Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

LOL!

0 Replies

Yet more appeals to blanket condemnations by arbitrary and hostile definition.

Whether one is seen to be on the right, or on the left, it seems to me that one of the most striking lessons of history is that most folks prefer to have their opinions validated by a group. Conservatives are just as likely Liberals to want to believe others share their beliefs--to revel in the vindication they see in others expressing what they believe themselves. Saddly, whether Conservative or Liberal, people also love to join the virtual lynch mob, out to get the "other."

The topic is patriotism, as we each define it; and whether or not each of us consider it valuable.

Despite a reputation for being an attack poster, for which reputation i take responsibility, i would like to point out that i've tried to respond to the topic in this thread, and examine the idea of patriotism. Can we all do so?

Apart from that, i share the Bunny's disgust with virtual group hugs. Yuch . . .

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Sofia wrote:

It's like selling your soul for membership in a warm pool of groupthink.

Sorry for the repeat but I just had to see it again-----I love it.

0 Replies

How ironic the juxtaposition of posts here . . .

0 Replies

Hmmm - has the irony of continual repeats of that particular comment escaped you, Perception?

Setanta - I think threads go where they will. By all means comment further on patriotism - but I have no problem with a good argument - I have some with gratuitous insult, and I am bored by the continual reeling off of screeds of predictable polemic by "liberals" and conservatives about each other - but in amongst it there has been meat - and a number of different kinds.

0 Replies

And hot enough to cook the meat as well Bunny . . . i'm a thread-hijacker of long standing, so i'm not trying to take a holier-than-thou position here. It's just that i have found the meat here to be very tasty, and grow tired of the froth, which doesn't sit well when whipped up from bile . . .

0 Replies

LOL - true indeed!

0 Replies

But - it is not just a little resentment cos you did not light the barbecue? LOL!

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

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.

Ah - Sofia - I had not seen this post when I responded to you. I have some sense of where you are coming from now.

I think you have quite misinterpreted balancing as it is being used on this thread - and, I think, as I used it on the other thread.

I will consider this post tomorrow - it is waaaay late here - and comment then.

0 Replies

I think you will agree that the "recent post" you refer to in the post I have quoted, both in position and content, could be quite reasonably inferred to be aimed specifically at me - I of course accept your word that it was not.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

And hot enough to cook the meat as well Bunny . . . i'm a thread-hijacker of long standing, so i'm not trying to take a holier-than-thou position here. It's just that i have found the meat here to be very tasty, and grow tired of the froth, which doesn't sit well when whipped up from bile . . .

.......when whipped up from bile-----hmmm ---is that what makes you so grumpy most of the time------you have indigestion Laughing

0 Replies

perception wrote:

.......when whipped up from bile-----hmmm ---is that what makes you so grumpy most of the time------you have indigestion

But the farts come from somewhere else !! Shocked

0 Replies

In PM's with the Cunning Coney, on this and other topics, i advised her, in the phrase from MacBeth, to lay on . . .

Everyone just have your fun here, i'll try to grab a good cut of meat every once in a while.

Percy, the bile is yours, not mine. My digestion works just fine. It even allows me to stomach your nonsense.

0 Replies

The gray areas
I applaud Craven's analysis of extremes determining where the center can be found.

My lifelong experience has shown me to be different than most true believers who only see things in black and white. I find myself mostly in the gray areas between the black and white extremes, moving back and forth to the edges of my gray areas depending on the subject and the debaters.

While I've been closely associated with extremes on the left when fighting for civil rights, women's rights, consumer rights, worker rights, and other crusades, I've often disagreed with the extremes on the left whose positions are counter productive in persuading the masses to see the value of our crusade. It doesn't mean that I'm not passionate and take risks to achieve my goals. It means that I'm more pragmatic about how to effect change for the common good. It doesn't mean I don't have my soapbox handy on occasion, but I try to use it wisely.

This gray area of mine is probably the reason I was a very good mediator-arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association when we were designing its Community Dispute Services several decades ago. One must be able to see and understand contrary viewpoints in order to identify a win-win solution.

BBB

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Percy, the bile is yours, not mine. My digestion works just fine. It even allows me to stomach your nonsense.

Nope----no sneering or insults there----just good Setanta intellectual discussion

0 Replies

Perc,

We can all agree to let it go while still maintaining our right and ability to throw a jab from time to time. Why don't you join us on that? Come on in, you can play. But you have to be able to admit that the bile is on both sides. If you don't everybody's going to pick on you. So if you want to play, you'll have to find a way to admit your part along with the rest of us.

And about extremes and Political Corrrrrrrrectness, .........I think it's absolutely true. To me, extremes indicate a denial of the possibility of some measure of truth in an opposing view. It's like a wish to not have mixed feelings or ambivalence. It's always been easier for me, as BBB says above, when I can locate my fear of my own internal struggle, with my own mixed feelings. So it's not necessarily just a sucking up to the group that takes place, but rather a joining of the group, in the other group member's ability to accept the fact that absolute dichotomies are most often false. Often balancing has to do with a wish to avoid the dangers and misconceptions contained in the extreme positions.

And about patriotism. We're really not off topic here, I think. Patriotism used as a tool to motivate others to do what is wanted is not in and of itself a bad thing. After all, if it's necessary to protect yourself against the tragedy of losing your freedom, then patriotism or love of freedom is, in fact, the only real motivator. I think we're talking about blind patriotism and the promotion of it. These things are trash. Patriotism, or love of self and the need to protect yourself is a treasure I hope none of us will ever lose. But this love of self is in fact being severely threatened right now. And the enemy is not Saddam (although he's a lovely likely target) the enemy is those in our government who promote blind patriotism. It is these people we should be fighting.

