Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

  • News
  • Thread starter sid_galt
  • Start date
In summary: The US just happens to be worse at it than most. The accusation that the US is controlled by interest groups is a tired one. The US has a large number of interest groups, but they are largely representative of the American people.
  • #1
sid_galt
502
1
I found this interesting piece of Forbes. What do you think of it?

http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0721/017.html
(may require registration)

Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sid_galt said:
I found this interesting piece of Forbes. What do you think of it?

http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0721/017.html
(may require registration)

Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Are you saying that you only want people to post replies that will reinforce your world view as seen through your rose tinted spectacles?
As in the statement 'I'm better than you. Now refute that without mentioning me'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
What about the term itself ... the whole term has a flavor and odour in it that stinks ... I take it like one you could use in a sandbox, if someone is against an action or whatnot conducted by the US what is the point of calling that person an "anti-American", since he/she most likely doesn't oppose the US or the people, but rather a specific action ... which is simply a part of democracy (and labeling, say, European intellectuals or whoever with such a term in general is juvenile)... so discussion over this term seems kind of pointless since it seems to have lost any intelligent meaning by default. Another issue would be if it was applied to describe for example some sort of a "racial" slur ... but why would anyone even want to argue or respond using such premises since they've absolutely no point to begin with.
 
  • #4
"First, an unadmitted contempt for democracy."
- No, more likely is first an entirely admitted contempt for propoganda. The association of anti-Americanism and anti-democratic views is just retarded. There are plenty of democratic countries suffering from a large anti-American vibe at the moment, including the UK. Is the UK anti-democracy?

"The U.S. is the world's most successful democracy."
- Only insofar as it is the world's most successful country and it is a democracy. This is more propoganda. By terming it in this way, it sounds like the US is better at democracy than anyone else. In fact, more than most democracies, there is much more scope in America for the majority opinion to be consistently over-ruled by smaller but more numerous states. Secondly, the American people seem to be less involved in the policy-making process than certain other democracies. Thirdly, I'm not sure you can call the American election process as a triumph of democracy. How many people in Bush's first election did not have their vote counted? Including those whose votes ended up stashed behind benches in churches?

"It is this feature that intellectuals--especially in Europe--find embittering."
- Europe? You mean, that continent comprising of democratic countries? This is just made up. He has already stated that this hatred of American democracy is unadmitted. If it's unadmitted, how did he get to know about it? This is neither journalism nor political commentary - this is an offended kid in school responding with: "Yeah? Well, you- You smell of POO!"

"They scornfully, if privately, reject the notion that a farmer in Kansas, a miner in Pennsylvania or an auto assembler in Michigan can carry as much social and moral weight as they do."
- I have never met a European intellectual who has held the view that anyone should be deprived of a vote in the electoral process. There are some, myself included, who believe that certain political decisions that require complete and accurate information should not be made by those lacking that information. The referenda on the EU consitution for one thing. The vast majority of people who voted in Frane, for instance, would have had little or no knowledge of the constitution, and most of those that did are unlikely to have read all 250 pages. And most those that did real it all are unlikely to have all the available information by which to judge its competency. I for one am glad I didn't have to vote on the issue. Political decisions should be made by experts, not tabloid-readers. Politicians themselves should be elected by everyone.

"A populist is someone who accepts the people's verdict, even--and especially--when it runs counter to the intellectual consensus (as with capital punishment, for example)."
- Is he still talking about Europe? Capital punishment is an American issue, not a European one. Most European countries have either abandoned capital punishment long ago or have been pressured to abandon it of late (Turkey, for instance). The intellectual and populist views on capital punishment in Europe are largely in synch. This is a very uninformed point.

"Hence, the argument goes, the U.S. is not so much an "educated democracy" as it is a media-swayed and interest-group-controlled populist regime."
- The problem is not with people being media-swayed; it is the quality of the medium in question. If the populist opinion is based on incomplete or misleading information from a medium, such as this article, then the populist opinion will be ill-advised, however popular. The intellectual opinion is not made by people considering themselves intelelctual, but by people who are basing their opinion on a relatively complete and accurate picture. Splitting the intellectual and populist opinions in this way is stupid. The populist opinion is, by its very nature, one consolidated view. Intellectual opinion may be completely divided. On anyone issue, intellectual opinion may be both at odds with and at one with populist opinion. This is because intellectual opinion does not depend on numbers. This article suggests a united intellectual opinion which is utterly fictional. There are intellectual arguments for and against captial punishment, for instance.

"The truth is, on the European Continent there is little experience of working democracy."
- Yes, America was the first democracy. Maybe in American history books.

