Is it disrespectful to sit during the Pledge?

[San Montalbano]

What is Vietnapalmam?
What is
Abandoning the Kurds to genocide?
What is
turning away Jews fleeing the Holocaust?
What is
couping the leader of Iran to make way for a murderous dictator who was overthrown by a more murderous dictator?
What is
Yemen?

Can we add the massacre of various Native American tribes and the placement of Japanese Americans in concentration camps, oh and the use of torture by Bush II?

The first was right of conquest and the second is simply that they were engaged in a war agaisnt the same ethnic group, like rome with the germans, to simply trust them all is naive. Though that situation could have been handled better

[Arcturus Novus]

Honestly, who gives a shit whether it's respectful or not? The Pledge is just unnecessary. We don't need to have school days, local gov't meetings, etc. start with a prayer to one of the American civil religion's many icons.

It's idolatry and to me I can't follow it due to religious reasons, it's blasphemy.

It literally is! So many Americans worship the Founding Fathers, the establishing documents of the state, its national iconography, it's fucking weird and almost any time this is criticized you're branded as un-American.

Which like, is just as well, I am un-American but it's still ridiculous that judging the US imperial cult is what sets people off.

[Fahran]

Slavery and Jim Crow are probably the greatest evils the US ever committed to be honest.

What is Vietnapalmam?
What is
Abandoning the Kurds to genocide?
What is
turning away Jews fleeing the Holocaust?
What is
couping the leader of Iran to make way for a murderous dictator who was overthrown by a more murderous dictator?
What is
Yemen?

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

[Neutraligon]

Can we add the massacre of various Native American tribes and the placement of Japanese Americans in concentration camps, oh and the use of torture by Bush II?

The first was right of conquest and the second is simply that they were engaged in a war agaisnt the same ethnic group, like rome with the germans, to simply trust them all is naive. Though that situation could have been handled better

Well who knew you were for genocide. As to the second, they where American citizens, and no the US was not engaged in a war with the Japanese, they where at war with Japan.

[San Montalbano]

Im referring to simple disagreements by conservatives

Not National Socialists, whom advocate genocide

Fascists are not conservatives.

Agreed, but we rarley see fascists deplatformed(there are few fascists)its mostly conservatives whom are painted fascist by cultural marxists, unfortunate for them that they allowed leftists to put them in that box without fighting back.

[Tekeristan]

What is Vietnapalmam?
What is
Abandoning the Kurds to genocide?
What is
turning away Jews fleeing the Holocaust?
What is
couping the leader of Iran to make way for a murderous dictator who was overthrown by a more murderous dictator?
What is
Yemen?

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

It isn't about 'comparing' things with one another and that's a bad place to base things off. The purpose is to know of them in the first place and understand why they occured.

[Fahran]

I usually interpret Cultural Marxism as denoting a wide set of ideologies and paradigms that divide society into oppressor and oppressed classes in imitation of proper Marxist theory, but a lot of those who seem to employ it often mutter about arguments related to critical theory and post-modernism. Really, it's a way of comparing the modern Left to the Maoists who hopped ship in the sixties and seventies. It works because a lot of those people are somewhat similar if not the same.

"The modern left" is hardly internally cohesive. If we simply run with your first definition, cultural Marxism being any ideological paradigm that divides society into oppressors and oppressed, then I can very easily fit the nationalist extremists muttering about a globalist elite into the category of cultural Marxism.

Pretty much. I'm not defending them. I'm more so referencing what their arguments seem to suggest.

[Arcturus Novus]

It literally is! So many Americans worship the Founding Fathers, the establishing documents of the state, its national iconography, it's fucking weird and almost any time this is criticized you're branded as un-American.

Which like, is just as well, I am un-American but it's still ridiculous that judging the US imperial cult is what sets people off.

Exactly, the Antichrist could be America itself!

...

Wait...

Did I...

Just find out the truth?

Now this is liberation theology!

[Neutraligon]

What is Vietnapalmam?
What is
Abandoning the Kurds to genocide?
What is
turning away Jews fleeing the Holocaust?
What is
couping the leader of Iran to make way for a murderous dictator who was overthrown by a more murderous dictator?
What is
Yemen?

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

Will you add the death of millions due to not helping deal with HIV to that?

