traditional media is her fuddy duddy middle aged father who has her best interests at heart, but she hates him
the web is her shiny new teenage boyfriend, who she's gaga over, but he's devoid of concern for her well-being and just wants to get in her pants
misplaced trust due lack of experience, that's all this study means
visit us again in 10 years, when as a jaded, betrayed, defiled, used, cynical, heartbroken 20 something chick, she looks at her dad/ traditional media in a new light
there's no shortcut to real world experience, and the curmudgeon killjoy screaming the truth in the corner is never listened to, which is all anyone's comments on this study amounts to
social darwinist capitalists, closet corporatists, and other assorted ayn rand/ rush limbaugh lunatic assholes from the right: they always wrap themselves in patriotism
as if concern only for oneself is an act of national interest?
while those who actually care about the common good: this is the genuine act of actually caring about the state of the nation. this is genuine, real patriotism, as best as you can logically define the act of caring about your country
so i never understood how or on what logical basis the selfish right wing fringe thinks it is able to coopt the notion of patriotism
meanwhile, they also use the word "socialist" like it is some epithet. when the truth is, they don't even know what the word is or what it means. all they know about socialism is "bad word because faux news told me so" without even thinking about the idea of socialism conceptually, what their actual feelings and beliefs are, in relation to what socialism actually means: mostly the same thing
anyone who has ever cared about their country, about their state, about their town, about their community, is a socialist. most of us, in fact, are socialist
right wing demagoguery to the contrary: if you care about your country, if you consider yourself "a real american", you're a socialist, by the sheer act of caring about your community at large. its simple logical consistency
meanwhile, if you are a craven, selfish asshole, you are certainly no patriot: you only care for yourself, as logically consistent with your self-stated ideology
so let's get this straight, fearmongering right wing assholes
if you believe progress is real in this world, then we have no argument. however, you are no aid to progress in the world if you simply retire to your ivory tower and declare everyone beneath your high holy standards. furthermore, i never implied any acceptance of a status quo: somewhere between believing in no progress and believing in impossible progress is REALISM, which is the point i am criticizing you from
REALISTIC standards of progress are the only thing that matters. any fool can declare a list of golden standards. a kindergartener can say "war is stupid, no one should fight." yeah, ok. and? fucking pointless
any one who wants to make a difference in this world involves themselves with genuine deliverables, actual reduction in the kind of suffering and menace we see today according to an intelligent understanding of how to do those modest goals. and thus, progress actually occurs
not some retarded declaration that the state of the world and the countries in it is bad, and therefore i'm retiring from it all because it's all so difficult and beneath me and it gives me a headache. pffffffft. sorry your high holiness, that the world is ugly. you're such a great help, really (not)
get out of your ivory tower, and get in the mud, and struggle with the rest of us. or shut up, as your pronouncements from on yonder high about how we haven't met lofty idealistic goals is of no use to anyone
slavery has been banished in the west, women's suffrage is the standard, etc
meanwhile, if you believe progress is not real, then by your cynical ignorance you are part of the problem in this world: the acceptance of a vile status quo. that is the real value of your emtpy cynicism: you enable the people you hate, by abandoning the possibility that we cna overcome them. if, for example, gw bush is someone you hate, your attitude is "yeah but people like him in power is the way it's always been and always will be". therefore, YOU enable the next gw bush with your empty cynicism. you've abandoned your own conscience, you are a cowardly asshole
what i just said about canada, of course, is retarded
but its a demonstration of the way you look at nations: you arbitrarily pick the worst aspects of the nation's behavior from the distant past, implant your deepest fears upon that distant worst behavior, then uniformly use that as the standard for that nation's behavior forever more
"When history shows us over and over that a nation acts in a certain way, why do you think it's "lazy" for me to use that as evidence for my point of view?"