"France is not a democracy; it is a republic run by bureaucratic and party elites, whose errors are dealt with by strikes, street riots and blockades instead of by votes."
"In a French-style pseudodemocracy, intellectuals have considerable influence, at both government and street levels."
- This is just French-bashing.

"Elements of the French system are being imposed throughout the EU, even in countries such as Denmark and Sweden that have long practiced democracy with success."
- Really? But they're European countries, aren't they, so cannot have long-practised democracy - a relatively new European concept! No one country imposes rules on another within the EU - it is the EU as a whole, with representatives from each and every country, that determines common policy. This is called democracy.

"An astonishingly high proportion of European elites know very little about U.S. history or culture and even deny that they have a separate existence apart from their European roots."
- What? By nature of it being the most powerful country in the world we cannot escape information on the US. We get taught American history in school. Do you get taught Swedish history? And believe me - very few still think of Americans as anything remotely related to Europeans.

"It is strange that those seeking to bring about a European federal state or union have at no stage sought to study the lessons Americans learned during the creation of the U.S. in the 1780s."
- Really? I wonder where the idea came from then. I guess we independantly came up with the notion of a federal police force, very similar to the FBI too.

"What these Euro-elites particularly abhor is the way in which the framers of the Constitution made every effort to involve the population through the process of public debates, town meetings and ratification votes..."
- Yeah, Europeans hate that. They would never do something so dumb as let the people decide on a constitution. Oh, hang on...

"The European intelligentsia gets its notion of America chiefly from Hollywood, TV soaps like Dallas and fiction."
- Is that America's idea of intellectualism? I think he over-rates American television. If someone deems themselves intellectual and yet bases their opinion on fiction, I don't think they'd get far in an intellectual argument. What this basically says is that European intellectuals in fact have no real information - all their views on the US are based on fiction. No-one actually reads or learns history, watches the news, etc. Hmmmm.

"Middle America is unexplored territory."
- Is this a particularly European problem? I lived with some Americans for a few months years ago and they seemed to be of the opinion that local news about outside states was rather slim. I imagine New York has the same deficit of information about Ihio that France does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the consensus reached by an American microcosm.

"The fact that the U.S. has proved a highly efficient crucible for melding different peoples into a human sum greater than its constituent parts is seen as a misfortune in Europe because it produces a cultural stew that lacks purity of any kind and is therefore at the mercy of commercial forces."
- Woah! This is rather incredible. Lots of countries have a history of conflict between races and religions, but none so much as America. Take a walk around London, then take a walk around Manhatten, and tell me which city is a true melting pot. You will not find so many residential 'districts' dedicated to persons of a certain ethnicity in London. It's too old to restructure itself around ethnic groups. The breakdown is too functional.

"Third, European elites tend to look at Americans as a subcivilized mass, whose function is to be obedient consumers in a system run by big business."
- This is a growing problem everywhere, and seems to be sourced mainly from America. Almost every universally desirable consumer product is American. It's success in Europe largely depends on it's success at home. Europe inherits America's product-infatuation. It's a human thing, but seems to prosper so much more in the states.

"... because competition is something Continental Europeans like to keep to a minimum and under careful control."
- What?!? Competition is controlled by the EU, yes, but not to keep it to a minimum - to keep it to a maximum. Anyone aware of the recent conflict between Europe and Microsoft will be aware of this.

"Although Americans are seen as highly materialistic consumers, they are also despised and feared for their spiritual interests, their participation in religious worship and their subscription to creeds of morality."
- On the creeds of morality issue, no European pop artist sings about slitting their ex-wife's throat. On the other issues, religious beliefs in generally are no less tolerated by Europeans as they are by the atheistic US contingent. Zealous, fundementalist beliefs are feared and looked down on. Of course, no American would hold a similar view about, say, Muslim fundementalism?

"Anti-Americanism is factually absurd, contradictory, racist, crude, childish, self-defeating and, at bottom, nonsensical."
- He says, following a series of factually absurd, contradictory, racist, crude, childish, self-defeating and, at bottom, nonsensical statements about Europeans.

"It is based on the powerful but irrational impulse of envy--an envy of American wealth, power, success and determination."
- They may envy America's wealth, but I don't think it's safe to say Europeans envy Americans themselves, just as the Spanish may envy the UK's farming subsidies, but are probably glad they aren't British.

"It is an envy made all the more poisonous because of a fearful European conviction that America's strength is rising while Europe's is falling."
- Is European strength falling? I'm not sure who believes that. Even with a failed EU constitution, the future is optimistic.

