Dervish said
It honestly kind of surprised me to find out that a lot of the political stances that you seem to hear from the Democrats and Republicans now were pretty much the opposite back in the earliest years of the US.

I'd have to disagree with that statement. I would say that the democratic party has changed, but I think the republicans have mostly stayed the same-such that old-school democrats would prefer to be considered republicans than modern democrats.

However, one way in which republicans and democrats HAVE changed sides in very recent years was in their libertarian/authoritarian complex.
When republicans were in power, the democrats were filled with hippies trying to 'fight the system' and smoke pot. Well, they fought the system-and won.
Now that the democrats are in power, the republicans are filled with 'libertarians' who want to 'fight the system' and smoke pot. Which is why I have to hang around Pro-Confederate Anarcho-Capitalists who will probably go back to being psuedo-hippies when the next Republican President enters office.

Halo said
I understand the point you're making, but would also say that those individual actions of generosity only affect one's locale and their community. My point was that Americans seem to take enormous pride in as a whole, yet refuse to contribute to the of American society. Sure, they will help the guy next door, but the guy a couple of towns over, or a couple of states away, can go fuck themselves. And yet the pride lies in all of American society, not just in the locale they're willing to help.I realise that I'm making sweeping generalisations here, and that it is not nearly so black-and-white as I paint it - don't worry, I'm not implying all Americans are inherently selfish individuals. I'm just highlighting this self-contradicting trend I've seen: this enormous, unconquerable pride in the abstract idea of one's country and culture and society (as opposed to simply pride in one's local community), while simultaneously actually opposing even the existence of any cohesive, "American" society which is unified and works together as one thing. How can someone take have such a fervour in their pride in the whole, in "America", yet not really want "America" to exist, desire everything to exist on a local, disconnected, individualistic level? That's the contradiction that confuses me.

It's a mistaken perception. Everyone's fighting for a different and more personally-relatable notion of community. For the conservative camp, this usually sounds like 'Founding fathers!' and 'Speak English!' and 'Founded on such-and-such principles!' For the liberal camp, it sounds like 'Racism!' and 'Inequality!' and 'Offensive!'

A lot of us want to see power become less federally-centralized. That's not because we 'oppose the existence of any cohesive society,' we simply reject the notion that a 'cohesive society' must be established by the government. Most of us play football, watch FOX and go to church. All of these are expressions of communal identity.

Halo said
I understand the point you're making, but would also say that those individual actions of generosity only affect one's locale and their community. My point was that Americans seem to take enormous pride in as a whole, yet refuse to contribute to the of American society. Sure, they will help the guy next door, but the guy a couple of towns over, or a couple of states away, can go fuck themselves. And yet the pride lies in all of American society, not just in the locale they're willing to help.I realise that I'm making sweeping generalisations here, and that it is not nearly so black-and-white as I paint it - don't worry, I'm not implying all Americans are inherently selfish individuals. I'm just highlighting this self-contradicting trend I've seen: this enormous, unconquerable pride in the abstract idea of one's country and culture and society (as opposed to simply pride in one's local community), while simultaneously actually opposing even the existence of any cohesive, "American" society which is unified and works together as one thing. How can someone take have such a fervour in their pride in the whole, in "America", yet not really want "America" to exist, desire everything to exist on a local, disconnected, individualistic level? That's the contradiction that confuses me.EDIT: I think you sorta focused in on my single use of the word "socialist", which was regarding one specific example, and took that to be the basis of everything I said. It wasn't. I'm not talking about what the government does or does not do in regards to America and American society. I'm talking about the contradiction in the views of individuals - whether it is the government or some other body that allowed/encouraged the existence of a coherent, wider "American" society, as opposed to local community, is irrelevant to my point.

Americans help other Americans across the country and show solidarity with them all the time. Remember "Boston Strong"? Or the aftermath of 9/11? Sure we argue, but Americans are incredibly tight-knit when the going gets tough.

mdk said
It's a mistaken perception. Everyone's fighting for a different and more personally-relatable notion of community. For the conservative camp, this usually sounds like 'Founding fathers!' and 'Speak English!' and 'Founded on such-and-such principles!' For the liberal camp, it sounds like 'Racism!' and 'Inequality!' and 'Offensive!' A lot of us want to see power become less federally-centralized. That's not because we 'oppose the existence of any cohesive society,' we simply reject the notion that a 'cohesive society' must be established by the government. Most of us play football, watch FOX and go to church. All of these are expressions of communal identity.

