What is your personal stance on the United states

[Crimiea]

Maybe because they usually are, in fact, evil imperialist oppressors.

The ones that weren't oppressive, like Wilberforce or Attlee or even Churchill (no matter how much I dislike the man for his imperialism, he did do a good one with punching Hitler in the nuts), haven't been consigned to shame and ignominy. Maybe there's a reason.

It's disingenuous to judge historical persons as 'evil imperialist oppressors' when we know our liberal values have only really existed for less than a hundred years (of course liberalism itself is older than that, but it's not the same as modern liberalism). For the vast majority of human history, empires and emperors have conquered and oppressed and enslaved, but they did so under the value systems of their age.

We don't call Genghis Khan, despotic ruler of millions, or Sundiata Keita, warlord and tyrant of 13th Century West Africa, 'evil imperialist oppressors' because the things they did such as pillaging cities and slaughtering women and children was just business as usual for most of history.

Therefore why do we judge more harshly than the rest, Robert Clive for his wars in India, or Cecil Rhodes for his exploitation in Africa?

I judge Winston Churchill for being a shameless racist which includes his antisemitism. He received no word regarding the millions of dead Bengali people and his opinions on Native Americans being slaughtered. Yet I am somehow supposed to dislike only Hitler while worshiping Churchill and FDR as saviors of the Jewish people. There's a fine line between "Churchill is from a time when it's okay to hate X" and "You should hate hate X because he hates Jews, but you should praise Y despite him/her hating Jews and other races".

[British Home Counties]

Maybe because they usually are, in fact, evil imperialist oppressors.

The ones that weren't oppressive, like Wilberforce or Attlee or even Churchill (no matter how much I dislike the man for his imperialism, he did do a good one with punching Hitler in the nuts), haven't been consigned to shame and ignominy. Maybe there's a reason.

It's disingenuous to judge historical persons as 'evil imperialist oppressors' when we know our liberal values have only really existed for less than a hundred years (of course liberalism itself is older than that, but it's not the same as modern liberalism). For the vast majority of human history, empires and emperors have conquered and oppressed and enslaved, but they did so under the value systems of their age.

We don't call Genghis Khan, despotic ruler of millions, or Sundiata Keita, warlord and tyrant of 13th Century West Africa, 'evil imperialist oppressors' because the things they did such as pillaging cities and slaughtering women and children was just business as usual for most of history.

Therefore why do we judge more harshly than the rest, Robert Clive for his wars in India, or Cecil Rhodes for his exploitation in Africa?

Liberals expect Ceasar to accept abortions and Catherine II of Russia to love homosexuals, though.

[Holy Prospero]

It's disingenuous to judge historical persons as 'evil imperialist oppressors' when we know our liberal values have only really existed for less than a hundred years (of course liberalism itself is older than that, but it's not the same as modern liberalism). For the vast majority of human history, empires and emperors have conquered and oppressed and enslaved, but they did so under the value systems of their age.

We don't call Genghis Khan, despotic ruler of millions, or Sundiata Keita, warlord and tyrant of 13th Century West Africa, 'evil imperialist oppressors' because the things they did such as pillaging cities and slaughtering women and children was just business as usual for most of history.

Therefore why do we judge more harshly than the rest, Robert Clive for his wars in India, or Cecil Rhodes for his exploitation in Africa?

I judge Winston Churchill for being a shameless racist which includes his antisemitism. He received no word regarding the millions of dead Bengali people and his opinions on Native Americans being slaughtered. Yet I am somehow supposed to dislike only Hitler while worshiping Churchill and FDR as saviors of the Jewish people. There's a fine line between "Churchill is from a time when it's okay to hate X" and "You should hate hate X because he hates Jews, but you should praise Y despite him/her hating Jews and other races".

Do you then think that all the millions of Churchill's contemporaries were monsters? If you think that racism is unforgivable no matter what time or culture someone comes from, then you're denouncing virtually the entire human race throughout thousands of years.

From the first recorded civilisations to early modernity, people have always thought themselves superior to other races and nations and religions. It is an attitude deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and this isn't conjecture, just look at how throughout history and all over the world all civilisations have warred with and brutalised and enslaved each other, without ever questioning the moral legitimacy of their actions.