All in all, that article came across as intellectual insecurity. Particularly, singling out the French as a target for animosity is somewhat hypocritical in an article *****ing about anti-Americanism. What's amusing is that this heightened anti-French (and anti-German) atmosphere is a consequence of the French refusal to endorse the war in Iraq. Thing is, there was almost no public support for the Iraq war in European countries, so the French and German decision reflected the populist public opinion, an approach this article says is lacking in European policy. Those countries that did support the US, such as the UK and Spain, did so in spite of public opinion. Surely the UK more than any country would have been a viable target for such an argument... oh, but they're on America's side.
 
  • #5
Art said:
Are you saying that you only want people to post replies that will reinforce your world view as seen through your rose tinted spectacles?
Yes, the insistence on factual evidence in reposte to an article so blatently lacking in it is somewhat silly. Actually, a thread dedicated to this article is silly.
 
  • #6
Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today.

Ah, is that a fact ? I remember during the discussions on the war on Iraq that in france, Bush and his administration was not liked, but a clear distinction was made with the American public as such (by the public here, but especially by intellectuals). One cannot really say that the other way around ! What was it again ? Freedom fries ?

They cannot openly admit that an entire people--especially one comprising nearly 300 million, who enjoy all the freedoms--can be mistaken.

But maybe less technical insight into the matter. And concerning the war in Iraq, yes, you guys were right, weren't you. Iraq is now a blossoming democracy, weapons of mass destruction have been found and eliminated, the world is safer now and terrorists are gone. The domino effect is at work, and right now there is an uprising in Syria and Iran of the people demanding the same fate as their Iraqi brothers. Indeed, 300 million people cannot be mistaken :biggrin:

Next time the author of that article needs some medical advice, he'll ask the people to vote what treatment to take.

In fact, they have a special derogatory word for anyone who acts on this assumption: "populist." A populist is someone who accepts the people's verdict

No, that's not the definition of a populist here ; a populist is someone playing on simplistic (and hence wrong) ideas to become popular with the masses, like: "it is all the fault of the Jews, let's burn them". Been there before.

France is not a democracy; it is a republic run by bureaucratic and party elites

Uh, and the US is ... ?

In a true democracy, intellectuals are no more powerful than their arguments.

In a true populistic democracy, ruled by plebicite, the arguments of intellectuals are usually not heard (because I take it that intellectuals are not the majority) over the simplistic arguments of populists. That's the entire difference between direct democracy and representational democracy: the people say WHO, the representatives say WHAT.

It is strange that those seeking to bring about a European federal state or union have at no stage sought to study the lessons Americans learned during the creation of the U.S. in the 1780s. After all, the U.S. Constitution (suitably amended) has lasted for more than 200 years, and within its framework the country has emerged as the richest and most powerful society in world history. You might think, therefore, that European elites would seek to learn something from such a successful process. Not at all: The view is that sophisticated, civilized Europe has nothing to learn from "adolescent" America.

I don't think that, as much amongst the European population in general, or the intellectuals in particular, you will find an important fraction who would like to build a copy of the US in the "United States of Europe", no thank you.

What these Euro-elites particularly abhor is the way in which the framers of the Constitution made every effort to involve the population through the process of public debates, town meetings and ratification votes--and this at a time when Europe was still governed (for the most part) by the absolute sovereigns of the ancien régime.

uh, when was that again ? 1776 ? Does 1789 say something ?

This cultural racism is particularly directed at the supposedly "know-nothing" President George W. Bush and his "gung ho" Texas background.

:rofl:

Although Americans are seen as highly materialistic consumers, they are also despised and feared for their spiritual interests, their participation in religious worship and their subscription to creeds of morality. Europeans see no inconsistency in their condemnation of the U.S. for being at one and the same time paganly unethical and morally zealous.

If only they could be paganly unethical for a change and put that bible aside...

It is based on the powerful but irrational impulse of envy--an envy of American wealth, power, success and determination.

Penis-envy ?

It is an envy made all the more poisonous because of a fearful European conviction that America's strength is rising while Europe's is falling.

I didn't have the impression that America's strength is rising. Unfortunately, Europe's is indeed falling. Guess we're in the same boat. Better learn mandarin quickly :biggrin:

I'm glad I gave up my subscription to Forbes many years ago!
 
  • #7
This intolerance of intellectuals... where have I heard this before? It's on the tip of my tongue... com-something. Comedy? Maybe it's all a big joke.
 
  • #8
El Hombre Invisible said:
This intolerance of intellectuals... where have I heard this before? It's on the tip of my tongue... com-something.


