[QUOTE=RedFury]
Apparently, unless I am reading him wrongly, to What Exit? (see quoted post and the ones prior to), it does. Thus this particular query.
[/QUOTE]
Where did I ever use the phrase “legal definition”? I said check your dictionaries.
Patriot has an accepted definition, I believe it is in variance with BG’s usage.
Even if he is correct, I still don’t see comparing Debs to Teddy & Jefferson. That is a twisted view of an American Patriot. He made the comparisons, not me.
Jim
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Serious question; what, if anything, in The Constitution, would bar your nation’s political system from moving from the current, mainly Capitalist system clearly favoring the upper classes (as the OP gladly admits), to a Western European-style Social Democracy? Which is basically capitalism with a built-in safety net for the less fortunate, not the Communist strawman many here make it out to be. Especially if it turns out that is what the majority of people want.
I mean, would that be “unpatrotic” and if so, by what legal standards?
[/QUOTE]
To my mind, and not specific to the US, the difference between a patriot and a traitor (I’m using the latter term loosely - unlike patriot, traitor often has a precise legal meaning) in a democratic country often lies in their approach to achieving change.
Both the patriot and the traitor would argue that they “love their country” - after all, if they are motivated by some sort of ideology or a basically unselfish desire to have their country achieve the best possible system (excluding for the moment Quisling style traitors who wish only personal advantage).
A patriot however seeks change with respect for his or her country’s institutions, meaning in a democracy, respect for his or her fellow-citizens. They seek to persuade, to vote, to run as canadates, to organize, to respect the laws or to oppose them with civil disobedience only.
The traitor sees existing institutions as impediments to the changes they wish to make, and does not respect their fellow-citizens - rather, sees them as deluded and needing to be fooled or coerced into accepting “necessary” change. The traitor subverts, disobeys the law, commits acts of violence or intimidation to affect change.
To my mind, it is totally irrelevant as to what sort of change is being advocated - whether the proposed utopia is socialist or Randian (or no utopia at all). It all comes down to respecting others in your country. Does your “love of country” mean you are actually willing to cooperate and compromise in the marketplace of ideas, or do you wish to erect your utopia against the laws and wishes of the population as some sort of dictator? If so, your “love” is not so much of your country, but rather of your schemes for your country, and “traitor” is a just label for your fellow-countrymen’s dislike.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Nothing, that was not Debs aim. He was a Marxist, not a warm fuzzy quasi-socialist like today’s European-style Social Democracies. In fact, I already stated I am in favor of UHC, I did not bring up any communist strawman that I can recall.
[/quote]
Apologies for not being clear. That particular part of my post was not directed at you – instead, see Liberal’s post and Shodan’s congratulatory response for said straw.
As for what Debs was or wasn’t, I am in no position to judge until (or if) I do further research on the man. OTOH, allow me to take the question a step further as we’ve already established that there’s nothing in your Constitution that would prevent the move I asked. Would someone (a “revolutionary” for the sake of this discussion) that disagreed with same and worked within the system to change it be “unpatriotic.”? Because, if so, I am afraid I still don’t understand what you meaning of patriotism is – conforming with the status quo? Would that have made all Hippies traitors?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
To my mind, and not specific to the US, the difference between a patriot and a traitor (I’m using the latter term loosely - unlike patriot, traitor often has a precise legal meaning) in a democratic country often lies in their approach to achieving change.
Both the patriot and the traitor would argue that they “love their country” - after all, if they are motivated by some sort of ideology or a basically unselfish desire to have their country achieve the best possible system (excluding for the moment Quisling style traitors who wish only personal advantage).
A patriot however seeks change with respect for his or her country’s institutions, meaning in a democracy, respect for his or her fellow-citizens. They seek to persuade, to vote, to run as canadates, to organize, to respect the laws or to oppose them with civil disobedience only.
The traitor sees existing institutions as impediments to the changes they wish to make, and does not respect their fellow-citizens - rather, sees them as deluded and needing to be fooled or coerced into accepting “necessary” change. The traitor subverts, disobeys the law, commits acts of violence or intimidation to affect change.
To my mind, it is totally irrelevant as to what sort of change is being advocated - whether the proposed utopia is socialist or Randian (or no utopia at all). It all comes down to respecting others in your country. Does your “love of country” mean you are actually willing to cooperate and compromise in the marketplace of ideas, or do you wish to erect your utopia against the laws and wishes of the population as some sort of dictator? If so, your “love” is not so much of your country, but rather of your schemes for your country, and “traitor” is a just label for your fellow-countrymen’s dislike.
[/QUOTE]
This response makes perfect sense to me. Thus, from said perspective and what little we’ve been given about Deb’s background I still fail to see how he was either a “traitor” or even “unpatriotic” as opposed to – as you mention – someone seeking change. Said change, again, as you suggest, being irrelevant other than how it is being pursued.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Apologies for not being clear. That particular part of my post was not directed at you – instead, see Liberal’s post and Shodan’s congratulatory response for said straw.
