Is it disrespectful to sit during the Pledge?

[Vassenor]

Tolerance is accepting other people. It's not about accepting those who seek to degrade, dehumanize, or destroy you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance easy link for you.

Sort of how you degrade people onto being nazi sympathizers and call people like steven crowder fascist or have i mistaken you for someone else.

Crowder's not a fascist. He's just off his rocker.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Wait seriously?

Socialists are collectivists this comes as no surprise

Fascism is no less collectivist than socialism.

[Tekeristan]

Tolerance is accepting other people. It's not about accepting those who seek to degrade, dehumanize, or destroy you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance easy link for you.

Sort of how you degrade people onto being nazi sympathizers and call people like steven crowder fascist or have i mistaken you for someone else.

Crowder has a tragic view of the world - of attempting to continuously bulwark and degrade liberal institutions without wanting to accept that when people lose trust in liberal institutions they turn to fascism. Whether or not he is being purposeful in his intent is not what matters - it's the conclusion of his actions.

My heart bleeds for the world and its inhabitants, and the reason that it does is because the world is so cold, harsh, and uncaring. It sucks being buttressed into what is ultimately a great misunderstanding. Acknowledging and knowing that however doesn't change the way things are. It's never too late to change though, for him or Spencer

[Tekeristan]

It is tragic, I'd go as far to say it is extremely tragic.
Now why do they that? Who's interests are they bulwarking in doing so?
Would it, perhaps, be capital?

Globalist capitalism that has been left unchecked

They work for themselves and the elites across the oceans disregarding their tribes.

"Globalist capitalism that has been left unchecked"
It is literally the natural trend of capital. Since the day of the first steam engine.

[Fahran]

…You understand nothing about poverty, violence or music in general.

Exactly, that's the problem with conservatives.

He does not seem altogether conservative to me.

[San Montalbano]

Sort of how you degrade people onto being nazi sympathizers and call people like steven crowder fascist or have i mistaken you for someone else.

Crowder has a tragic view of the world - of attempting to continuously bulwark and degrade liberal institutions without wanting to accept that when people lose trust in liberal institutions they turn to fascism. Whether or not he is being purposeful in his intent is not what matters - it's the conclusion of his actions.

My heart bleeds for the world and its inhabitants, and the reason that it does is because the world is so cold, harsh, and uncaring. It sucks being buttressed into what is ultimately a great misunderstanding. Acknowledging and knowing that however doesn't change the way things are. It's never too late to change though, for him or Spencer

Agreed

Fascism is the natural response to unchecked decadence of globalist capitalism.

We are also getting off topic

[Tekeristan]

Crowder has a tragic view of the world - of attempting to continuously bulwark and degrade liberal institutions without wanting to accept that when people lose trust in liberal institutions they turn to fascism. Whether or not he is being purposeful in his intent is not what matters - it's the conclusion of his actions.

My heart bleeds for the world and its inhabitants, and the reason that it does is because the world is so cold, harsh, and uncaring. It sucks being buttressed into what is ultimately a great misunderstanding. Acknowledging and knowing that however doesn't change the way things are. It's never too late to change though, for him or Spencer

Agreed

Fascism is the natural response to unchecked decadence of globalist capitalism.

We are also getting off topic

You're so close yet so far.

[Fahran]

Crowder has a tragic view of the world - of attempting to continuously bulwark and degrade liberal institutions without wanting to accept that when people lose trust in liberal institutions they turn to fascism. Whether or not he is being purposeful in his intent is not what matters - it's the conclusion of his actions.

My heart bleeds for the world and its inhabitants, and the reason that it does is because the world is so cold, harsh, and uncaring. It sucks being buttressed into what is ultimately a great misunderstanding. Acknowledging and knowing that however doesn't change the way things are. It's never too late to change though, for him or Spencer

Thank you, same view.

This is why we needs a mandatory politics of wholesomeness. A loving family for everyone... or else.

[San Montalbano]

Agreed

Fascism is the natural response to unchecked decadence of globalist capitalism.

We are also getting off topic

You're so close yet so far.

I would say the same for you

[Tekeristan]

Crowder has a tragic view of the world - of attempting to continuously bulwark and degrade liberal institutions without wanting to accept that when people lose trust in liberal institutions they turn to fascism. Whether or not he is being purposeful in his intent is not what matters - it's the conclusion of his actions.

My heart bleeds for the world and its inhabitants, and the reason that it does is because the world is so cold, harsh, and uncaring. It sucks being buttressed into what is ultimately a great misunderstanding. Acknowledging and knowing that however doesn't change the way things are. It's never too late to change though, for him or Spencer

Thank you, same view.

Not necessarily But in the specific context, ye

[Tekeristan]

You're so close yet so far.

I would say the same for you

Is there something naturally limiting capital to its own borders? As in, a material and social process.
I'd read one of your books if you read one of mine

[Tekeristan]

This is why we needs a mandatory politics of wholesomeness. A loving family for everyone... or else.

But

What if you hate your blood relatives?




Like me.