Condoleeza ? :tongue:
 
  • #9
vanesch said:
Condoleeza ? :tongue:
[shudder]
I've always wanted to know... there was a story in the press a while ago that when the Bush administration admitted that the intelligence stating the existence of WMDs in Iraq was misleading, the British government, who were now left holding a very hot potato, tried to get them to back-track. Condoleeza's alleged response was along the lines of: "Our politics are our politics, yours are your own."
While, in that instance, the Bush administration did the right thing while Blair's did not, I thought that was a hell of a knife in the back of the US' biggest supporter and ally in the Iraq war.
 
  • #10
El Hombre Invisible said:
There are some, myself included, who believe that certain political decisions that require complete and accurate information should not be made by those lacking that information. The referenda on the EU consitution for one thing. The vast majority of people who voted in Frane, for instance, would have had little or no knowledge of the constitution, and most of those that did are unlikely to have read all 250 pages. And most those that did real it all are unlikely to have all the available information by which to judge its competency. I for one am glad I didn't have to vote on the issue. Political decisions should be made by experts, not tabloid-readers. Politicians themselves should be elected by everyone.

I could not agree more :approve:

- Yes, America was the first democracy. Maybe in American history books.

Athens was the first democracy. A long, long long time ago.

"In a French-style pseudodemocracy, intellectuals have considerable influence, at both government and street levels."
- This is just French-bashing.

Apart from being French-bashing, it is wrong. French government (and French society in general) has problems partly because the real power is not with the government, but in workers unions (the responsables for all these strikes): their method being pre-emptive go-on-strike (maybe that's where Bush got some inspiration :tongue:) : next week already, we'll have a strike here in public transport to WARN THE NEW PRIME MINISTER not to think about proposing to change the laws on employers rights ; the guy didn't even have an idea ! They just go on strike to warn him not to have a idea ! Now I'd think that worker's unions are slightly more "populist" than the prime minister :-)
 
  • #11
Yea well your all fat and stupid!

So if the US isn't a media swayed nation then why did you start this thread? Wasn't by any chance because of that forbes article was it?
 
  • #12
Andy said:
Yea well your all fat and stupid!

So if the US isn't a media swayed nation then why did you start this thread? Wasn't by any chance because of that forbes article was it?

As a general statement; 'you're all fat and stupid'; is rude and insulting and really has no place here on this orum. However I thought I'd reseach your hypothesis re the correlation between fat and stupid and I came across this source.
Rome, USA
By Michael Applebaum, MD, JD, FCLM

Q: What caused the fall of the Roman Empire, the greatest empire the world has ever known?
A: Their diet, according to many modern scholars.

It is hard to believe that food and drink can destroy an empire, but apparently that is the case...
----------
...In ancient Rome lead was utilized in the making of water pipes, cooking utensils, water tanks and storage vessels...
----------
...Most alarming was the conspicuous pattern of mental incompetence that became characteristic of the Roman elite. Chronic lead poisoning persistently destroyed the aristocracy and created a scarcity of good management. If there is one thing an empire needs to sustain itself, it is lucid and competent management...
--------------------
...reported in the February, 2003, International Journal of Obesity stated that the list of risk factors that contribute to cognitive deficit should now include "obesity."

In other words, "obesity" makes you stupid.
Do they still have lead plumbing in the White House. It could explain a lot. :rofl:

http://www.drapplebaum.com/Fitness%20Rants/Rome,%20USA.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
vanesch said:
Athens was the first democracy. A long, long long time ago.
You know I was being ironic, right?
 
  • #14
The OP/article is a good example of the belief system of core Bush supporters. It is sad, frightening, mind-boggling, etc. That Dubya is completely unqualified to be president of the U.S. should be obvious to all by now. We have reviewed his education, military record, business history, and his brief stint as Governor. His poor performance as president is the natural result of not having any merit what so ever--I mean did people watch him in the recent press interview with Blair? Horribly embarrassing. Yet, the Bush supporters continue to defend him and his destructive policies--putting down intellectuals, which leads me to conclude they prefer we all listen to stupid people (like Bush). And since I, and other people point these things out, we are anti-American. Maybe we want our country to remain intact because we love it and want to continue to have pride in it--and point these things out to preserve democracy (heard of the word?).
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Tomorrow in forbes:

"Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today, and like any other disease or form of cancer it must be erradicated, We should take all intelectuals to concentration camps and show the europeans that they irational and racist form of thinking won't pass like nothing before the brillant and best in the world american people"
 
  • #16
sid_galt said:
Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
Though it has been some time since I read the guidelines for PF, I have noticed a few things, one of which is members dictating rules on the forum. To the best of my knowledge, no member has such authority.

The "request" for no opposing, dissenting views, and correlation between Bush bashing and anti-Americanism is in itself very disturbing. Where are the conservative members, and why are they not "irritated" by this anti-democracy post? I thought people had moved past the "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" faulty logic/reasoning, but it seems this kind of mentality just won't end.
 
