|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2016 00:04 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2016 23:06 Simberto wrote:On September 20 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
Let us force our children to pledge allegiance to the Republic and stand during for a song that has the word “the land of the free” in the finally. The home of the brave, where our greatest fear is our children will have different ideals that we do. What the fuck, does that seriously happen? Maybe it is my countries history, but i would be majorly freaked out if school children would be required to participate in some daily propaganda ritual. American patriotism has always had a serious fascist undertone. Be it the pledge or someone not standing during the national anthem. Nothing wrong with the pledge. I pledged to the flag every school day for 8 years, never had an issue with it. You can say it's fascism if you want, my interpretation is that I'm living in a country which protects fundamentally important values. A country is basically a group of people living together with common values, they will work together to protect those values. Shit on the USA all you want (and for sure, there are lots of good reasons to criticize the USA), it's still a far cry better than China, Russia, African countries, etc. You think pledging to the flag every morning is fascism? Quite rich coming from someone who has never lived in an actual fascist regime to begin with.. Compare it to France where everyone hates the French, including the French themselves, everyone here is just looking out for number 1. Never mind history, never mind the soldiers who died in the World Wars, never mind that France has done immense work in the area of social equality. People in France aren't going to thank France (generic term regrouping all French people working together to protect national interests) for what it's done for them, they're going to spit at France's face for not giving them enough welfare. http://anonhq.com/violent-protests-labor-strikes-halt-france-hollande-attempts-slay-workers-rights-investigative/Honestly, if I had to compare disgraceful riots with something as trivial as saying "I pledge allegiance to the group of people with whom I share common values and live with every day", I'd say I'd rather say good morning to the damn flag every day. That's what patriotism is, it's not as empty as people (read Europeans mostly) make it out to be. Pledging allegiance to a flag every morning does not mean that you're condoning drone strikes in the Middle East, unlike what some people will insinuate.
It's disturbingly fascist because you're creating a lot of social pressure on kids to conform to reciting the pledge constantly. Repeating that and combining it with all of the rest of the overly-patriotic cultural overtones we have in society indoctrinates kids to practically worship the flag and America as an ideal and limits their ability to critically think about our country's flaws.
There's a role for patriotism in any culture; American values stand for many great things (and plenty of bad things) and people consistently exaggerate the negative aspects of American culture. However, indoctrinating kids to that degree is pretty disturbing, and I say this as someone in the U.S. military.
|
Remember Trump supporters making a huge deal out of Ortel accusing the Clinton Foundation of misusing donations with 0 evidence? Watch the hoops they'll jump to claim this isn't a big deal
|
Here's a controversial notion from this liberal: American schools don't do nearly enough indoctrination as it is 
|
On September 21 2016 00:52 a_flayer wrote:
I'm proud of the scientific contributions that Dutch people have made to the world over the years. I can barely even recognize the national anthem when it plays, and I certainly don't know the words. I have no respect for the "queen" nor am I aware of anything that happens in that region of our society. But I'm still proud of the actual accomplishments of our people where they don't infringe on the rights of others but instead genuinely contribute to the world at large.
And yeah, I'd say that the patriotism of Americans is certainly one thing that helps prevent them from seeing their state for the horrible monster that it is, which is why I went off on my previous post. I know I'm colouring it worse than it is, but there needs to be more pushback to the kind of attitude that the US is displaying on an international level.
You know we have a king now, right? I guess we also have a queen, but that would be Maxima, not Beatrix, and she's not our head of state.
I don't see patriotism as necessarily bad: it forms a sense of cohesion and community, and may very well help with immigration (although I don't think it was the pledge that managed to forge citizens out of the hodgepodge collection of immigrants that flocked to the US during the 19th and early 20th century). I don't agree with forcing children to pledge allegiance. That just smacks of fascism to me.
|
On September 21 2016 01:58 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 01:49 Incognoto wrote:On September 21 2016 01:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Hillary can smash this debate with the right questions.
If they ask her to respond to the claim that she founded ISIS she can respond that no, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded ISIS in conjunction with Al Qaeda in 2004 and led it until he was shot by US soldiers. ISIS then had a schism with Bin Laden who was also executed by US soldiers while Clinton watched in the situation room. Abu Umar al-Baghdadi took over ISIS until US soldiers fired a rocket into his house killing him and his close comrades. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is currently running the show when he's not running from the bombs we drop on his suspected locations.
