeth.

Churches getting public funding for programs. The 10 commandments being put in court buildings (I think this was resolved by putting them in the back). Religous issues being constant forefront issues during political campaigns (and in general).

You must understand that there is a big difference between what thing /should/ be and how things /are/. The US is said to be a *very* religous nation and with good reason. Every time you turn a corner, religous issues are being talked about.

Agreed, the Right constantly pushes religion ignoring the part in the Constitution where it says the government can't sponsor a religion and ignoring the Supreme Court's interpretation that the Constitution says that the government isn't a religious body. They continue to insist that the founding fathers intended that the U.S. be a Christian nation and ignore all the evidence against that opinion and the lack of evidence for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the British Imperial policy of "divide and rule" in colonies such as India, where ethnic differences were played up such that the locals couldn't put together a coherent nation-wide resistance to the Raj.

I, erm, know, I was joking...

King George isn't really on ice in bohemia grove.

He's in greenland, the ice is cheaper to get at.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and I wanted to reply to this: "I think you should take some philosophy courses!" I don't subscribe to the Platonic notion that everything in reality is some corrupted version of an 'ideal' reality and that words refer to that 'ideal'. I tend to go with the mathematical model of what seems to happen biologically, which is fuzzy logic.

Well, you don't have to be a Platonist to be a philosopher--I'm certainly no Platonist. Most philosophers reject Platonic Idealism because it's going to turn out that the ideal is going to a pretty funny thing, ontologically. Many philosophers accept limited realism instead of Platonic idealism (including myself). I'm not a huge fan of fuzzy logic, except where it properly applies: inherently imprecise categories like hotness and coldness. Too often I see my colleagues try to apply fuzzy logic to things that can be adequately handled by a coherence account of truth--the proposition "There are two quarters in my pocket" is not an inherently imprecise matter. It's either true or false in virtue of whether there are, in fact, two quarters in my pocket.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Only a couple steps away from 1984.

In so much as America is only a couple steps away from Nazi Germany because the government is headed by one man.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the British Imperial policy of "divide and rule" in colonies such as India, where ethnic differences were played up such that the locals couldn't put together a coherent nation-wide resistance to the Raj.
I, erm, know, I was joking...

King George isn't really on ice in bohemia grove.

He's in greenland, the ice is cheaper to get at.

I think somebody mentioned how joking doesn't come across well in type...sorry!

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Conservaties love America/Liberals hate America doesn't fly anymore, peeps. We all know it's not that simple. It's too easy to say that wanting to address terrorism is a hawk mentality, and disagreeing with the Iraq War is a give-up mentality.

Exactly! But we do so love our categories, and they surely are useful to the pols...

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And now for the nuanced conservative approach:

Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/04/27/10_differenc
es_between_conservatives_and_liberals

If you really think that kind of thinking is representative of all conservatives, then you've bought into the very sort of binary worldview that Chris was criticizing.

I mean, how am I supposed to read that in any other way than as an attack on conservatives?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by clarkent913:
I've been judged, by Canadians, by the few Americans that stumble through Canada, as tourists, making fools of themselves, or the news they read or watch. And then, I don't get upset with them, because they usually have no idea I'm American, and are quite surprised when they find out.

How many Americans visit Canada without "stumbling through" and "making fools of themselves" and how come people's opinions of Americans is based solely on the ones who do?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal, I was just reading down and thought I'd reply to this: "the US is all about military takeovers, manipulation of the world economy, and our complete control of the UN". In fact this is what Geezer said about SigyM's posts, not something SignyM himself ever expressed or advocated.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal,

Platonic v fuzzy logic: nouns can be fuzzy, especially nouns of category, which is where the issue came up (in reference to 'conservative').

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 8:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Causal (again)

"I mean, how am I supposed to read that in any other way than as an attack on conservatives?"

You're right. But what I pulled from TownHall was just what I got from today's mailing. You'll find one, or more, of that type of opinion every day. Read Townhall some day for yourself.

As for them being conservative, this is what they say about themselves:

-----------
About Townhall.com

Townhall.com was launched in 1995 as the first conservative web community. At that time, only a handful of political sites existed and Townhall.com was the first major investment in online activism made by either side. In 2005, Townhall.com split off from The Heritage Foundation in order to expand the scope of Townhall.com's mission to inform, empower and mobilize citizens for political change. Today, Townhall.com is a web site that pulls together news and information from its 120 different "partner organizations," political commentary and analysis from over 100 different columnists, and activism tools developed to empower an active citizenry.

Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation -- and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.
-----------

And please note that TownHall isn't some fringe group. By their scope and numbers, they ARE the conservative mainstream.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 9:01 AM