  • #17
Informal Logic said:
The "request" for no opposing, dissenting views, and correlation between Bush bashing and anti-Americanism is in itself very disturbing. Where are the conservative members, and why are they not "irritated" by this anti-democracy post? I thought people had moved past the "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" faulty logic/reasoning, but it seems this kind of mentality just won't end.

Considering we're on a forum about science... isn't it somewhat natural to demand factual information and not anti-bush lies perpetuated throughout the left? I've seen multiple threads closed on this forum because their theory or idea was factless. And oddly enough, why does the request for "facts" bring to your mind "no opposing, dissenting views" :rolleyes: . And don't act stupid when you say "Whats the correlation between Bush bashing and anti-americanism?". We know there is none but as a few of the left have already demonstrated on this thread, topics about America will amost invariably slip into the Bush this, Bush that argument so the request has some legitame concerns related to it.
 
  • #18
El Hombre Invisible said:
All in all, that article came across as intellectual insecurity. Particularly, singling out the French as a target for animosity is somewhat hypocritical in an article *****ing about anti-Americanism. What's amusing is that this heightened anti-French (and anti-German) atmosphere is a consequence of the French refusal to endorse the war in Iraq. Thing is, there was almost no public support for the Iraq war in European countries, so the French and German decision reflected the populist public opinion, an approach this article says is lacking in European policy. Those countries that did support the US, such as the UK and Spain, did so in spite of public opinion. Surely the UK more than any country would have been a viable target for such an argument... oh, but they're on America's side.

All in all, your post came across as intellectual in security. You seem to have very little understanding of even American culture. Or well, let me pose it in a different and ironic manner. Oddly enough, the people who are the cause of most of the problems in the US (Especially the reference to "popular" music and Hollywood) are the ones on the left who absolutely adore Europe and make it almost a second job to bash America and put Europe on a pedastal. Makes you think eh...
 
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
anti-bush lies perpetuated throughout the left

If you're so devoted to facts, provide some evidence for that.
 
  • #20
Pengwuino said:
Considering we're on a forum about science... isn't it somewhat natural to demand factual information and not anti-bush lies perpetuated throughout the left? I've seen multiple threads closed on this forum because their theory or idea was factless. And oddly enough, why does the request for "facts" bring to your mind "no opposing, dissenting views" :rolleyes: . And don't act stupid when you say "Whats the correlation between Bush bashing and anti-americanism?". We know there is none but as a few of the left have already demonstrated on this thread, topics about America will amost invariably slip into the Bush this, Bush that argument so the request has some legitame concerns related to it.
Penqwuino I have read a lot of your mails and cannot think of a single 'fact' you have stated that stood up to even cursory examination (remember liras for example :smile: ). And as for sources, I often wonder how you communicate with this forum. One would think you had no access to the internet given the lack of sources quoted in your posts. Don't be offended but on reflection you must agree that for you to berate others on facts and sources is the height of hypocrisy,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Pengwuino said:
Considering we're on a forum about science... isn't it somewhat natural to demand factual information and not anti-bush lies perpetuated throughout the left? I've seen multiple threads closed on this forum because their theory or idea was factless. And oddly enough, why does the request for "facts" bring to your mind "no opposing, dissenting views" :rolleyes: . And don't act stupid when you say "Whats the correlation between Bush bashing and anti-americanism?". We know there is none but as a few of the left have already demonstrated on this thread, topics about America will amost invariably slip into the Bush this, Bush that argument so the request has some legitame concerns related to it.
Questions regarding the OP are not in regard to evidence, but rather the attempt to suppress other views. The so called "anti-Bush lies" are not lies because these have been substantiated with evidence--unlike your posts. Please provide proof of what has been a lie. Since you are not the one who determines whether a thread should be closed, who are you to say why the threads were closed? However, you can be banned for your reference about another member acting stupid, I hope you know.
Informal Logic said:
The "request" for no opposing, dissenting views, and correlation between Bush bashing and anti-Americanism is in itself very disturbing.
I think the word for this is fascism.
 
