Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

dys, If there's anything I've learned about you is that you are capable, without A2Ker's help, to establish the correct definition of a "P.C. Patriot" - even if you must limit the criteria to 10 or less fields. Your one line zingers have great promise, btw.

You actually worked on it yourself! Thats sweet ... it's impressive ;-)

Sofia,

I think the balancing is often a reflection of a moderate or more inclusive (less exclusive) definition of patriotism (or whatever concept is being balanced.) Many terms, like patriotism are really a set of ideas which can be distorted either way. My balancing is usually a reaction to one extreme and therefore distorted and mistaken idea about the ideas being discussed. PC is a funny concept. I don't like to get caught up in it.

perception paraphrased

With sincere regards to deb the dlowan, I offer an opinion. Non-conformism, that is the desire to destroy the power in a society by way of decreasing the power of its gov't, is inherently belligerent. Since there can be no awards of accomplishment without opponents, non-conformists must create enemies before we can require protection from them Non-conformists can ony flourish where the citizens become dissatisfied with their gov't. The spirit of non-conformism is therefore characteristically associated with anarchy or other modes of creating chaos and disunity. Because non-conformism is always the desire to contain others outside its purvue it is always evil in its intent. Wanting the best outcome for your family, your neighborhood, your communityis a natural desire therefore very negative toward non-conformism. The non-conformist finds that offensive and therefore something that must be destroyed.

Happy Halloween

Interesting definition of nonconformism, perception. I was satisfied to creat new words for the longest time; now I see I must make up new definitions for the old ones. Ah, life is a never ending challenge.

I trust NO ONE will take seriously what I have paraphrased from Dys

May I point out, you said you were paraphrasing perception? I'd say to go edit, but if it wasn't meant, there is no point.

Dlowan. You said--

a. It has nothing to do with PC - you must dream about PC!
Nah. But I do dream of people giving their true opinions, not colored by who they are talking to at any given moment--or what they perceive regarding the other person's opinion. A fond dream, that.

b. If you like to debate - which I do, and so do many others - it is both fun, and instructive, to take different sides - or subtly different sides - either to enhance debate, or to have an opportunity to really test out the reasonableness of your position, or both. Usually both, I would think - since I, for instance, often change my position on an issue over time - not generally during the debate (unless it is really long and immediate), but in thinking about it afterwards.
Sure--for debating purposes. Really rather get a straight, unretouched answer when asking for someone's opinion, though.

c. It is not "corrective" in intent - but somewhat instinctive, I think - or curiosity or fun-based - (what is the fun in expressing nothing but agreement? Pleasant, I am sure, but nowhere near so like a discussion...) - or, as I said, knowledge and challenge to oneself based.
This is weird. Who asked for agreement? Just a straight answer.

Dishonest? If you think that there is but one opinion - held tightly and seriously - no nuance or doubt - then it might be seen to be dishonest - perhaps I am too politically incorrect for you Sofia, since there would be few opinions I would hold so tightly? I consider my opinions opinions - the only thing I know for sure is that they will change, to some extent, or another, over time. Partly, or largely, through testing them out, and learning, in debates - so I have an interest in good ones.
Again... as on the poor tired Moslem Celebration over 911 thread showed me--many people preferred to dodge the issue, or compare the Muslim celebrants to some other group rather than face the thread issue head on--because they (some) were concerned if they shared what they thought, they would be somehow fanning some extremist flame... This struck me as PC and proprietary over others' feelings and opinions.

ding, ding.................time out

Good God, Lola. My post was mild.

(Of course, we could have used a referee recently... :wink: )

I would opine that patriotism as a "hot button" topic arises now precisely because of the political rectitude demon. Political rectitude is a creation of the hardening of the ideological arteries of militant feminists and other forms of leftist militants at the end of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies. It was quickly and ruthlessly exploited: Black Panthers used it to slam any criticism of their agenda, or any comments on the culture of urban African Americans, such as references to their anti-semitism; extreme Jewish groups such as JDL have used it to equate any criticism of Isreal with anit-semitism; Amerindians have used it to squelch any criticism of their warped propaganda about the history of Amerindians as recorded since the arrival of Europeans (such as denying land sales of one tribes territories by another, or the attempted and sometimes even successful extermination of one tribe by another); even the PRC has used it, by making the false claim that there is no tradition of individual freedom and popular participation in government by the mass of the people in Chinese history, and from that claiming that western notions about popular expression and democratic reform cannot be applied to them.