A society isn't just made up of communal identity, though, is it? I'm not arguing that there's no sense of American communal identity. I'm arguing that Americans often seem opposed to the idea of participating in and contributing to their wider, "American" society. They take care of themselves, and they may take care of their local communities (as So Boerd highlighted with the generosity article), but in terms of working together, as a part of a cohesive American society? There's no desire to. There's no desire to help American people in dire straits if they're not a part of your locale. And what I struggle to understand is how someone can take pride in America, and American society, and yet not want to have fuck all to do with American society, outside of, perhaps, that sense of communal identity.

An "every man for themselves" attitude does not gel with the fervour of patriotism many Americans show, regardless of how much they recognise that "every man" likes football.

So Boerd said
Americans help other Americans across the country and show solidarity with them all the time. Remember "Boston Strong"? Or the aftermath of 9/11? Sure we argue, but Americans are incredibly tight-knit when the going gets tough.

When disaster strikes, perhaps, but in the running of daily life? In terms of helping others with daily struggles? Not even slightly. When there has been an "attack on America", America responds, I'll admit that. But beyond those times of perceived threat to the whole of America, not really. When the struggles only exist for some of America, the rest seem to feed them to the sharks. 50 million people without healthcare can go fuck themselves. (I'm sorry to return to the healthcare example, but it's the one I'm most familiar with and regard as most fundamental.)

Halo said
A society isn't just made up of communal identity, though, is it? I'm not arguing that there's no sense of American communal identity. I'm arguing that Americans often seem opposed to the idea of participating in and contributing to their wider, "American" society. They take care of themselves, and they may take care of their local communities (as So Boerd highlighted with the generosity article), but in terms of working together, as a part of a cohesive American society? There's no desire to. There's no desire to help American people in dire straits if they're not a part of your locale. And what I struggle to understand is how someone can take pride in , and society, and yet not want to have fuck all to do with society, outside of, perhaps, that sense of communal identity. An "every man for themselves" attitude does not gel with the fervour of patriotism many Americans show, regardless of how much they recognise that "every man" likes football.

Remember too the size of the country we're talking about. If it were a state, Great Britain wouldn't break the top ten largest by land area. It would be the most populous, but also the densest, and still only 1/5th the national population (unless we're counting the 300m we've already got, in which case you'd only account for about 15%). It's a great geopolitics study -- meaning, the relationship between geography and politics, like why are rice-climates more communal than wheat-climates. End of the day people still operate like people, once you get to understand the reasons they adopt certain behaviors, we're all pretty much the same.

mdk said
Remember too the size of the country we're talking about. If it were a state, Great Britain wouldn't break the top ten largest by land area. It would be the most populous, but also the densest, and still only 1/5th the national population (unless we're counting the 300m we've already got, in which case you'd only account for about 15%). It's a great geopolitics study -- meaning, the relationship between geography and politics, like why are rice-climates more communal than wheat-climates. End of the day people still operate like people, once you get to understand the reasons they adopt certain behaviors, we're all pretty much the same.

I do recognise that it is virtually impossible to do things in a cohesive manner in the US compared to the UK (as an example), and I suppose, in some ways, that's my point. It's impossible to have that cohesiveness of society in America, and it's extremely decentralised, and yet people still identify so strongly as "American". It seems contradictory, in my mind. But I rather feel we're going to go in circles on this one, and it doesn't help that I'm deliberately generalising and oversimplifying both Americans and their culture.

Halo said
I do recognise that it is virtually impossible to do things in a cohesive manner in the US compared to the UK (as an example), and I suppose, in some ways, . It's impossible to have that cohesiveness of society in America, and it's extremely decentralised, and yet people still identify so strongly as "American". It seems contradictory, in my mind. But I rather feel we're going to go in circles on this one, and it doesn't help that I'm deliberately generalising and oversimplifying both Americans and their culture.

At this point I'm not arguing, I'm just remarking at our differences as they exist, because they're interesting to me.

mdk said
At this point I'm not arguing, I'm just remarking at our differences as they exist, because they're interesting to me.

Fair enough. That's fairly unusual in Off-Topic, so forgive me for assuming otherwise! I have to admit, I've long been fascinated by the US and the differences between my home country and there. For a long time, most of my friends were American, so I got a lot of exposure to certain aspects of American culture. I see it as a shame that I can't afford to go to uni there - I got into UCB, wanting to move to America to experience the differences for myself, but y'know, I don't have $50k a year to pull out my ass.
Anyway, back to the point at hand. I suppose I struggle to wrap my mind about the dynamics of American patriotism, despite the decentralisation, mainly because British culture does not exhibit nearly quite the same sense of national pride - or rather, it's sort of... colder. We might be very proud of our country, but I've very rarely seen a British person defend Britain with quite the same intensity and fervour that I've seen Americans do for the US. Maybe we're just cynical and such, as a trend, by comparison. I don't know that I agree that "we're all pretty much the same", as you put it - there's a very strong imprint on people from the culture they grew up in.