So how can we, with our values that have scarcely existed for more than a generation, pronounce judgement on the billions of people who have lived before us because they did not hold values that did not exist when they were alive?

[The Two Jerseys]

I judge Winston Churchill for being a shameless racist which includes his antisemitism. He received no word regarding the millions of dead Bengali people and his opinions on Native Americans being slaughtered. Yet I am somehow supposed to dislike only Hitler while worshiping Churchill and FDR as saviors of the Jewish people. There's a fine line between "Churchill is from a time when it's okay to hate X" and "You should hate hate X because he hates Jews, but you should praise Y despite him/her hating Jews and other races".

Churchill disliking Jews is still far better than Hitler murdering Jews.

[Crimiea]

I judge Winston Churchill for being a shameless racist which includes his antisemitism. He received no word regarding the millions of dead Bengali people and his opinions on Native Americans being slaughtered. Yet I am somehow supposed to dislike only Hitler while worshiping Churchill and FDR as saviors of the Jewish people. There's a fine line between "Churchill is from a time when it's okay to hate X" and "You should hate hate X because he hates Jews, but you should praise Y despite him/her hating Jews and other races".

Do you then think that all the millions of Churchill's contemporaries were monsters? If you think that racism is unforgivable no matter what time or culture someone comes from, then you're denouncing virtually the entire human race throughout thousands of years.

From the first recorded civilisations to early modernity, people have always thought themselves superior to other races and nations and religions. It is an attitude deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and this isn't conjecture, just look at how throughout history and all over the world all civilisations have warred with and brutalised and enslaved each other, without ever questioning the moral legitimacy of their actions.

So how can we, with our values that have scarcely existed for more than a generation, pronounce judgement on the billions of people who have lived before us because they did not hold values that did not exist when they were alive?

No, I think it is stupid for me to be taught how monstrous Hitler is for killing millions of Jews when Winston Churchill's hatred for Jews and Native Americans are comparable to Hitler's, except Churchill did not act upon his hatred. We are taught how Churchill is a hero, a savior of the free world who prevented more Jews from being slaughtered by aiding the war efforts stopping Hitler yet we completely ignore how he disliked Jews just as much as Hitler does, or how Churchill starved 3 million Bengalis, or how he justified the use of gas to murder Native Americans. Hitler is evil because he hated the Jews, then why was Churchill decorated as a hero? At least FDR wasn't a babbling racist like both Churchill and Hitler.

I do not judge Theodore Roosevelt or Emperor Hirohito the way I judged Churchill because no one outside of Japan worshiped Hirohito as the savior of the East Asian race who protected the pacific peoples from the Europeans, nor are we hating on Roosevelt's contemporaries yet they share similar beliefs as Roosevelt. However, we spat on the Germans and Japanese with diatribes while worshiping a British man whose thought patterns are just as vile.

[Twilight Imperium]

No, I think it is stupid for me to be taught how monstrous Hitler is for killing millions of Jews when Winston Churchill's hatred for Jews and Native Americans are comparable to Hitler's, except Churchill did not act upon his hatred. (redacted..)Hitler is evil because he hated the Jews, then why was Churchill decorated as a hero? At least FDR wasn't a babbling racist like both Churchill and Hitler.

Because it's not evil to think things, it's evil to do things. Hitler is condemned as evil because he embarked on an extermination campaign of European (and eventually all) Jews. Churchill is a hero because despite that, he helped stop Hitler and kept his own country together with grit and pure jowl. Nobody's saying he's perfect, but he's definitely way better than Hitler.

[Crimiea]

No, I think it is stupid for me to be taught how monstrous Hitler is for killing millions of Jews when Winston Churchill's hatred for Jews and Native Americans are comparable to Hitler's, except Churchill did not act upon his hatred. (redacted..)Hitler is evil because he hated the Jews, then why was Churchill decorated as a hero? At least FDR wasn't a babbling racist like both Churchill and Hitler.

Because it's not evil to think things, it's evil to do things. Hitler is condemned as evil because he embarked on an extermination campaign of European (and eventually all) Jews. Churchill is a hero because despite that, he helped stop Hitler and kept his own country together with grit and pure jowl. Nobody's saying he's perfect, but he's definitely way better than Hitler.