Just drop some serious knowledge of the situation and watch as Trump goes "nuh uh, Obama founded ISIS, Clinton cofounded". I mean do you really expect them to actually get equal treatment? Clinton is getting treated like a potential future president of the USA, Trump is getting treated like a special needs kid running for student government. The dishonest media is also perhaps realistic media. Wait though, doesn't "dishonest media" go hand in hand with "state-sanctioned media" which is the bane of humanity in the USA by brainwashing its population and children? Dishonest media pushes the agenda that makes them more money becuase people want to see it, state sponsored media pushes a specific nations agenda by for example, paying the head of a well known leaking website to appear on state owned tv and then suddenly he starts only publishing things that further agenda and not publishing things that make that country look bad. One is for profit, one is for power. Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2016 01:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 21 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Hillary can smash this debate with the right questions.
If they ask her to respond to the claim that she founded ISIS she can respond that no, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded ISIS in conjunction with Al Qaeda in 2004 and led it until he was shot by US soldiers. ISIS then had a schism with Bin Laden who was also executed by US soldiers while Clinton watched in the situation room. Abu Umar al-Baghdadi took over ISIS until US soldiers fired a rocket into his house killing him and his close comrades. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is currently running the show when he's not running from the bombs we drop on his suspected locations.
Just drop some serious knowledge of the situation and watch as Trump goes "nuh uh, Obama founded ISIS, Clinton cofounded". I mean do you really expect them to actually get equal treatment? Clinton is getting treated like a potential future president of the USA, Trump is getting treated like a special needs kid running for student government. Maybe Trump gets treated like a special needs kid because he has repeatedly acted like one? If Trump acted 'presidential' he would be getting treated like all the other old Republican candidates. He himself chose to act different and as such be treated differently. The problem with that is Trump is getting handled with kids gloves in a attempt to appear unbiased and make this a close race which means better ratings. His son said if Trump acted like Hillary the media would be firing up the gas chamber, and not only the did the media basically ignore it, no one called him on the massive irony. DId you know the Trump Foundation has done everything he accused the Clinton foundation of and more, and yet all we hear about is Hillary's emails?
The most amusing part about this is that people have dug up real and brazen illegal activity in their dives into the Trump foundation. But for some reason it is barely talked about, because they don't want to be biased. But we can't get through a major TV event without talking about those emails. Can I get 1/3 of an interview with Trump on Trump University? Or his taxes?
|
On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy.
Its in our genetics.
Like on this forum here, there is a tribalism.
|
On September 21 2016 02:06 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy. Its in our genetics. Like on this forum here, there is a tribalism.
Citation needed?
|
The presence of tribalism is not evidence that humans are inherently tribalistic. Referring to genetics is a category error.
|
On September 21 2016 02:03 farvacola wrote:Here's a controversial notion from this liberal: American schools don't do nearly enough indoctrination as it is
Here's another one from a liberal. American schools are a fox news teir echo chamber with only left to far left wing opinions becoming wide spread. If American colleges weren't so left wing slanted, we wouldn't have Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein even close to relevant.
|
On September 21 2016 02:06 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy. Its in our genetics. Like on this forum here, there is a tribalism.
Socialization and culture are more important than “genetics”.
|
On September 21 2016 02:08 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 02:03 farvacola wrote:Here's a controversial notion from this liberal: American schools don't do nearly enough indoctrination as it is Here's another one from a liberal. American schools are a fox news teir echo chamber with only left to far left wing opinions becoming wide spread. If American colleges weren't so left wing slanted, we wouldn't have Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein even close to relevant.
What evidence is this opinion based on? Most of the people who make Facebook-ish references to the liberal echo chamber on college campuses have either A) never been to college or B) had a really bad time in college because they have terrible notions. This is not to say that the academy isn't liberally biased, it definitely is, but the idea that campuses are "liberal echo chambers" ignores the likelihood that the vast majority of college graduates come out of the system never having encountered this echo chamber being posited.
|
United States1874 Posts
On September 20 2016 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 14:01 Doodsmack wrote:
Hopefully if Trump is elected the liberal SC justices will remain long enough to hear the challenges to his immigration plans. I bet Democrats don't blow off supporters of someone like Bernie next time around if Trump wins, If Hillary wins, you can count on her going even further to the right over the course of her term (it would be what Democrats told her she could/should do).