And the political right in America has suffered the same hardening of attitudes with regard to their particular favorite dogmas. Candidates who fear the wrath of the right wing extremists will avoid the subject of abortion, or take a position opposing it. Candidates get suddenly holy and righteous in the attempt to either attract, or avoid offending, a perceived conservative religious right (see Husker's interesting thread on misperceptions about the religious right). Demagogues such as Pat Buchanan offer a truly nasty crypto-racist theory of immigration policy, and even those less extreme than he parrot nonsense about welfare recipients which is a very ill-concealed appeal to racism (the majority of wellfare recipients are white, and rural--rather than black and urban). A new major component of political rectitude as practiced by the right wing is to equate any criticism of conservative foreign policy with treason, painting their critics as unpatriotic. What crap--that's every bit as ridiculous as feminists ranting about dead white European males, or the newly popular historical myth among blacks that Jews are responsible for the slave trade.

Right or left, political rectitude is an intellectual cancer eating away at sanity and civility in our national polity.

It was mild, Sofia......I agree.

Countering extreme positions is both a natural and straight answer. It has nothing to do with being "retouched".

The only people who never have to do this are the extreme fringe themselves. To everyone else there is an extreme on both sides that they take issue with and when confronted with it tend to take a dissenting opinion.

e.g.

Person A hates Muslims and thinks they should all die.

Person B is a Muslim extremist and thinks all "infidels" should die.

Person C in in between, rejecting the extremity of both.

When confronted by Person A's extremism person C will argue from a position that condemns the extreme sanction proposed for Muslims, thereby "defending" Islam.

When confronted with person B's extremism person C will reject the inordinately favorable position in regard to Islam.

In one argument person C will seem to support Islam and in the other to reject it. It's not a dishonest or wavering opinion, just the rejection of the extremes.

Abroad when denigration of the US was extreme and not supported by reality I argue in favor of the US. The people who say the US is trying to steal the Amazon in Brazil are falling for a lie (that happens to be common).

When in the US and confronted by those who think the US has done no wrong my position will be one in which this extreme is countered.

So in each argument, my position does not change, I do not like or dislike the Us based upon who I am talking with, but I will frequently reject their arhument if it is an extreme that falls to either side of my position.

There is no duplicity in this, the position is not changed. One simply has to turn to face the extremity they are confronted with. That they have to face different directions based upon who they are speaking to is a result of the positions those people take. In one is in the middle, for example, speaking to someone on the right means the person must face and confront the right. When speaking with someone on the left the centrist must face and confront the left.

It is the case for anyone who does not occupy the most extreme positions. The tired old "PC" saw never sounded so lame, it's not about "PC", it's simply occupying a position on neither extremity and the subsequent rejection of more extreme positions.

Lola - if you are are making a comparison with my post as "non-mild" in your comment above - I suggest you have a look at some of the name-calling which Sofia has done on this thread.

I have pretty much ignored it, as I generally do such behaviour - but I am no longer in any mood to respond to Sofia's insults "mildly". I think being accused of dishonesty - while indeed mild compared to some of the epithets which have been directed at me by her is sufficient reason to respond pretty firmly, and I will do so. Not wishing to get into name-calling is different from not responding forcefully to complete misrepresentation.

I was going to answer on the "countering extremes" vs "dishonesty" argument, but I think Craven said pretty much everything I would have said - and better. Yeh - that's pretty much it. Nothing to do with dishonesty.

To his general point I can only add my own personal experience. An example. Here at work I've sometimes been confronted with anti-Americanism - nothing particularly extreme or virulent, just short-sighted, stupid stuff. Annoying as hell. When confronted, after 9/11 (about when the Afghan war was starting in retaliation), with people only saying, "well, look at what they've did in the past - it's only logical something like this (9/11) would happen to them at some time - and its not like there's no American extremism - and America has always supported repressive regimes in the third world - etc etc etc - i quickly get quite annoyed because they so blatantly leave out part of the story, to my mind.

Basically, what I do in such a case is, I compare what the other is saying with my own opinion and, while trying to always ackowledging where we do agree, will forcefully add the part of my opinion he is contradicting or omitting. In casu: muslim religious extremism is a threat, an attack like 9/11 is unprecedented, it is only normal for a country victimised like that to strike back at the perpetrators, there is no excuse for terrorism like that, period - etc etc.

But when, a few days after, I go to ABuzz or A2K or what-was-it-then, and am confronted with lots of Americans who, for example, sincerely ask "what did we ever do wrong to them?", or who make blanket statements about the "violent, backward Islam", or who propagate bombing them all to smithereens (just to give three examples on a scale from nice to nasty), I would react in wonder, annoyance or even anger at the part of the story they were leaving out, about Islam, about America's track record, about causes and solutions.

All this time, I haven't changed my opinion - it's just like what Craven says. "If one is in the middle, for example, speaking to someone on the right means the person must face and confront the right. When speaking with someone on the left the centrist must face and confront the left." 'S pure common sense if you think about it.