I am not denying that he's better than Hitler, but, I am denying his status as a hero because while he stopped Hitler and his rampage, his reign of Britain is no different than the way Hideki Tojo ruled the Japanese empire as PM. For a hero, Churchill ignored the deaths of millions of Bengali people, openly proclaimed his hatred of South Asians, and argued for the use of mustard gas to kill off the Native Americans. Unlike Churchill, FDR did not argue for the use of mustard gas to kill the Japanese Americans, he did not ignore the starvation of African-Americans during the depression, and he wasn't babbling his mouth about how Jews, Bengalis, or some other ethnic background being deserving of persecution and/or famine. Churchill is a psychopathic racist that makes FDR, the man who sent Americans of Italian, Japanese, and German descent into camps, look soft in comparison.

[Napkiraly]

I have mixed opinions. On one hand Americans are some of the nicest people I've ever met, in fact I'd say they're on par with some of the European countries known for being friendly. They can also be incredibly generous and sharing. America has quite a lot of potential, and to a certain extent uses it well. However it also can be rather skewed. America is almost a country of extremes in many ways. Because on the other hand, it has some really, really miserable, too greedy sons and daughters of assholes. It also doesn't fully muster the potential within it and squanders it to a certain extent.

Overall, I like America - but it's got some deep issues it's going to have to fix. The process will also have to begin sooner rather than later.

[Seraven]

I have mixed opinions. On one hand Americans are some of the nicest people I've ever met, in fact I'd say they're on par with some of the European countries known for being friendly. They can also be incredibly generous and sharing. America has quite a lot of potential, and to a certain extent uses it well. However it also can be rather skewed. America is almost a country of extremes in many ways. Because on the other hand, it has some really, really miserable, too greedy sons and daughters of assholes. It also doesn't fully muster the potential within it and squanders it to a certain extent.

Overall, I like America - but it's got some deep issues it's going to have to fix. The process will also have to begin sooner rather than later.

Some of the nicest people you've ever met?

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

I have mixed opinions. On one hand Americans are some of the nicest people I've ever met, in fact I'd say they're on par with some of the European countries known for being friendly. They can also be incredibly generous and sharing. America has quite a lot of potential, and to a certain extent uses it well. However it also can be rather skewed. America is almost a country of extremes in many ways. Because on the other hand, it has some really, really miserable, too greedy sons and daughters of assholes. It also doesn't fully muster the potential within it and squanders it to a certain extent.

Overall, I like America - but it's got some deep issues it's going to have to fix. The process will also have to begin sooner rather than later.

Some of the nicest people you've ever met?

The nicest would definitely be the Canadians.

[Napkiraly]

I have mixed opinions. On one hand Americans are some of the nicest people I've ever met, in fact I'd say they're on par with some of the European countries known for being friendly. They can also be incredibly generous and sharing. America has quite a lot of potential, and to a certain extent uses it well. However it also can be rather skewed. America is almost a country of extremes in many ways. Because on the other hand, it has some really, really miserable, too greedy sons and daughters of assholes. It also doesn't fully muster the potential within it and squanders it to a certain extent.

Overall, I like America - but it's got some deep issues it's going to have to fix. The process will also have to begin sooner rather than later.

Some of the nicest people you've ever met?

Yep.

[FutureAmerica]

The US federal govt is too big and represents mostly big business interests. The little guy is a loser in this country. The states collect too little taxes because the Feds collect too much. Social programs suffer. The Republicans are hijacked by the Tea 'Koch Brothers' Party with Libertarian interests. Both Democrats and Republicans need big money to get elected.

The conservative whites in this country have become more racist.

Heterosexual males in America are sexually repressed. It explains the very high rates of sexual assaults on women in the country.

Other than that, everything is fine.

[Bolnoa]

I'm pro and con on certain aspects but as of lately my stance is well a bit of a mixed bag...Wait...

I'm not mixed to a point where I'd go lol at any chance I got.

[Glorious KASSRD]

The US federal govt is too big and represents mostly big business interests. The little guy is a loser in this country. The states collect too little taxes because the Feds collect too much. Social programs suffer. The Republicans are hijacked by the Tea 'Koch Brothers' Party with Libertarian interests. Both Democrats and Republicans need big money to get elected.

The conservative whites in this country have become more racist.