yes, 100%: you're intellectually lazy, and cynical (always a moronic useless replacement for real thought). your worldview is flat out logically incoherent and completely useless
say i shoplifted when i was 13 years old. when i am 50 years old, will you still think of me as a shoplifter, and nothing more? i think you can clearly understand how wrong and unjust this way of thinking about people is. now understand its also a wrong way to think about nations
but then again, as demonstrated by your treatment of the metis, you're a typical canadian imperialistic aggressor (that's sarcasm, if you haven't noticed)
and you can accuse the usa of invading haiti because of manifest destiny after the earthquake
LOL
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
it's 2010. your brain is stuck in 1910. there just MIGHT be other motivations in the world today when nations act. try to imagine that possibility, and stop being stuck in the past
who cares what business model a distributor wants, when there already is a distribution model: the internet, that can deliver anything, to anywhere, for free
i'm certain that if i wanted to sell bottled water for $5.00 next to a free natural spring, i might be angry that people were choosing free over spending $5.00. and i might try to sabotage or block access to the spring, if i assumed it was written in the constitution or the bible to profit forever, because at one time i was the only water supplier around
the internet has rendered distributors obsolete. the laws under which they protected their business before the internet, are simply unenforceable. there is a reason why they call it disruptive technology. the gun did away with feudal system, the printing press did away with monarchies, and the atom bomb did away with world wars. now, the internet has put media distributors out of business. its a done deal. deal with it
you will note, of course, that television, then the vcr, then the internet, were supposed to destroy the movie business, and none of it has. a movie called avatar just made a bazillion dollars... ALL INSIDE A MOVIE THEATRE
perhaps movie makers need to get used to the fact that a movie theatre is the only place they will be able to make money on their product in the future. as if that is somehow a path to poverty, as avatar demonstrates. crocodile tears
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
can china only forever more think of japan as an imperial aggressor?
can france only and forever more think of germany only as an imminent blitzkrieg?
no, of course this laughable. likewise, if you can only see the usa as the usa acted a century ago, this means only that your opinions about world relations are invalid and you have nothing useful to say about reality
don't be trapped by history. let history inform you as to the state of the world. but the state of the world and the motivations of its players is not static and unchanging. you're being intellectually lazy
i'm trolling canadians, this is a delicate trap. i'm hoping a canuck will come flipping out and screaming "Rule, Britannia!" a nice proper internet meltdown
so don't harsh my troll dude. keep it serious and indignant. i'm certain i can troll a canadian well here. its easy: they always have a chip on their shoulder about their national identity in relation to the usa. pick at it and they always flip out
my last name is british, and i can name the small town in the midlands where i can trace my ancestry
but my ancestors also fought in the american revolution against the british, as a matter of principles. that therefore allows me to talk about an american identity, because it was something that was fought for, and won through sacrifice. pray tell, what kind of principles did your heritage serve, besides subservience?
so maybe its just a matter of an ancient blood feud with me, but when i see your words, i see plenty of reasons to be proud of being british, but not a single reason to be proud of being canadian. because there's nothing "canadian", whatever that is supposed to mean, in what you articulate that you are proud about
if you can enunciate something of a canadian identity, rather than what you have written: an enunciation of british identity, then maybe i can respect canada and canadian national identity as something real
but until then, i really don't view canada as anything except unincorporated american territory. unfinished business. too cold and too empty to bother
so man the border, tory. my blood has shed for your cowardice in not serving the good cause of throwing off the colonial yolk. you seem quite proud of your historical, and current, colonial subservience to masters across an ocean, and therefore, you deserve no respect from me, and no recognition, or respect, to an identity which has no meaning other than what you really enunciate: british identity
this is a man who fought for a real identity, and therefore deserves my respect:
self-interest will never be removed from anyone's motivation, ever. therefore, no nation, ever, will meet your ridiculously perfecting standards of behavior in the world. therefore, you are indeed perfectly happy to let haiti fester for the sake of ridiculously impossible standards
"I'll counter that a large part of the US history (and, yes, I'll readily admit, most of the G8 countries) involves using their size (geographic, military, economic, social) to abuse other nations. I suppose that is how it goes in International politics, but that doesn't excuse it. Since we cannot trust the words of the leaders of nations, nor can we trust the motives of corporations, we can really only look to their past dealings for an indication of the tone any future dealings."