We are a nation that is most commonly on the moral side of a war, we have only few enormous evils in our past, we have never really lost a war (1812 was a draw and we just got tired of Vietnam), we lead the Free World, and we are, at least very recently were, a place you could show up with a few bucks and make something of yourself. We are the most generous people. Why shouldn't we be proud?

So Boerd said
We are a nation that is most commonly on the moral side of a war, we have only few enormous evils in our past, we have never really lost a war (1812 was a draw and we just got tired of Vietnam), we lead the Free World, and we are, at least very recently were, a place you could show up with a few bucks and make something of yourself. We are the most generous people. Why shouldn't we be proud?

We're one of the fattest per person, not near the smartest, we make people like Bieber and Spears unfathomably rich, lie about what kind of government we have and on weekends we take giant weapons and beer and flannel vests into the wild, drink, and murder our fauna.

Surely someone could find a reason to poke fun!

Eh, that's nothing like "We tried to conquer the world!" or "We surrendered in an hour and a half in WW2". It's the big historical screwups that cause people to lose patriotism. I read an article which postulates a theory that the best means of estimating patriotism and belief in exceptionalism in the developed world is fertility rate.

mdk said
The lens of history is a lot easier on republicans from before the AIDS paranoia hit. A lot of probably smart people looked really goddamn stupid when they were terrified of a gay zombie pandemic or whatever. Interesting tidbit though. It's easy to forget how much of a battleground California can be, as a state. Once you break out of the bay, it's a .... spirited debate. Sort of like gladiatorial deathmatches were spirited handshakes.

Reflection-photo-bomber on right.

Best $100M spent on a recall-election for more of the incumbnant, ever.

The government should not be in the business of charity. It encourages people to be lazy shits who are nothing more than maggots and leaches.

Why should someone study hard and work hard to provide when they can be a dim witted moron the government will pay to set on their fat ass at home doing nothing but watching cable tv & gorging on food all which was paid for with other people's money?

The only charity I support forces dumb fucks to get off their asses and do something. Habitat for Humanity being an example, you want one of their homes you have to help build your own and others.

A lot of people on social assistance, especially welfare, are not actively trying to get off of it. They have no motivation to; the government has given them a free ride, so why would they willingly get off?

Welfare should always be given solely in forms that promote the individual receiving assistance becoming self-sufficient and independent, and it should always be subject to be taken away if the receiver is uncooperative.

Cool, how many people are you ok with going hungry to catch the 4% of lazy sub-human scum who dare to be poor?

How many kids are you ok with not getting birthday presents/stuff to support themselves?

How many people are you ok with being deprived of basic human rights, (food, shelter, water, power, internet?)

Turtlicious said
Cool, how many people are you ok with going hungry to catch the 4% of lazy sub-human scum who dare to be poor?How many kids are you ok with not getting birthday presents/stuff to support themselves?How many people are you ok with being deprived of basic human rights, (food, shelter, water, power, internet?)

As many as is necessary. The fault will be squarely on those deciding not to support themselves.

It isn't the responsibility of the government to sustain the idle. That's both unfair and unsustainable.

The Nexerus said
As many as is necessary. The fault will be squarely on those deciding not to support themselves.It isn't the responsibility of the government to sustain the idle. That's both unfair and unsustainable.

lmao, Yeah fuck kids for mum's decisions imho. -Nex in TYOL 2014

i mean, why dont they just bootstrap?

can't they just go buy bootstraps?

what do you mean they cant afford bootstraps?

lmao, fucking lazy poors. wont even go out and buy bootstraps

Turtlicious said
lmao, Yeah fuck kids for mum's decisions imho. -Nex in TYOL 2014i mean, why dont they just bootstrap?can't they just go buy bootstraps?what do you mean they cant afford bootstraps?lmao, fucking lazy poors. wont even go out and buy bootstraps

Turt, your scarecrows need some work.

Unemployed people who are not actively trying to become contributing members of society should not be collecting welfare. This isn't about some populist idea of the rich versus the poor, this is about the workers versus the idle.