I'll always love you, comrade. we're all in it together

[Ifreann]

That would assume nothing of the sort. It means literally the opposite of that.

Do you think the modern left is tolerant?

Do you really not understand that phrase?

---

Not really. America can have some things that are good and some that are bad and a person might denounce the bad while benefiting from the good. Nothing counter-intuitive here, unless you think respect for a country must be an all or nothing affair. Love it or leave it. You're either with us or with the terrorists.

Except refusing to pledge allegiance doesn't leave room for greys. You're stating that you lack loyalty to the country because it doesn't deserve your loyalty, that you value your own comfort and leisure more than you value open demonstration of your loyalty, or you make up some other rationalization that reveals or even concedes ignorance of what the pledge means. If you wanted to express your loyalty while protesting, you could do that. But refusing to recite the pledge doesn't do that. It is by its very nature throwing out baby with bathwater.

No, if someone decides that they don't want to pledge allegiance to America because of some specific thing, that doesn't mean that they hate everything about America. That's stupid. You don't have to pledge allegiance to America to really support the right to protest.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that people who don't participate in the pledge do not have positive contributions to make towards the community?

Why should I bother listening to someone who does not have my best interest and the best interests of the community at large at heart?

People don't need to share your opinions to contribute to the community. They don't even need you to listen to them.

Declining to participate in the pledge doesn't necessarily constitute a protest.

All of the examples that have been cited seem to suggest one form of protest or another. The only exceptions that occur to me relate to those who have suffered such severe health issues that they're unable to recite it without excessive pain or difficulty. Even the "I didn't understand it" argument was ostensibly a form of protest against children having the ability to adequately honor such a pledge.

You can't wrap your mind around someone just personally not wanting to pledge allegiance to America?

No it doesn't. It suggests nothing. You've left yourself enough space to say "Well that doesn't count" to literally anything I might say. So no, you prove your assertion to be true. I assume you have some kind of large scale survey of reasons for why people decline to participate in the pledge. That or you're just making shit up, like one of those "There are two kinds of people" things.

It's a refutable hypothesis.

I don't care what you call it. You can prove your assertion to be true if it is true. Or don't.

[Fahran]

He does not seem altogether conservative to me.

True, it was more me pointing out the issues with conservatives though using him as a jumping-off point due to the conversation.

I'm a conservative, as one could probably guess, but I do strive to remove myself from philistinism in so far as I can manage it.

[San Montalbano]

I would say the same for you

Is there something naturally limiting capital to its own borders? As in, a material and social process.
I'd read one of your books if you read one of mine

Capital should be used to advance the strength of the nation, its traditions, its culture and its people. It is a beast that should not be destroyed, but tamed

[Fahran]

This is why we needs a mandatory politics of wholesomeness. A loving family for everyone... or else.

But

What if you hate your blood relatives?




Like me.

We must repair the rifts, comrade. State-mandated family counseling to the rescue.

[Neutraligon]

I have seen no evidence that you are in anyway a faster learner then I.

Hence why I doubt your sincerity.

I am being quite sincere

I understood the pledge of allegiance quite early, and adequately enough to recite it without quibble or misgivings. There's not much in the words themselves that would muddle understanding.

Oh, so you understood all the implications of pledging allegiance to something? You understood what liberty is, with all it's implications? You understood what is meant by the United States, whether it was the laws, or the customs or the people, or any other number of things? You understood what freedom is? These are all rather complicated topics. Forgive me if I do not believe that you understood these with any sort of depth at that age.

IMy experience in general was that children in middle school either did not care, or did not think about the complexities that come with the pledge (for that matter many adults do not think of it either). To them it was a useless series of words they had to get through in the morning....Well that was until 9-11 happened.

What new meaning did it assume in the aftermath of 9/11?

After 9-11 there was a significant rise in nationalism, and a much greater understanding of those who where young of politics and the effect politics can have. There where was a massive cultural shift, as well as change in how people thought of liberty and freedom. There are things that are accepted now, that would never have been accepted before 9-11 because of that change.

IThings kinda changed after that. As to it being ignorance, depends exactly what you mean when you say that people do not say it due to ignorance.

"I do not understand it and so I do not recite it" or "I'm angry about this and so I do not recite it even though I'm still a loyal citizen." One confesses ignorance of meaning. The other reveals it unintentionally.

Oh I understood the physical words of the pledge just fine by 13, it was the complexities, nuances, and implications that I had to work through. Neither of the things you commented on fit with what I am describing.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Who is it who is being disrespected by someone declining to pledge allegiance to America?

Furthermore, why are they owed that respect in the first place?

Well, as the flag represents the ideals of the constitution and bill of rights, including the same freedom of speech being used to sit as an act not so much as a means of abstainence, but as a form of disrespect and ridicule of those inherent rights being exercised...

Yeah, it's kinda stupid.

I get skipping the added part "under god" due to religious beliefs, that part was actually added later, which is why there are commas there.

But to protest the basic priniciples of the American way of life by abusing those same rights and privlidges is kinda big-think silly in a vain effort to look edgy in middle-school.