so therefore, japan should never be trusted to ever to play a role in china, because japan will always only be an imperialist there. germany should not be in the eu, because germans are only military expansionists. and other such nonsense
you use history as an excuse to be intellectually and morally lazy. your cynicism trumps your intelligence in your current view of the world and its players. currently you say "these are my standards, and no one meets them, so no problems will ever be solved"
currently you do not have any validity or coherence in your opinions of the world. if you have a genuine human conscience, you need to pit that conscience against your current lazy, self-serving ridiculously high standards, and find a more pragmatic way to look a the world and its problems. the world is never, ever going to work the way you think it should, as long as human beings are human beings. try to leave your ivory castle, and see how things actually work down in the mud, however ugly you feel this exercise to be. you aren't engaged in the good fight anymore. you've merely given yourself a lame excuse to retire from and excuse yourself from the good fight to make this world a better place, because no one is acting according to your impossible specifications
the woman lives in england, and owes her significance and identity to british history. how or why you believe this should have anything to do with being canadian is something i truly don't understand, unless it is your intention to say that "canadian" has no validity as a true national identity
call yourself british, or completely sever any subservience to a foreign power. i don't demand this as some random troll on the internet. i demand this in the interest of logical coherence about what a national identity is suppose to mean. i don't get to say i'm american, and walk around with the king of france on my money. then i am some sort of frenchman
national identity is something you can't invest pride in unless it is a truly unique identity
then you don't stand for anything, you don't mean anything, and therefore you have no identity
your identity comes from what is important to you. if its important to you, you must fight for it at some point, because your beliefs will be challenged in this world. if you do not fight for that identity, then it really isn't important to you, and really isn't your identity after all. this observation applies to every noble principle you imagine you stand for
so apparently canadian means "vegetative growth of no importance". i don't believe that about canada. i'm merely informing you of the implications of your own words written above about what it means to be canadian
that american corporations make a buck off haiti. if haiti is better off than before american involvement, who cares?
what i'm saying is, because you are uncomfortable with the idea of greed, you're basically willing to let haiti fester. well, i'd rather improve haiti and let a little capitalist chicanery get involved, as it inevitably will, if it improves haiti
and yes, the usa raped the caribbean, central america, and south america in the past. and japan invaded its neighbors. and france colonized part so the world. etc
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
i will assume you are proud of being canadian. but the queen is a person from another country
so how is it possible to be proud of your national identity, when you are so subservient to another national identity
it would seem to me, canadians should call themselves british, or completely cauterize this ridiculous anachronistic subservience to a foreign power
in the end, it just means that being canadian doesn't mean very much at all. so if you want being canadian to MEAN something, then exert that identity by not allowing canadian identity to be a doormat for someone else's national identity, an ocean away
i don't understand a country where the figurehead of a FOREIGN country has some sort influence, even if symbolic. and even appears, still, on your money. of course i understand the history, but aren't canadians ashamed of the fact that "canadian" doesn't have much meaning, in the end, because it's really "british" identity that seems to matter?
i mean if i were canadian, i would want to be proud of being canadian, and being proud of a national identity should naturally preclude any suggestion of your national identity being secondary to someone else's identity. either call yourselves british instead, or completely sever this submissive colonial arrangement, even if just symbolic
it just doesn't speak highly of a national identity to be so watered down and subservient of someone else's national identity, on another continent
i have often thought about the usa taking over haiti
haitian nationalists would be screaming bloody murder, but puerto rico has continually voted not to leave us commonwealth status (in spite of puerto rican nationalist terrorism in the 60s and the 70s), simply because they know they get benefits, despite the wounded nationalist pride (which is assuaged by not choosing statehood)
of course, we shouldn't INVADE haiti. we should simply approach the haitians and the un and say "maybe two three decades of outside stewardship by a world power with lots of resources might do haiti some good?"
i think something like this would cost 1/1000th of iraqi occupation, cost a handful of lives rather than hundreds, and do 10,000x the amount of good, for decades, if not permanently
expat haitians in the usa are extremely influential back home, haiti is well within the american economic, cultural, and regional influence. it really makes a lot of sense, if haitians can put aside their nationalist pride for a bit, maybe the usa can help by taking over
i know, i know, impossible. not so much because of the haitians, but because of the american assholes who would wind about this "waste" of resources, the same american assholes who probably ecstatic about invading iraq. to them, its more about punishing "dem ayrabs" than really trying to help people in this world
when you articulate something moderate, the far left sees that what you are saying is to the right of them, they project their fears onto what you are saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far right
and when you articulate something moderate, the far right sees that what you are saying is to the left of them, they project their fears onto what you saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far left
the truth is, when you are a true moderate, you get called a communist idiot by the far right, and a tea party asshole by the far left, all at the same time. it says more about them than it does anything about yourself. and while it may be mentally debilitating to be attacked on both sides, at the same time, it lets you know that you ARE a true moderate, which is a real consolation in this world of partisan nitwits around every corner. if you are getting attacked by both ends of the wackjob spectrum at the same time: pat yourself on the back, for you are ideologically well-adjusted
it's happened to me. i've been called a neocon apologist for gw bush, and then, in the next post, a socialist self-loathing bleeding heart. it gets kind of funny after awhile, to see people leading with their irrational fears and screaming out their hysterical inability to think of any opinion except in only the most the simplistic binary stereotyping of ways that their closed imperceptive minds proscribe
so someone like you will therefore say that the usa doesn't really care about the oppressed, just filling up our gas tanks
ok. so we need to change policy then. which direction should we go in:
1. help more of the oppressed, regardless of self interest. so the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self interest might be served. so some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them... hey, wanna play a videogame?