  • #22
I can understand the concerns of the original poster here. It does seem sometimes as if every thread that makes an evaluation of America - either positive or negative - degenerates into Bush-bashing. Whether or not the Bush-bashing is factually accurate, this can be frustrating as Bush is not necessarily the topic of the thread. It should be noted that anti-Americanism does not necessarily mean anti-Bushism. Osama made it clear that he didn't differentiate between democrat and republican and, no matter the outcome of our last election, he was continuuing the campaign. That said, the particular brand of anti-Americanism targeted in this piece - that which comes from the intellectual elite - is for the most part a dissatisfaction with the dumb masses that support Bush, and not all of America. In this case, the anti-Americanism is Bush-bashing, and so Bush-bashing probably is relevant. Nonetheless, I'll give sid the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was only frustrated at non-factual diatribes and op-ed pieces being presented in threads that call for factual data, and not being a fascist trying to stifle any dissent. If that were the case, it's hard to see why he would be on a discussion forum in the first place, much less one that leans so heavily to the other side of the political spectrum from him.
 
  • #23
loseyourname said:
I can understand the concerns of the original poster here. It does seem sometimes as if every thread that makes an evaluation of America - either positive or negative - degenerates into Bush-bashing. Whether or not the Bush-bashing is factually accurate, this can be frustrating as Bush is not necessarily the topic of the thread. It should be noted that anti-Americanism does not necessarily mean anti-Bushism. Osama made it clear that he didn't differentiate between democrat and republican and, no matter the outcome of our last election, he was continuuing the campaign. That said, the particular brand of anti-Americanism targeted in this piece - that which comes from the intellectual elite - is for the most part a dissatisfaction with the dumb masses that support Bush, and not all of America. In this case, the anti-Americanism is Bush-bashing, and so Bush-bashing probably is relevant. Nonetheless, I'll give sid the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was only frustrated at non-factual diatribes and op-ed pieces being presented in threads that call for factual data, and not being a fascist trying to stifle any dissent. If that were the case, it's hard to see why he would be on a discussion forum in the first place, much less one that leans so heavily to the other side of the political spectrum from him.
Beginning with the 2000 election in the U.S., it has been a very controversial time in our country, coupled with foreign policy that has been very controversial worldwide. It is expected that there might be a good deal of negative remarks toward the administration from which these controversies arise.

As has been stated before by another member, if one did a quantified analysis of the posts, we would find that the more liberal members consistently provide "evidence" to back up statements made in their posts. So I disagree with the justification for frustration "at non-factual diatribes and op-ed pieces being presented in threads that call for factual data," because as can been seen in this thread alone, the frustration is in the reverse. And there are quite a few members who participate regularly who lean to the right, so maybe the word "heavily" is a bit strong. Some members are moderates, but on the political spectrum in which one may be so far to the right this would not be recognized.

Back to the OP, it is offensive to be called anti-American, unpatriotic, etc. because one criticizes Bush, or is liberal, or is an intellectual, or what ever unsubstantiated reason people come up with. Yes this is a scientific forum, so let's please stop with this nonsense.
 
  • #24
SOS2008 said:
Back to the OP, it is offensive to be called anti-American, unpatriotic, etc. because one criticizes Bush, or is liberal, or is an intellectual, or what ever unsubstantiated reason people come up with. Yes this is a scientific forum, so let's please stop with this nonsense.