[Tekeristan]

Fascists are not conservatives.

Agreed, but we rarley see fascists deplatformed(there are few fascists)its mostly conservatives whom are painted fascist by cultural marxists, unfortunate for them that they allowed leftists to put them in that box without fighting back.

Conservatism is about preserving the status quo. Fascists are reactionary, basing themselves off of class collaborationism and intense nationality. All in all, these spheres tend to overlap quite significantly, but all I have to say is trans rights are human rights

[San Montalbano]

The first was right of conquest and the second is simply that they were engaged in a war agaisnt the same ethnic group, like rome with the germans, to simply trust them all is naive. Though that situation could have been handled better

Well who knew you were for genocide. As to the second, they where American citizens, and no the US was not engaged in a war with the Japanese, they where at war with Japan.

Right of conquest dosnt guarantee genocide, but it can be a unfortunate result of war, especially during the era in which this occured where it was the norm.

We were at war with japan, and its people who formed the state, in fact they were willing to bite an atomic weapon twice before questioining this and even then, they still kept their emperor.

[Fahran]

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

It isn't about 'comparing' things with one another and that's a bad place to base things off. The purpose is to know of them in the first place and understand why they occured.

Yes, and this came in response to me saying that most students knew about the worst of America's atrocities. The insinuation was that helping the Shah and clerics topple Mossadegh was somehow worse than enslaving tens of millions of black people.

[Plzen]

Because culture and identity extend well beyond one's political values in many regards. In terms of the food you eat, the language you speak, the books you've read, the religion you practice, the history you've learned, etc. you have a lot more in common with people from your own country than you do with a left-winger from another country. Pure civic nationalism has a lot of the same pitfalls that racial nationalism has, though, in many ways, it's less vile and less prone to failure. If you put the average American Green in Bulgaria, they would struggle to integrate themselves into the community there. It would take them years and quite a few dramatic changes to get adjusted. As a rule, people within a culture will relate to one another a lot better than they'll relate to people outside their culture when push comes to shove. There are exceptions for extremely margianalized groups, ideologues, and racists, but, on the whole, the standard seems to hold.

Superficial trappings of culture have heavily internationalised in recent decades. Traditional attire is basically unheard of in South Korea except in special occasions. Most cities in developed nations allow you to eat cuisine from basically every corner of the world. In terms of language... well, to use myself as an example, my native language isn't my primary one. Religion, too, cuts across the world. Trying to define a nation by these things has deep flaws.

Civic nationalism, I can at least understand. There are certain concrete, undeniable shared interests that come with living under the same administrative structure.

[San Montalbano]

Agreed, but we rarley see fascists deplatformed(there are few fascists)its mostly conservatives whom are painted fascist by cultural marxists, unfortunate for them that they allowed leftists to put them in that box without fighting back.

Conservatism is about preserving the status quo. Fascists are reactionary, basing themselves off of class collaborationism and intense nationality. All in all, these spheres tend to overlap quite significantly, but all I have to say is trans rights are human rights

Conservatives issues is that they preserve that which is rotten, they are little better than the leftists as they are complacent in their own destruction.

[Fahran]

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

Will you add the death of millions due to not helping deal with HIV to that?

Refusing aid to a preventable disease for three decades is not quite on par with systematically enslaving tens of millions of people against their will for centuries. It's definitely not a nice thing to do, but it's not at the same level. We're not whitewashing history if we cover the most severe abuses we've committed.

[Neutraligon]

I don't think any of those are worse than murdering millions of people, separating families over the course of centuries, sexually victimizing and abusing people, etc. Our crimes against indigenous and black people here are far more severe than anything you listed.

It isn't about 'comparing' things with one another and that's a bad place to base things off. The purpose is to know of them in the first place and understand why they occured.

Yep, many of the things either only get a mention, or are not talked about at all. The genocide of the native Americans, it is limited to things about wounded knee or the trail of tears, the true extent of what was done is not talked about. Where you taught about the Sand Creek massacre, I wasn't. How about the various times where the colonists killed each other because of disagreements in religion. I can certainly tell you I learned nothing about how Mormons where treated in the US (though it is a major topic in Utah).