so you choose. which direction do we go in: massive involvement worldwide, atrocities being the only criteria? or no involvement period, even if horrible atrocities are being committed. you tell me what the superior policy is
as for me, the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. and that's ok by me. we're not responsible for atrocities elsewhere, but if we're going to help clear up those atrocities, might as well get some benefit out of the expense in lives and money, no?
1. the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self-interest might be served. some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them. so what's on tv?
the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. true
but that's ok by me, since choice #1 is impossible to afford and choice #2 is a level of callousness i'm not ready to accept
Slashdot Mirror
the difference is: which one is actually implemented on a large scale
the browser vendors are using html5, therefore, the case is closed and the issue is settled. nothing else matters
traditional media is her fuddy duddy middle aged father who has her best interests at heart, but she hates him
the web is her shiny new teenage boyfriend, who she's gaga over, but he's devoid of concern for her well-being and just wants to get in her pants
misplaced trust due lack of experience, that's all this study means
visit us again in 10 years, when as a jaded, betrayed, defiled, used, cynical, heartbroken 20 something chick, she looks at her dad/ traditional media in a new light
there's no shortcut to real world experience, and the curmudgeon killjoy screaming the truth in the corner is never listened to, which is all anyone's comments on this study amounts to
social darwinist capitalists, closet corporatists, and other assorted ayn rand/ rush limbaugh lunatic assholes from the right: they always wrap themselves in patriotism
as if concern only for oneself is an act of national interest?
while those who actually care about the common good: this is the genuine act of actually caring about the state of the nation. this is genuine, real patriotism, as best as you can logically define the act of caring about your country
so i never understood how or on what logical basis the selfish right wing fringe thinks it is able to coopt the notion of patriotism
meanwhile, they also use the word "socialist" like it is some epithet. when the truth is, they don't even know what the word is or what it means. all they know about socialism is "bad word because faux news told me so" without even thinking about the idea of socialism conceptually, what their actual feelings and beliefs are, in relation to what socialism actually means: mostly the same thing
anyone who has ever cared about their country, about their state, about their town, about their community, is a socialist. most of us, in fact, are socialist
right wing demagoguery to the contrary: if you care about your country, if you consider yourself "a real american", you're a socialist, by the sheer act of caring about your community at large. its simple logical consistency
meanwhile, if you are a craven, selfish asshole, you are certainly no patriot: you only care for yourself, as logically consistent with your self-stated ideology
so let's get this straight, fearmongering right wing assholes
there is no jeopardy
if there is no jeopardy, there is no passion
if there is no passion, what's the fucking point?