Heterosexual males in America are sexually repressed. It explains the very high rates of sexual assaults on women in the country.

Other than that, everything is fine.

What?

[Othelos]

The US federal govt is too big and represents mostly big business interests. The little guy is a loser in this country. The states collect too little taxes because the Feds collect too much. Social programs suffer. The Republicans are hijacked by the Tea 'Koch Brothers' Party with Libertarian interests. Both Democrats and Republicans need big money to get elected.

The conservative whites in this country have become more racist.

Heterosexual males in America are sexually repressed. It explains the very high rates of sexual assaults on women in the country.

Other than that, everything is fine.

What?

lmao

[Earth and its colonies]

America is the best country on Earth. Sadly the left is destroying it. GOP 2016!!!

[Arlye Austros]

I used to dislike the US and it´s self-styled image to the world, but then I travelled there once for a visit, and I must say my opinion quite changed. of course, they do stupid stuff from time to time, but hell, everyone does, they just add bacon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igPX3G_E_mw

[Othelos]

America is the best country on Earth.

No.

Sadly the left is destroying it.

No.

GOP 2016!!!

No.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

America is the best country on Earth. Sadly the left is destroying it. GOP 2016!!!

We don't have a "left" to speak of here. If you mean the Democrats, then please note that the economy has improved significantly since Obama took office. Unless you're using some other metric, which I'd naturally be happy to discuss.

[Cellairis]

I love the United States. Its government is far from perfect, some people suck, but most people I know are great and I believe I am blessed to live here.

[Seraven]

The US federal govt is too big and represents mostly big business interests. The little guy is a loser in this country. The states collect too little taxes because the Feds collect too much. Social programs suffer. The Republicans are hijacked by the Tea 'Koch Brothers' Party with Libertarian interests. Both Democrats and Republicans need big money to get elected.

The conservative whites in this country have become more racist.

Heterosexual males in America are sexually repressed. It explains the very high rates of sexual assaults on women in the country.

Other than that, everything is fine.

The conservative whites are always racist, not have become more racist.

[Herrebrugh]

I don't really have a "personal stance", but I enjoyed my stay in South Carolina. Seeing flags and churches everywhere really got on my nerves, though. And people singing the national anthem at any random sports game and saying a pledge of allegiance in schools really gave me a bit of a culture shock.

[Aelex]

We don't have a "left" to speak of here. If you mean the Democrats, then please note that the economy has improved significantly since Obama took office. Unless you're using some other metric, which I'd naturally be happy to discuss.

Just a little question, did this stupid bipartist system imposed itself or was it a delibarate choice? And why do you only have a right and a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar-right?
I know that most of the leftist party originated of the workers unions; which never really developped in your country maybe because of the anglo-saxon/protestant predominant influence and it's logic of "hard-work = success"; but still... NO left party whatsoever?

[Ordysius]

Very good points.

I think that loving a country can be good when you admit both the good and bad.

Good - Freedom!

Bad - Closed on Sundays

Ha, true! Except that most stores in the US are open on Sundays now.

[Othelos]

We don't have a "left" to speak of here. If you mean the Democrats, then please note that the economy has improved significantly since Obama took office. Unless you're using some other metric, which I'd naturally be happy to discuss.

Just a little question, did this stupid bipartist system imposed itself or was it a delibarate choice? And why do you only have a right and a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar-right?
I know that most of the leftist party originated of the workers unions; which never really developped in your country maybe because of the anglo-saxon/protestant predominant influence and it's logic of "hard-work = success"; but still... NO left party whatsoever?

The democrats are centrist. There are a few 'leftist' segments in the party, but there are very few people as "extreme" as socialists - nor do they have much influence.

The reason the two party system exists is because of how our elections are carried out. People go out and vote, and the person who receives the most votes win. None of the votes are redistributed or represented proportionally. Meaning, people vote for one party, then when they get annoyed with that politician, they vote for the opposition. Whenever people have voted for parties outside of the mainstream opposition, it ends up splitting the votes for people basically on the same side, so the politician that all of those people don't like wins, since they still have their whole party together.

I think leftism never gained significant popularity because being independent and highly individualistic is an ingrained part of the american psyche. Any form of collectivism opposes this, and people really only join up in that way when things are really bad.