I don't think the author of this piece is referring to you when he talks about 'anti-Americanism.' There are plenty of people out there, say Paul Krugman, Dan Rather, or Jacques Chirac, who seem openly joyful when a US action or policy fails. There are people here at my school that hope Iraq never becomes a peaceful democratic nation just to prove Bush wrong. Disagreement is one thing, but rooting for failure and chaos is a bad thing and I think it's justified to refer to it as 'anti-American.' Perhaps sid thinks of you this way, in which case you should be offended. I do not, however, personally feel that you are anti-American or that the author of this piece would feel that way, and so there is no good reason for you to be offended. That said, humans hardly need a good reason to feel offended. I'm no different in that respect and I'll admit that I do get offended at a great deal of what is posted here even when it is clearly not directed at me and even when the position being criticized is not a position I hold. It's an odd effect that politics has on the human psyche that way. That herd mentality takes over and we find ourselves defending viewpoints we don't even agree with simply because the person being attacked identifies himself with a similar political alignment to our own. Nations are as susceptible to this as individuals are. There have been threads in here asking why the US imposes sanctions on enemies that perpetrate human right's abuses and not on allies that do the same. The answer is obvious. When someone or something is 'one of our own,' we are quick to overlook its failings, and when someone or something is 'one of the other,' we are quick to overlook its successes. The impression I get from this piece is that the author is fed up with those who overlook all of the US's successes and constantly play up its failures, and even seem happy when it fails. You may not be one of those persons, but you cannot deny that they are out there.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
loseyourname said:
I don't think the author of this piece if referring to you when he talks about 'anti-Americanism.' There are plenty of people out there, say Paul Krugman, Dan Rather, or Jacques Chirac, who seem openly joyful when a US action or policy fails. There are people here at my school that hope Iraq never becomes a peaceful democratic nation just to prove Bush wrong. Disagreement is one thing, but rooting for failure and chaos is a bad thing and I think it's justified to refer to it as 'anti-American.' Perhaps sid thinks of you this way, in which case you should be offended. I do not, however, personally feel that you are anti-American of that the author of this piece would feel that way, and so there is no good reason for you to be offended. That said, humans hardly need a good reason to feel offended. I'm no different in that respect and I'll admit that I do get offended at a great deal of what is posted here even when it is clearly not directed at me and even when the position being criticized is not a position I hold. It's an odd effect that politics has on the human psyche that way. That herd mentality takes over and we find ourselves defending viewpoints we don't even agree with simply because the person being attacked identifies himself with a similar political alignment to our own. Nations are as susceptible to this as individuals are. There have been threads in here asking why the US imposes sanctions on enemies that perpetrate human right's abuses and not on allies that do the same. The answer is obvious. When someone or something is 'one of our own,' we are quick to overlook its failings, and when someone or something is 'one of the other,' we are quick to overlook its successes. The impression I get from this piece is that the author is fed up with those who overlook all of the US's successes and constantly play up its failures, and even seem happy when it fails. You may not be one of those persons, but you cannot deny that they are out there.
The other side of that coin is those who do not agree with the Bush administrations policies are fed up with the right wing diatribes railing against the centre and the left.
The point which SOS2008 made so well is valid. Some of the right of centre members, who regularly post to these boards often posit extreme views unsubstantiated by any source and then rail against anybody who opposes them. The attitude being, I'm right and anybody who disagrees is misguided, a fool, a liar or even a racist if not American and traitor if they are. The way conditions were set up on this thread exemplified this intolerant attitude and so inevitably got peoples' backs up.
The point of these forums is for open discussion, exchange of views and to challenge ideas. Not to be simply a platform for making RaRa speeches or to bludgeon people into a particular way of thinking.
 
  • #26
loseyourname said:
...The impression I get from this piece is that the author is fed up with those who overlook all of the US's successes and constantly play up its failures, and even seem happy when it fails. You may not be one of those persons, but you cannot deny that they are out there.
I see your point, and after being called unpatriotic even by family members at the time of the 2004 election, no doubt I may take things too personally. At the same time, and in large part due to the shock of 9-11, this country has moved toward the extreme right. It seems a little of the same (extremism) is being required in order to regain balance. I long for the days of complacency that I used to enjoy. :smile:
 
  • #27
I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

I was born in the US, but I am a dual national and most of my family lives in Europe (talk about corruption). I live in the US, and although I don't agree with every decision the US government makes, I will speak out against that decision, not trash the entire country and it's people.

edit: and to be safe I should mention that this is no way no how, in any way, shape or form, directed at SOS :redface: (fears SOS will pour something nasty into my harddrive) :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Art said:
Penqwuino I have read a lot of your mails and cannot think of a single 'fact' you have stated that stood up to even cursory examination (remember liras for example :smile: ). And as for sources, I often wonder how you communicate with this forum. One would think you had no access to the internet given the lack of sources quoted in your posts. Don't be offended but on reflection you must agree that for you to berate others on facts and sources is the height of hypocrisy,

I've never seen you bring up a single fact in your posts. Wonder why... :rolleyes:
 
  • #29
2CentsWorth said:
Questions regarding the OP are not in regard to evidence, but rather the attempt to suppress other views. The so called "anti-Bush lies" are not lies because these have been substantiated with evidence--unlike your posts. Please provide proof of what has been a lie. Since you are not the one who determines whether a thread should be closed, who are you to say why the threads were closed? However, you can be banned for your reference about another member acting stupid, I hope you know.

Newsweek... the whole bs about the elections "being stolen"... "Bush ordered 9/11"... etc etc. Evidence? suuuure. And the threads I've seen were closed because a mod flat out said in the thread at the end "This is bull****. Closed". It was various... "Special relativity is wrong" which provided nothing factual... or other generally well accepted theories that were being called false by people with no proof. Now unless I am not allowed ot repeat what a mod said *cough* fascism *cough*, then I think you are wrong in your assumption. And I believe stupid was probably the wrong word but it was something close to that seeing as there acting as if they have no idea why someone would request no bashing. Anyone here for a few weeks can already tell that a lot of American this or American that threads degenerate into mudslinging about Bush... same thing happens with every other forum I've been around. Its a great request and anyone whos been here a while and participated in some of those threads should have realized what the request implied.
 