Honestly, if Hillary wins, she'll be so weak 4 years from now someone could mount a credible primary challenge. And however much the R's win, somebody like Warren would mop the floor with them in 2020.
On September 20 2016 15:27 IgnE wrote:
You should deconstruct the word "neoliberal" into its component parts.
Seriously... don't rag on someone if you haven't bothered at least googling a term to understand its context. Newsflash: the word "liberal" means different things to different people. Liberal democracy, liberal versus conservative, and liberal versus socialist all mean different things. Neoliberalism refers to the third kind.
-The Economist is the first and the third kind, and the second kind about half of the time.
-GH is the first and second but emphatically not the third.
-Donald trump is really none of them, flopping around a bit, but staying emphatically against the first.
-HRC is all three, though some might question her credentials on the first or second.
On September 20 2016 23:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 23:06 Simberto wrote:On September 20 2016 22:35 Plansix wrote:
Let us force our children to pledge allegiance to the Republic and stand during for a song that has the word “the land of the free” in the finally. The home of the brave, where our greatest fear is our children will have different ideals that we do. What the fuck, does that seriously happen? Maybe it is my countries history, but i would be majorly freaked out if school children would be required to participate in some daily propaganda ritual. Nope, it seems fascist as fuck to the rest of us, not just to the Germans. But at least it'll stop Kremlin Joe from undermining the hearts of our soldiers in the fight against communism.
Honestly, I'd take a dose of whatever keeps the Kremlin out of our affairs right now. Not sure this will do it, but I'm just saying, Russia's actually trying to undermine my country's democracy... no joke, no conspiracy. Pretty openly.
|
United States44389 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:08 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 02:03 farvacola wrote:Here's a controversial notion from this liberal: American schools don't do nearly enough indoctrination as it is Here's another one from a liberal. American schools are a fox news teir echo chamber with only left to far left wing opinions becoming wide spread. If American colleges weren't so left wing slanted, we wouldn't have Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein even close to relevant.
Oddly enough the only evidence of colleges being deliberately given political stances are actually in the opposite direction. The big banks sponsor the way economics is taught within all the big business schools in order to promote a generation who believe in the deregulation of banking. The professors generally have honorary roles with big salaries with the main banks and the banking industry donates heavily to the schools to keep the party line as the only taught message. No tinfoil, if you want evidence that colleges are indoctrinating their students there is actually a shitton of evidence that they are, but not the way you think.
|
On September 21 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 02:06 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy. Its in our genetics. Like on this forum here, there is a tribalism. Citation needed?
Right here on this very thread people are tribalistic.
|
On September 21 2016 02:07 farvacola wrote:
The presence of tribalism is not evidence that humans are inherently tribalistic. Referring to genetics is a category error.
Humans are inherently tribalistic... they are not Only tribalistic, but they are tribalistic.
Any human without tribalism would have a serious mental disorder of some type. (a sort of combined psychopathy+severe autism)
|
Tautologies tied to musings of mental illness are not very compelling.
|
On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy.
So our tribalistic nature is merely a social construct instead of some inherent predisposition? I suppose that you'd argue the same thing about monkeys and other social animals?
|
On September 21 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Tautologies tied to musings of mental illness are not very compelling.
While I understand your point (there's no direct evidence that we are actually genetically predisposed to be social/tribal creatures), you're being pretty obstinate if you don't at least acknowledge that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that points toward this conclusion.
That said, you could also define it as being predisposed to tribalism via evolution (as opposed to being predisposed directly by genetics), but again, all of the evidence is circumstantial.
|
On September 21 2016 02:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy. So our tribalistic nature is merely a social construct instead of some inherent predisposition? I suppose that you'd argue the same thing about monkeys and other social animals?
Something like that, though the term "social construct" isn't quite right because the dynamics observed through historical analysis are never purely social nor are they constructs in the sense that they are built, they merely "are."
On September 21 2016 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote:
Tautologies tied to musings of mental illness are not very compelling. While I understand your point (there's no direct evidence that we are actually genetically predisposed to be social/tribal creatures), you're being pretty obstinate if you don't at least acknowledge that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that points toward this conclusion. That said, you could also define it as being predisposed to tribalism via evolution (as opposed to being predisposed directly by genetics), but again, all of the evidence is circumstantial.
My point is that whether or not humans are inherently tribalistic is not a "good" dispute to resolve because its both unprovable and not very useful after the fact.
|
The neat thing about humans is that we have brains to overcome the hunter gatherer lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