As for what Debs was or wasn’t, I am in no position to judge until (or if) I do further research on the man. OTOH, allow me to take the question a step further as we’ve already established that there’s nothing in your Constitution that would prevent the move I asked. Would someone (a “revolutionary” for the sake of this discussion) that disagreed with same and worked within the system to change it be “unpatriotic.”? Because, if so, I am afraid I still don’t understand what you meaning of patriotism is – conforming with the status quo? Would that have made all Hippies traitors?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for clearing up the Commy bit, that threw me for a loop, I had to delete an angry retort when I saw it. 
It will be hard to find anything online about Debs that is not the Labor Union version of the truth, but read his words instead and maybe you will see where I do not consider him a Patriot anywhere near the level of the Presidents that **BG ** keeps comparing him to. Please keep in mind that has been my complaint from the get go.
I would say that a person that worked within the system to bring about change for the better is a Patriot. One of my heroes is Pete Seeger. A “Black Listed” folk musician that founded the enviromental group I am most involved with. I consider him a patriot for standing up to Corporate polluters like GE and thugs like McCarthy. At the same time he was a communist for a long period before being disgusted by Stalin and leaving Communism behind but never socialism.
This is not an anti-socialist rant, I am friends with many of those hippies you reference. I object, strongly, to BG’s comparison of Debs to Teddy, Woodrow Wilson and now Jefferson.
Well the Merriam Webster is pretty much in agreement with my definition. Maybe even more extreme than my position.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Where did I ever use the phrase “legal definition”? I said check your dictionaries.
Patriot has an accepted definition, I believe it is in variance with BG’s usage.
[/QUOTE]
– bolding mine.
I did (8 results for: patriot) and it doesn’t. Please see cite. Particularly © Random House’s definition #2.
What Exit? Fair enough. I think I understand where you’re coming from. Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
No big, really.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
– bolding mine.
I did (8 results for: patriot) and it doesn’t. Please see cite. Particularly © Random House’s definition #2.
[/QUOTE]
Very well, #2 is clearly at variance to what I consider a Patriot. It also goes against the root of the word. But I have to accept it.
Even here though I wonder how this really covers Debs. Does this put him on par with Teddy and Jefferson? Can you please answer that?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Even here though I wonder how this really covers Debs. Does this put him on par with Teddy and Jefferson? Can you please answer that?
[/QUOTE]
I can’t. In all honesty I only have a passing knowledge of American History as I never formally studied it. Thus it would be mostly speculative on my part to make said comparison. Which, I believe, would be near worthless to do.
OTOH, I’d be interested in reading what people such as Tamerlane, BG or Tom have to say on the matter – as well as you of course.
Time to lurk, methinks. Appreciate your cordial responses.
Time to repost this:
Definitions seem to vary, in dictionaries as well as elsewhere. The 1982 American Heritage Dictionary sitting on my shelf defines patriotism as “love of and devotion to one’s country.” Clearly there’s a lot of play in such a definition, and while jingoistic definitions would fit, so would very anti-authoritarian, anti-militaristic definitions of patriotism.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Apologies for not being clear. That particular part of my post was not directed at you – instead, see Liberal’s post and Shodan’s congratulatory response for said straw.
[/qUOTE]
My post was directed at Guin’s comment… which is why it quoted her. So I don’t know what you’re on about.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Pakistan’s nukes came from China? That’s news to me. Got a cite?
[/QUOTE]
Sure:
“It is nearly certain that China supplied an old Chinese (Lop Nor 3/4 vintage ) weapons design and critical ring magnets to Pakistan in the early 80s, and enabled Pakistan to have a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability by the end of the 1980s.”
(source: List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia )
Threat? Who used the word “threat”? Not me.
If “we” means “the SDMB”, then I don’t know. Really - check my join date.
If “we” means the Bush Administration, I am neither a member nor a supporter. I’d thank you not to lump me in there.
My apologies for my style of argument. My basic point was that, one can be irritated with Hugo Chavez on non-partisan grounds. A secondary point was that while I would hardly call him a “threat”, he is undeniably doing his best to be perceived on the global stage as such (including which states he chooses to buy arms from). A tertiary point was that he’s a douchebag for going to a foreign country to insult its elected leader on their territory (and invitation). Poor manners.
You’ll note I did not use the terms “monster”, “the next Hitler”, or “spawn of Satan” to describe Mr. Chavez. “Douchebag” seems an appropriate moniker.
I haven’t read every post so maybe this was mentioned, but on the first page there were some (legitimate IMHO) complaints about the lack of cites. So here’s just one example of a thread that starts off in an obnoxious hate America tone.