As for where troops getting offended figures in, they all swore-in to defend the constitution, and the rights of their fellow Americans from threats both foriegn and domestic.
-So for them to see a person not respecting the very rights, the laws, they are abusing in public... kinda gets them riled up... especially those who saw dead and wounded.

But that's just my old-timey think on the matter.

So yeah, it's a re-affirmation you'll do your best. Because you are America. You are what the flag represents and respecting the flag is respecting yourself.
(if reader is not in America, insert correct nationality)

So look up, the flag is still there. Waiting patiently.

[Tekeristan]

Is there something naturally limiting capital to its own borders? As in, a material and social process.
I'd read one of your books if you read one of mine

Capital should be used to advance the strength of the nation, its traditions, its culture and its people. It is a beast that should not be destroyed, but tamed

"Should" is subjective, just outright in the understanding of things. Would it be neat if it was? Sure. But there is nothing in the last 300 years that shows that that is the goal and intention and material/social progress of capital. Even in the days of Marx almost 200 years ago - it was bringing materials and resources from all around the world.

If you want a useful analysis of why it acts the way that it does, I'd recommend reading someone like Marx and Engels. They spent their whole lives analyzing why. You don't even have to take it to heart, because at the very least you should know where "Marxists" are coming from if you want to effectively understand them. You know, so you can argue

[San Montalbano]

Capital should be used to advance the strength of the nation, its traditions, its culture and its people. It is a beast that should not be destroyed, but tamed

"Should" is subjective, just outright in the understanding of things. Would it be neat if it was? Sure. But there is nothing in the last 300 years that shows that that is the goal and intention and material/social progress of capital. Even in the days of Marx almost 200 years ago - it was bringing materials and resources from all around the world.

If you want a useful analysis of why it acts the way that it does, I'd recommend reading someone like Marx and Engels. They spent their whole lives analyzing why. You don't even have to take it to heart, because at the very least you should know where "Marxists" are coming from if you want to effectively understand them. You know, so you can argue

Have you read the Doctrine of Fascism?

[Kernen]

No, we don't. That the state is tangentially responsible for my success does not mean I owe it anything, least of all my loyalty.

We're not speaking of the state, but, rather, of the nation and the country. If you do not owe society, the nation constituting a particular society, anything, why does society owe you anything? It sounds like you want to receive without offering anything in turn.

Society does receive something from me. I pay taxes. Society doesn't get any more from this guy.

[San Montalbano]

We're not speaking of the state, but, rather, of the nation and the country. If you do not owe society, the nation constituting a particular society, anything, why does society owe you anything? It sounds like you want to receive without offering anything in turn.

Society does receive something from me. I pay taxes. Society doesn't get any more from this guy.

I suppose when your picking up the tab on bombs and welfare you have done your part to improve the community.

[Fahran]

No, if someone decides that they don't want to pledge allegiance to America because of some specific thing, that doesn't mean that they hate everything about America. That's stupid. You don't have to pledge allegiance to America to really support the right to protest.

It does mean that they're making a conscious decision to withold their loyalty from the community and the values it upholds even as they invoke those values to protect what they're doing. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

People don't need to share your opinions to contribute to the community. They don't even need you to listen to them.

Ideally, they have some degree of loyalty and affection for the community on the whole. If they believe the community is evil or view it in strictly adversarial terms, I'm going to suspect a lot of the advice they have to offer isn't grounded in benefiting the community as a whole but rather in merely implementing their ideology and/or in ensuring their comfort even at the cost of the community.

You can't wrap your mind around someone just personally not wanting to pledge allegiance to America?

I can but that falls under the "I value my own comfort more than I value making known my loyalty to the community." It's not really a laudible sentiment. The most laudible sentiment here, really, is "I'm disloyal because I do not believe the community is good and/or deserving of my loyalty." That perspective at least doesn't make excuses or stem from slothfulness.

I don't care what you call it. You can prove your assertion to be true if it is true. Or don't.

Given that people who have been most prominent in opposing the pledge have been disloyal or ignorant, that does quite a bit to substantiate my point on its own. I'm not going to knock down every conceivable unposed hypothetical. I have enough confidence not to do so.

[Tekeristan]

"Should" is subjective, just outright in the understanding of things. Would it be neat if it was? Sure. But there is nothing in the last 300 years that shows that that is the goal and intention and material/social progress of capital. Even in the days of Marx almost 200 years ago - it was bringing materials and resources from all around the world.

If you want a useful analysis of why it acts the way that it does, I'd recommend reading someone like Marx and Engels. They spent their whole lives analyzing why. You don't even have to take it to heart, because at the very least you should know where "Marxists" are coming from if you want to effectively understand them. You know, so you can argue

Have you read the Doctrine of Fascism?

Yes, skims. Have you read The Communist Manifesto? Or looked briefly into Das Kapital (The true token tbh)?

[Fahran]

Society does receive something from me. I pay taxes. Society doesn't get any more from this guy.

I would think one would strive to be a slightly better citizen but it is not mandatory. Nor is refusing to do so especially laudible.