319
Is America Really That Bad?
(feddit.ch)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
319 points (92.1% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36055 readers
290 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is very chauvinistic.
Please explain how I'm incorrect.
You gave an opinion that can't really be called "correct" or "incorrect." It's just chauvinistic.
What a condescending, bratty thing to say. You don't have to belittle people just because you disagree with them. You can have respectful, mature conversation :)
I understand you're coming from a good place, but I disagree. Someone who says stupid and arrogant things should be made fun of. Me included! I don't like being made fun of, but it sure helps me learn.
To paraphrase Asimov, his ignorance is NOT worth just as much as my knowledge.
Ah, what a great example of a thought terminating cliche, a statement that does what it says to save you from cognitive dissonance and nuance. You are clearly using chauvinistic as a pejorative, so you need to either justify how they're wrong or take it back and stop muddying the waters with your empty ideological language.
To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with op's statement. The US as a developed nation clearly has more opportunities and advantages than developing nations, but there are other developed nations that meet and sometimes beat the advantages the US brings. I'd argue the US is at least in top 3 of being the most successful nation in diversity and global influence, but other nations have better welfare programs, housing policy, and cultural aspects imo.
You're reading very far into my use of a word. I used it because its meaning is very applicable here. It's not "empty ideological language." It means something similar to "patriotic," though I didn't use that word because for some reason in the US patriotism is considered to be a good thing.
This user seems to think the US superior to all other countries. The word's definition certainly seems to apply:
I agree you used chauvinistic to mean that, but you then followed it up by saying that you didn't have to justify why what they said is wrong. You do. It's also not the case that what they said was definitionally chauvinistic, although I'll let that slide because it was something similar enough.
Suppose it was the case that one nation was in every way better than all other countries. Shouldn't the citizens of that country be proud of that? Beyond pride, shouldn't they do everything they can to spread their glorious system to the world and bring prosperity to all? That doesn't necessarily mean wars and colonialism, that simply means all soft power efforts to implement systems that show themselves to work. I think the answer to this hypothetical is this nations citizens should feel pride and should spread their system.
The key point here is the United States isn't better than every country in the world, thus Americans shouldn't feel such extreme pride about their country. However, the United States is pretty good. I think some form of pride / patriotism are justified for Americans and even forms of soft power to implement effective policies are justified, but this answer is impossible to reach when you throw out all feel good thoughts about nations as chauvinistic.
I said no such thing.
Short memory, you said:
How to interpret that sentence:
How not to interpret that sentence:
That's a cop-out. You've accused me of being a chauvinist. Either you have a reason for that or you don't.
If you do, spill it.
If you don't, then you're just hurling insults.
This statement - do you not see how that's an incredibly arrogant and patronising thing to assert?
Please explain why I'm incorrect.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchen's razor), you made the claim.
Actually, I explained my reasoning.
You're incorrectly assuming that something has to be incorrect to be chauvinistic.
Chauvinism is defined as "excessive or prejudiced support for their own cause or group". Excess and prejudice are incorrect bases for an opinion.
And if I'm not wrong, then what is your objection?
I am not going to debate over semantics with you.
You already started.
Well, for one, when compared to other countries, the United States is pretty consistently lacking no matter what aspect of it you're measuring. I wouldn't exactly call that a standard. Maybe a minimum standard?
Could you summarize which datapoints you'd like to hilight?
This is a summary.
I can read Wikipedia anytime. I'm here for a discussion.