lock yourself in your ivory tower, look down your nose at us struggling in the mud, and shut up
either progress is real or it is not
if you believe progress is real in this world, then we have no argument. however, you are no aid to progress in the world if you simply retire to your ivory tower and declare everyone beneath your high holy standards. furthermore, i never implied any acceptance of a status quo: somewhere between believing in no progress and believing in impossible progress is REALISM, which is the point i am criticizing you from
REALISTIC standards of progress are the only thing that matters. any fool can declare a list of golden standards. a kindergartener can say "war is stupid, no one should fight." yeah, ok. and? fucking pointless
any one who wants to make a difference in this world involves themselves with genuine deliverables, actual reduction in the kind of suffering and menace we see today according to an intelligent understanding of how to do those modest goals. and thus, progress actually occurs
not some retarded declaration that the state of the world and the countries in it is bad, and therefore i'm retiring from it all because it's all so difficult and beneath me and it gives me a headache. pffffffft. sorry your high holiness, that the world is ugly. you're such a great help, really (not)
get out of your ivory tower, and get in the mud, and struggle with the rest of us. or shut up, as your pronouncements from on yonder high about how we haven't met lofty idealistic goals is of no use to anyone
progress is real
slavery has been banished in the west, women's suffrage is the standard, etc
meanwhile, if you believe progress is not real, then by your cynical ignorance you are part of the problem in this world: the acceptance of a vile status quo. that is the real value of your emtpy cynicism: you enable the people you hate, by abandoning the possibility that we cna overcome them. if, for example, gw bush is someone you hate, your attitude is "yeah but people like him in power is the way it's always been and always will be". therefore, YOU enable the next gw bush with your empty cynicism. you've abandoned your own conscience, you are a cowardly asshole
canada is an imperialistic bully:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
what i just said about canada, of course, is retarded
but its a demonstration of the way you look at nations: you arbitrarily pick the worst aspects of the nation's behavior from the distant past, implant your deepest fears upon that distant worst behavior, then uniformly use that as the standard for that nation's behavior forever more
"When history shows us over and over that a nation acts in a certain way, why do you think it's "lazy" for me to use that as evidence for my point of view?"
yes, 100%: you're intellectually lazy, and cynical (always a moronic useless replacement for real thought). your worldview is flat out logically incoherent and completely useless
say i shoplifted when i was 13 years old. when i am 50 years old, will you still think of me as a shoplifter, and nothing more? i think you can clearly understand how wrong and unjust this way of thinking about people is. now understand its also a wrong way to think about nations
but then again, as demonstrated by your treatment of the metis, you're a typical canadian imperialistic aggressor (that's sarcasm, if you haven't noticed)
i just said don't be trapped in history
and you can accuse the usa of invading haiti because of manifest destiny after the earthquake
LOL
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
it's 2010. your brain is stuck in 1910. there just MIGHT be other motivations in the world today when nations act. try to imagine that possibility, and stop being stuck in the past
who cares what business model a distributor wants, when there already is a distribution model: the internet, that can deliver anything, to anywhere, for free
i'm certain that if i wanted to sell bottled water for $5.00 next to a free natural spring, i might be angry that people were choosing free over spending $5.00. and i might try to sabotage or block access to the spring, if i assumed it was written in the constitution or the bible to profit forever, because at one time i was the only water supplier around
the internet has rendered distributors obsolete. the laws under which they protected their business before the internet, are simply unenforceable. there is a reason why they call it disruptive technology. the gun did away with feudal system, the printing press did away with monarchies, and the atom bomb did away with world wars. now, the internet has put media distributors out of business. its a done deal. deal with it
you will note, of course, that television, then the vcr, then the internet, were supposed to destroy the movie business, and none of it has. a movie called avatar just made a bazillion dollars... ALL INSIDE A MOVIE THEATRE
perhaps movie makers need to get used to the fact that a movie theatre is the only place they will be able to make money on their product in the future. as if that is somehow a path to poverty, as avatar demonstrates. crocodile tears
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
can china only forever more think of japan as an imperial aggressor?
can france only and forever more think of germany only as an imminent blitzkrieg?
no, of course this laughable. likewise, if you can only see the usa as the usa acted a century ago, this means only that your opinions about world relations are invalid and you have nothing useful to say about reality
don't be trapped by history. let history inform you as to the state of the world. but the state of the world and the motivations of its players is not static and unchanging. you're being intellectually lazy
i'm trolling canadians, this is a delicate trap. i'm hoping a canuck will come flipping out and screaming "Rule, Britannia!" a nice proper internet meltdown
so don't harsh my troll dude. keep it serious and indignant. i'm certain i can troll a canadian well here. its easy: they always have a chip on their shoulder about their national identity in relation to the usa. pick at it and they always flip out
my last name is british, and i can name the small town in the midlands where i can trace my ancestry
but my ancestors also fought in the american revolution against the british, as a matter of principles. that therefore allows me to talk about an american identity, because it was something that was fought for, and won through sacrifice. pray tell, what kind of principles did your heritage serve, besides subservience?