That said, there is a pitfall - your point does come up on some level, when determining one's exact position always in relation to that of others. I mean, you do - its only natural - we always define our own identity in relation to others. A light-skinned negro will be called "black" in America but perhaps "white" in Congo; and if he is discriminated against, he will feel "black" in America, while being acutely aware of his "whiteness" in Congo. But nevertheless, there's a risk. Sometimes it is important to take a distance from all the others and just define your own position exactly how you would ideally, independent of any context.

For example, if I spend too much time hanging out on A2K and discussing Iraq, I will mostly be debating Americans - and often Americans who either hold the US government's view or argue with it - its always the US government's view that's in the centre of the discussion. And thus I end up debating my own position always in reference to that "pole", as well. Whereas when I move away from A2K for a while, and just read random stuff from European and other papers and sites, things - even whole perspectives - might suddenly come up that never even figured in the discussion here. And I might well think again.

I react most strongly to that with which I disagree ... and I catch myself at lurching further to the left on the matter the more stupid (or downright evil) things Rumsfeld or Cheney says about it. Sometimes I have to remind myself that I would do better to ignore them altogether, and define how I would see the solution myself - and that sometimes gets me to surprisingly different conclusions. It's only natural to explain your POV in relation to that of the other - nothing dishonest about it - but sometimes it pays off to force yourself to think less reactively, to at least have defined your own position beforehand solely on your own compass.

Hey, I agree with both sides - cool - better than always disagreeing with both sides.

LOL - but by no means less troublesome, necessarily!

Craven--

Certainly, when one is presented with extremism, the focus of their response may shift. Many times, on this forum, I have expressed agreement with a member--only to be horrified with their next post. I used to be concerned about being deemed guilty by association--but I decided to dispatch that concern. If someone wanted to challenge MY opinion, all they had to do for clarification is ask me.

Because of the fear of guilt by association, some people--here and elsewhere--want to distance themselves far from what they consider wrong. So, Kara pours through a post of hers, which I had agreed with to screw with her, and finds it important enough to say, "I'm worried about the article I posted. If Sofia agreed with it--there must be something wrong with it." And later, evidence she had been compelled to find a difference, she came back to criticise the article she had brought and touted, and that I had infuriatingly agreed with. It was a funny, instructive experiment. But sad. People don't say what they mean; they tailor their words for the current audience.

No, what I reference is when the 'balancing voice' is pre-emptive. Before there is any extremism shared. The Moslem Celebration thread--and others--have revealed this phenomena. And I believe you copped to it. The Moslem celebrants (or planners) were not criticised by many responders. The subject was dodged, or diluted with other situations,...seemingly holding the Moslems above criticism because of their PC status.

What is PC that is bothers you so much? Isn't it simply not using certain words, phrases or discussing certain ideas deemed inappropriate? And didn't you temper your opinion based on your concern that it would whip up some anti-Moslem extremism? I believe that is how you portrayed it. And, that to me evidences your belief that instead of speaking your unretouched opinion, you must temper it in order to effect others' opinions. Coming down hard on extremism is a good thing. Diluting reality, or thinking one must herd the smelly cattle by manipulation is a mindset I challenge.

dlowan--
Having a bad day? My recent post was a generalised statement. I think after our 'discussion' a couple of days ago, you are seeing insult where there is none. Take a deep breath, and have a nice day. I thought we handled our previous contretemps quite well. It ended well, if you were sincere. I thought I was the moody one. You are the one introducing personal comments.

nimh, I crossed your post... The aspect you and Craven mention--when faced with extremism or one-sidedness, I agree with. My bone is with the pre-emptive opinion shift, based on presumptive 'conclusions' about what result may occur.

Actually - I do not have concretized positions on lots of things - more a sense that there is this aspect, and that aspect - and this way of thinking about it, and then there is that way - but within certain parameters - that is there is an organising schema. I guess there are core opinions - which change painfully, and in increments, if they change - and far more fluid ones - which change with interest and little kerfuffle, as new info comes in, or a new way of thinking about something becomes available.

Nimh wrote:

I react most strongly to that with which I disagree ... and I catch myself at lurching further to the left on the matter the more stupid (or downright evil) things Rumsfeld or Cheney says about it. Sometimes I have to remind myself that I would do better to ignore them altogether, and define how I would see the solution myself - and that sometimes gets me to surprisingly different conclusions. It's only natural to explain your POV in relation to that of the other - nothing dishonest about it - but sometimes it pays off to force yourself to think less reactively, to at least have defined your own position beforehand solely on your own compass.

Gosh---if only everyone on the left would react in this intelligent fashion this forum would be such a pleasant place.

Of course those of us just to the right of center never have this problem :wink:

Actually, Perception - one could argue that your ilk have a net effect of moving many in your audience further to the left!!! If you could be a little less extreme, you would arouse less reaction, and the world would move a little more to the right.....makes you think, does it not?


LOL!