[Fahran]

Yes, and this came in response to me saying that most students knew about the worst of America's atrocities. The insinuation was that helping the Shah and clerics topple Mossadegh was somehow worse than enslaving tens of millions of black people.

The point is that some of those things could be argued to be just as evil, sure the effects weren't as bad, but the intent was arguably just as evil, so the idea of having the most successful evil policy be considered the worst one is overlooking a lot of circumstances.

We aren't saints.

It's our job to try to correct our mistakes, however.

Yeah, but are we really whitewashing history if we cover the worst shit we've done? No, no we're not.

[Tekeristan]

It isn't about 'comparing' things with one another and that's a bad place to base things off. The purpose is to know of them in the first place and understand why they occured.

Yes, and this came in response to me saying that most students knew about the worst of America's atrocities. The insinuation was that helping the Shah and clerics topple Mossadegh was somehow worse than enslaving tens of millions of black people.

It's about using lines of thought in order to reliably predict and analyze the world. Everything is related in some way or another - worsening climate will mean less fish stocks will mean more illegal migrant labor being used on fishing boats. The domination of the global south under the global north. In terms of a quick catch up, I'd recommend the Ciations Needed Podcast

[Neutraligon]

Will you add the death of millions due to not helping deal with HIV to that?

Refusing aid to a preventable disease for three decades is not quite on par with systematically enslaving tens of millions of people against their will for centuries. It's definitely not a nice thing to do, but it's not at the same level. We're not whitewashing history if we cover the most severe abuses we've committed.

Actually you are, because if you only cover what you consider the most severe, it then hides the extent to which these problems occurred...and...in some places...the true horror of what slavery is as white-washed. Tell me...what did you learn about Thanksgiving, I can tell you that it was certainly white-washed.

[Kannap]

Nah, some people make this huge deal about the pledge. I'd argue that I have no business pledging my life to anybody or any entity other than God.

[Fahran]

It isn't about 'comparing' things with one another and that's a bad place to base things off. The purpose is to know of them in the first place and understand why they occured.

Yep, many of the things either only get a mention, or are not talked about at all. The genocide of the native Americans, it is limited to things about wounded knee or the trail of tears, the true extent of what was done is not talked about. Where you taught about the Sand Creek massacre, I wasn't. How about the various times where the colonists killed each other because of disagreements in religion. I can certainly tell you I learned nothing about how Mormons where treated in the US (though it is a major topic in Utah).

That's still not a whitewashing of history. Do you expect education to cover the abuses of each nation at length and nothing else? Students in the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Russia, Rwanda, Colombia, Brazil, Uganda, Egypt, etc. would never learn anything else by that metric. You can cover the worst abuses in history classes and then move on to other subjects.

[San Montalbano]

Yeah, but are we really whitewashing history if we cover the worst shit we've done? No, no we're not.

We're not whitewashing it more as we are white-red-and-bluewashing it.

Do you believe the united states to be on stolen land and it should disband?

[Fahran]

Refusing aid to a preventable disease for three decades is not quite on par with systematically enslaving tens of millions of people against their will for centuries. It's definitely not a nice thing to do, but it's not at the same level. We're not whitewashing history if we cover the most severe abuses we've committed.

Actually you are, because if you only cover what you consider the most severe, it then hides the extent to which these problems occurred.

You can't spend years covering every perceived abuse. Anywhere. You'll never touch on more important subject matter if you do that.

[Tekeristan]

Conservatism is about preserving the status quo. Fascists are reactionary, basing themselves off of class collaborationism and intense nationality. All in all, these spheres tend to overlap quite significantly, but all I have to say is trans rights are human rights

Conservatives issues is that they preserve that which is rotten, they are little better than the leftists as they are complacent in their own destruction.

Hello fascist, following golden ideals that never existed and are unattainable because you don't acknowledge what's actually doing things, nice to see you leak through. Not that it was difficult or not in the first place.

Crowder isn't a conservative, nor is Shapiro. Well, at least not in what they seek the preserve - which is the economic order both domestically and internationally. And especially not Spencer, the emotionally malignant individual that he is

[San Montalbano]

Nah, some people make this huge deal about the pledge. I'd argue that I have no business pledging my life to anybody or any entity other than God.

Interesting outlook, a theocratic one at that.

I also dig your banner