  • #30
Art said:
The attitude being, I'm right and anybody who disagrees is misguided, a fool, a liar or even a racist if not American and traitor if they are. The way conditions were set up on this thread exemplified this intolerant attitude and so inevitably got peoples' backs up.

I suppose that's your interpretation of the first post, but I'm questioning that interpretation, in the spirit of 'open discussion.'

Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

All this literally says is that he wants people to back up what they say with factual evidence and not to bash. My understanding of what it means to bash is that it entails making evaluative judgements designed to evoke an emotional response that is not necessarily justified. I don't see a problem with excluding this from a thread; in fact, I think this should be excluded from all threads, although I think the bigger problem is with posters bashing each other and not with the bashing of Bush and America. As far as the factual evidence thing goes, you seem to be making the same request, so it's clear that you agree with sid that propositions made on these forums should be supported by factual evidence. It also seems that you consider being called 'anti-American' to be a form of bashing and, as such, you don't want it. I'm having trouble seeing where the two of you disagree. This seems to be a big fuss over nothing.

I'm going to again juxtapose the statement made by sid and your interpretation of it:

sid: Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing, etc, etc. And if you want to make arguments, please support them with FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Art: The attitude being, I'm right and anybody who disagrees is misguided, a fool, a liar or even a racist if not American and traitor if they are.

How, Art? Presumably sid thinks he is right, and presumably we all think so, but he never said that anyone who disagrees is a misguided lying fool and a traitor. He never made any evaluative statement whatsoever about anyone who might disagree with him.

Perhaps your problem lies in a belief that sid has, in the past, posted bashing and propositions not supported by factual evidence. I can't recall anything at all that he's posted so I cannot comment on that. Perhaps that is correct and perhaps he is being a hypocrite, but even a hypocrite can be right. I think it's a good stipulation that we could all agree on that we should not bash each other and that we should provide factual evidence to support our positions. That seems reasonable enough to me.
 
  • #31
Evo said:
I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here...
We have one more battle over Supreme Court nomination(s), and then I believe it will all calm down in the near future. In the meantime, I see my rough & tough reputation in GD has paid off nicely. :rofl: Note to self - order more chocolates. :tongue2:
Pengwuino said:
I've never seen you bring up a single fact in your posts. Wonder why... :rolleyes:
What? I'm beginning to suspect you play the devil's advocate for entertainment.
 
  • #32
loseyourname said:
I think it's a good stipulation that we could all agree on that we should not bash each other and that we should provide factual evidence to support our positions. That seems reasonable enough to me.
You are such a dreamer. :wink: Wouldn't it be nice though?
 
  • #33
Pengwuino said:
I've never seen you bring up a single fact in your posts. Wonder why... :rolleyes:
In that case you mustn't have read any of my posts then... Not only do I supply facts but I also supply the sources as well. You'll find them if you click on the underlined parts, but you knew that... er didn't you??
 
  • #34
Art said:
In that case you mustn't have read any of my posts then... Not only do I supply facts but I also supply the sources as well. You'll find them if you click on the underlined parts, but you knew that... er didn't you??

after checking about 1/2 of your posts, i notice that most of the basic information (for example, how many african nations are and their aid or something) is sourced but some of the mroe oturageous claims are unsourced (The US disrupted the European continent and economy after WW2 for example and the US stealing the European example of democracy and calling it its own)
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Pengwuino said:
Newsweek... the whole bs about the elections "being stolen"... "Bush ordered 9/11"... etc etc. Evidence? suuuure. And the threads I've seen were closed because a mod flat out said in the thread at the end "This is bull****. Closed". It was various... "Special relativity is wrong" which provided nothing factual... or other generally well accepted theories that were being called false by people with no proof. Now unless I am not allowed ot repeat what a mod said *cough* fascism *cough*, then I think you are wrong in your assumption. And I believe stupid was probably the wrong word but it was something close to that seeing as there acting as if they have no idea why someone would request no bashing. Anyone here for a few weeks can already tell that a lot of American this or American that threads degenerate into mudslinging about Bush... same thing happens with every other forum I've been around. Its a great request and anyone whos been here a while and participated in some of those threads should have realized what the request implied.
Proof would be quoting exactly what was said, and better yet, then providing "evidence" (e.g., a quote from source with link) to the contrary. There was a thread that asked for positive things Bush has achieved, but there wasn't much good to say. If his performance was better, there wouldn't be so much criticism on PF or as you say on other forums, and job approval is low in the polls as well.

The threads I've seen closed are usually of a religious nature, or racial, and so far IMO the threads should have been closed (uh-hem, this coming from a liberal). Aside from this observation, I believe members show a fair amount of respect toward one another in PF -- certainly on the spectrum of things.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
658
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top