0 Replies

I was pretty much with ya, Lola, till the end of your last paragraph. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but you perhaps might have separated it from the rest, and offered it as your partisan opinion.

I consider the attempts of supporters of the current administration to be those most likely to wrap themselves in the flag and attack those who disagree with them. I'm not saying that the administration doesn't benefit from such a disingenuous position, rather, i'm saying that i have not good reason to accuse them of actively attempting to brand their critics as traitorous. I suspect they'd love to do so, but understand they would be entering a mine field.

I would also take issue with your remark about absolute dichotomies. I have long believed that the most of people (once again, the caveat that i apply this to those on the left and the right) hold their beliefs unexamined. I believe that most people are convinced that others around them think pretty much as they do themselves, and upon that assumption, they are willing to believe that that which they hold to be absolutely true is also believed to be absolutely true by their fellows. Given that much of the population is not given to clearly articulating their political creed, but rather are given to discussing particular issues, it seems to me that they are likely to see in anyone's agreement with their own pride or indignation a confirmation of the absolute beliefs they hold.

Were it possible (which i believe it is not) for any two conservative citizens of "average" education and means, or two liberals so described, to sit down and review everything they believe with one another, i suggest that both parties would be amazed to discover what the other believes, which they themselves have never considered, or do not believe.

This is why the experience here is valuable. "Conversations" such as we have here just aren't likely to be played out so thoroughly at a lunch counter or in a coffee shop.

Apart from all of that, i forgive you all for not seeing the unfailing wisdom of my opinions.

0 Replies

Oops, Setanta......you're right. I forgot that qualifier. Thanks for keeping me honest. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta,

You haven't heard lines like, "if you're not for us, you're against us?" Etc.. There have been many such statements by our President and his advisors. Do I really have to go accumulate this data again?

I agree with you about beliefs being largely unexamined. Even those of us who spend a lot of time examining and examining have certain lurking unquestioned assumptions. I'm always surprised to find those in myself because I spend so much time playing doctor with myself. (Laughing)

But I still stand by my idea that most dichotomies are false. The dichtomous ideas themselves may not be false, but the idea that they are always and absolutely in opposition to each other, i.e. mutually exclusive, is almost always false.

I said it, and I stand by it, goddamnit. And I also forgive all of you who do not see the truth in what I say. (still laughing, feels good to laugh.)

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

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.

Well, I think that's an altogether different phenomenon. I have cringed when a few people agreed with me. Usually because they were such unlikable fellas that they were delivering a kiss-of-death to my position.

Quote:

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.

Not really, in fact the Muslim thread is exactly what I am talking about with the extremes. I said then, and maintain now, that Au posted his slew of articles in an attempt to portray Muslims as uncivilized. My position in that thread was to counter what I consider a quite extreme position of Au's. We also touched on the trepidation that seeing tell-tale signs causes.

If someone were to start a discussion asking "Why do Moslems..", I'd already be wary "Moslem" is a spelling used almost exclusively by people who denigrate the religion now-a-days.

If someone started a discussion saying "why did the Jews tell Pilate to kill.." I'd already be wary. I'd not assume the innocent curiosity of these discissions and I would, to some extent, predict that a rakehell is, well, raking. Perhaps I'd pre-empt it but MY position certainly hasn't changed.

But my caveat is that some certainly do flip and flop. The inordinately partisan sometimes have a hard time figuring out just what the party line is.

Quote:

What is PC that is bothers you so much?

"PC" doesn't bother me at all. The overuse of what I consider the myth of "PC" does.

Quote:

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.

Not to me, to me it's the appeal to crudeness. It's popular among humans but overdone. It's the very paradox that bothers me. PC = Anti-PC. It's an appeal to coolness in an argument. It's a myth, appealing to be anti-PC IS the very thing you criticize. Seeking to alter other's reactions in the face of criticism.

Let's use an example:

Way back when you were Lash you said something that
I and others disagreed with. You could paint it as us having been "PC", fair enough. But I was subsequently pretty harsh about it. You took issue with this, should I have gotten to call you out for trying to make me be "PC"? Was my "unretouched" opinion to be PCified?

Quote:

And, that to me evidences your belief that instead of speaking your unretouched opinion, you must temper it in order to effect others' opinions.

Sofia, the words in which an opinion are couched have nothing to do with the opinion to me. I think you speak more of a tempering of emotions in an argument.

To me when you briong up the""PC" saw you are talking about one of two things, one is to me like in this thread. A completely unrelated situation in which there is no "PC". The other is a situation in which, in effect, you are saying "let's not worry about offending people".

It's a very "in" things to be oh so unconcerned with offending people. It's frustrating to hear the PC argument because it is exactly what it decries. It's an attempt to paint opinions as lil'followers, why not be a "leader" and be "anti PC"? Well, because that is being a follower just as much as anything else.

Quote:

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.

See, the difference is that many times I do NOT think it's "reality" and you accuse me of a dishonest position. I don't think it's "herding the cattle" at all. I think this is a rhetorical argument you use frequently because it's efective, not because it has merit.

nimh,

I experienced the exact same thing on 9/11. Most people were calling me to express sympathy but a few people were cheering in the bar so I confronted them.

Later on Abuzz I saw the opposite indiocy in which people were acting like "they are biting the hand that's feeding them".

0 Replies

Patriotism: Trash or Treasure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know