so maybe its just a matter of an ancient blood feud with me, but when i see your words, i see plenty of reasons to be proud of being british, but not a single reason to be proud of being canadian. because there's nothing "canadian", whatever that is supposed to mean, in what you articulate that you are proud about
if you can enunciate something of a canadian identity, rather than what you have written: an enunciation of british identity, then maybe i can respect canada and canadian national identity as something real
but until then, i really don't view canada as anything except unincorporated american territory. unfinished business. too cold and too empty to bother
so man the border, tory. my blood has shed for your cowardice in not serving the good cause of throwing off the colonial yolk. you seem quite proud of your historical, and current, colonial subservience to masters across an ocean, and therefore, you deserve no respect from me, and no recognition, or respect, to an identity which has no meaning other than what you really enunciate: british identity
this is a man who fought for a real identity, and therefore deserves my respect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_riel
i see none of that fight for identity in what you wrote, merely a kiss ass to a foreign power
maybe its time to aid the frogs in quebec in splintering your joke of a nation, as it deserves to be splintered and dissolved
man the border tory. we have unfinished business
self-interest will never be removed from anyone's motivation, ever. therefore, no nation, ever, will meet your ridiculously perfecting standards of behavior in the world. therefore, you are indeed perfectly happy to let haiti fester for the sake of ridiculously impossible standards
"I'll counter that a large part of the US history (and, yes, I'll readily admit, most of the G8 countries) involves using their size (geographic, military, economic, social) to abuse other nations. I suppose that is how it goes in International politics, but that doesn't excuse it. Since we cannot trust the words of the leaders of nations, nor can we trust the motives of corporations, we can really only look to their past dealings for an indication of the tone any future dealings."
so therefore, japan should never be trusted to ever to play a role in china, because japan will always only be an imperialist there. germany should not be in the eu, because germans are only military expansionists. and other such nonsense
you use history as an excuse to be intellectually and morally lazy. your cynicism trumps your intelligence in your current view of the world and its players. currently you say "these are my standards, and no one meets them, so no problems will ever be solved"
currently you do not have any validity or coherence in your opinions of the world. if you have a genuine human conscience, you need to pit that conscience against your current lazy, self-serving ridiculously high standards, and find a more pragmatic way to look a the world and its problems. the world is never, ever going to work the way you think it should, as long as human beings are human beings. try to leave your ivory castle, and see how things actually work down in the mud, however ugly you feel this exercise to be. you aren't engaged in the good fight anymore. you've merely given yourself a lame excuse to retire from and excuse yourself from the good fight to make this world a better place, because no one is acting according to your impossible specifications
you mean like i'm the King of Antarctica?
the woman lives in england, and owes her significance and identity to british history. how or why you believe this should have anything to do with being canadian is something i truly don't understand, unless it is your intention to say that "canadian" has no validity as a true national identity
call yourself british, or completely sever any subservience to a foreign power. i don't demand this as some random troll on the internet. i demand this in the interest of logical coherence about what a national identity is suppose to mean. i don't get to say i'm american, and walk around with the king of france on my money. then i am some sort of frenchman
national identity is something you can't invest pride in unless it is a truly unique identity
then you don't stand for anything, you don't mean anything, and therefore you have no identity
your identity comes from what is important to you. if its important to you, you must fight for it at some point, because your beliefs will be challenged in this world. if you do not fight for that identity, then it really isn't important to you, and really isn't your identity after all. this observation applies to every noble principle you imagine you stand for
so apparently canadian means "vegetative growth of no importance". i don't believe that about canada. i'm merely informing you of the implications of your own words written above about what it means to be canadian
that american corporations make a buck off haiti. if haiti is better off than before american involvement, who cares?
what i'm saying is, because you are uncomfortable with the idea of greed, you're basically willing to let haiti fester. well, i'd rather improve haiti and let a little capitalist chicanery get involved, as it inevitably will, if it improves haiti
and yes, the usa raped the caribbean, central america, and south america in the past. and japan invaded its neighbors. and france colonized part so the world. etc
every country in the world has shameful abuses from its past. that's supposed to mean a country can never be motivated for other reasons? a study of history should enlighten us as to the conditions of the world, not trap our minds into thinking about countries in only historical modes of behavior
i am glad you have a fucking bug up your ass about individual rights
but why don't you fucking apologize to me for complete misrepresenting my words, asshole
hmmm
could you substantiate that claim please?
i will assume you are proud of being canadian. but the queen is a person from another country
so how is it possible to be proud of your national identity, when you are so subservient to another national identity
it would seem to me, canadians should call themselves british, or completely cauterize this ridiculous anachronistic subservience to a foreign power
in the end, it just means that being canadian doesn't mean very much at all. so if you want being canadian to MEAN something, then exert that identity by not allowing canadian identity to be a doormat for someone else's national identity, an ocean away
i don't understand a country where the figurehead of a FOREIGN country has some sort influence, even if symbolic. and even appears, still, on your money. of course i understand the history, but aren't canadians ashamed of the fact that "canadian" doesn't have much meaning, in the end, because it's really "british" identity that seems to matter?
i mean if i were canadian, i would want to be proud of being canadian, and being proud of a national identity should naturally preclude any suggestion of your national identity being secondary to someone else's identity. either call yourselves british instead, or completely sever this submissive colonial arrangement, even if just symbolic
it just doesn't speak highly of a national identity to be so watered down and subservient of someone else's national identity, on another continent
i have often thought about the usa taking over haiti
haitian nationalists would be screaming bloody murder, but puerto rico has continually voted not to leave us commonwealth status (in spite of puerto rican nationalist terrorism in the 60s and the 70s), simply because they know they get benefits, despite the wounded nationalist pride (which is assuaged by not choosing statehood)
of course, we shouldn't INVADE haiti. we should simply approach the haitians and the un and say "maybe two three decades of outside stewardship by a world power with lots of resources might do haiti some good?"
i think something like this would cost 1/1000th of iraqi occupation, cost a handful of lives rather than hundreds, and do 10,000x the amount of good, for decades, if not permanently
expat haitians in the usa are extremely influential back home, haiti is well within the american economic, cultural, and regional influence. it really makes a lot of sense, if haitians can put aside their nationalist pride for a bit, maybe the usa can help by taking over
i know, i know, impossible. not so much because of the haitians, but because of the american assholes who would wind about this "waste" of resources, the same american assholes who probably ecstatic about invading iraq. to them, its more about punishing "dem ayrabs" than really trying to help people in this world
when you articulate something moderate, the far left sees that what you are saying is to the right of them, they project their fears onto what you are saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far right
and when you articulate something moderate, the far right sees that what you are saying is to the left of them, they project their fears onto what you saying, and therefore lash out at you for being far left
the truth is, when you are a true moderate, you get called a communist idiot by the far right, and a tea party asshole by the far left, all at the same time. it says more about them than it does anything about yourself. and while it may be mentally debilitating to be attacked on both sides, at the same time, it lets you know that you ARE a true moderate, which is a real consolation in this world of partisan nitwits around every corner. if you are getting attacked by both ends of the wackjob spectrum at the same time: pat yourself on the back, for you are ideologically well-adjusted
it's happened to me. i've been called a neocon apologist for gw bush, and then, in the next post, a socialist self-loathing bleeding heart. it gets kind of funny after awhile, to see people leading with their irrational fears and screaming out their hysterical inability to think of any opinion except in only the most the simplistic binary stereotyping of ways that their closed imperceptive minds proscribe
therefore, it seems to be a concept that is selling well
so someone like you will therefore say that the usa doesn't really care about the oppressed, just filling up our gas tanks
ok. so we need to change policy then. which direction should we go in:
1. help more of the oppressed, regardless of self interest. so the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self interest might be served. so some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them... hey, wanna play a videogame?
so you choose. which direction do we go in: massive involvement worldwide, atrocities being the only criteria? or no involvement period, even if horrible atrocities are being committed. you tell me what the superior policy is
as for me, the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. and that's ok by me. we're not responsible for atrocities elsewhere, but if we're going to help clear up those atrocities, might as well get some benefit out of the expense in lives and money, no?
ok, so which would you prefer:
1. the usa goes all out all over the world where there are atrocities, even when there's nothing there in our self-interest, thereby increasing american military presence in foreign lands a hundredfold
2. the usa doesn't aid anyone militarily, no matter what the reason, even if our self-interest might be served. some asshole starts massacring ethnic minorities? oh well, sucks to be them. so what's on tv?
the usa gets involved in brutal places where it overlaps with self-interest. true
but that's ok by me, since choice #1 is impossible to afford and choice #2 is a level of callousness i'm not ready to accept
so what would you choose?