BG violates Godwin’s Law in the title, then says you can’t accuse me of violating Godwins’ Law because someone else on his side also violated Godwin’s Law.
When I read crap like this I usually just walk away. And I can’t believe that I’m the only one. I realize that GD will get along without me, but how many other people just stay away from a place where the threads start at such an ignorant and obnoxious level? How many paying members does SDMB lose because of this? And is this why there are now threads asking if SDMB has lost something lately?
Jim,
(Bolding mine)
That is from the etymology section of the linked cite. I thought that bolded part was particularly interesting given the discusion.
Um, you do know that “Godwin’s Law” isn’t actually a rule that people are supposed to uphold, don’t you? What’s all this about “violating” it?
Godwin’s Law merely “states” that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
BG is merely pointing out that this particular thread topic comes pre-packaged with “a comparison involving Nazis”, because it’s talking about a practice that actually originated with the Nazis. (It originated somewhat before the Nazis, in fact, but the Nazis famously used it as one of their PR tools in their rise to power.)
You aren’t seriously imagining that “Godwin’s Law” really prohibits people from making serious analogies to events and actions involving the Nazis, are you? It’s just a humorous way of recognizing that impassioned debate tends to inflate rhetoric, to the point where Nazis are often dragged into discussions that really have nothing to do with them.
The theme of the Dolchstosslegende, on the other hand, is legitimately associated with the Nazis, and it would be foolish to pretend that we’re somehow not allowed to talk about it because that would be “violating Godwin’s Law”.
And I’m puzzled why you think that OP has an “obnoxious hate-America tone”. Is it merely because BG speaks of the likelihood of the US failing to achieve its goal of forming a stable, peaceful democracy in Iraq, and calls such a failure “entirely predictable”? You seem to be suggesting that anybody who thinks America is failing in Iraq, or is likely to fail in Iraq, is an America-hater. If so, you’re going to have to apply that epithet to a lot of Pentagon generals, for starters.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I think invading Iraq gives the lie to the “good”,
[/QUOTE]
One mistake of foreign policy is enough to earn your dismissal of the moral character of an entire nation of 300 million people? Really? Or are there other reasons for your judgment?
And yet, as mentioned earlier in this very thread, a recent poll indicated that European public opinion saw the USA as the #1 threat to world peace. Hard to be a threat if you’re toothless…
Then you mention New Orleans. New Orleans? We’re judging nations now by how they respond to natural disasters? So I guess that South Africa is showing the world what a bunch of pussies they are in dealing with that nasty HIV epidemic, eh?
I do not understand what you mean by that statement.
[QUOTE=Plan B]
So here’s just one example of a thread that starts off in an obnoxious hate America tone.
[/quote]
That is a lie.
Actually, I said, “N.B.: This is a thread in which Godwinization is for obvious reasons essential and inevitable at the outset. That should be taken into account before anyone invokes Godwin’s Law WRT another’s posts.”
Work on your reading comprehension.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
PS-As fpr being a “'noob” pay no mind to anyone that brings it up against you. Simply irrelevant – only thing that matters to me is your bytes on screen. This board’s become rather stale (quite the understatement) presicely because of the lack of new blood. Might and will not always agree with what you have to say, but AFAIC, when you joined has nothing to do with what you write. All else is sheer snobism and faux pretentiousness.
Pay no mind.
And if I haven’t said so before, welcome aboard.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, man. I appreciate it.
(And about Zidane… I was watching the France-Italy WC final last year with my Mom, and she asked who I was rooting for. I said France, because they have Zidane. As I explained it to her, he’s like the Larry Bird of football. Seeing as how we were both fans of the 1980s Boston Celtics basketball teams, she knew what I meant…)
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Apparently, unless I am reading him wrongly, to What Exit? (see quoted post and the ones prior to), it does. Thus this particular query.
[/QUOTE]
Treason does have a legal definition, but one can agitate fiercely for the radical amendment or even the complete abolition of the United States Constitution without committing “treason” as the Constitution narrowly and exclusively defines it.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Nothing, that was not Debs aim. He was a Marxist, not a warm fuzzy quasi-socialist like today’s European-style Social Democracies.
[/quote]
I know. I said I admire him without entirely accepting his ideology.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
BrainGlutton, you made an outrageous comparison of Debs to Teddy and Woodrow.
[/quote]
And you called Debs unpatriotic because, among other things, he was an “internationalist.” Have you forgotten that Wilson was an internationalist? Not in any socialist sense, of course, but he was more than eager to surrender some part of American sovereignty to a League of Nations.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Now apparently you are comparing Debs to Jefferson. Again, Bullshit!
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. It has been said of Jefferson that his life was a constant struggle between his principles and his appetites. Debs was willing to suffer personal discomfort, prison, even risk of harm, for his beliefs. Debs was on balance the better man even if he was wrong in some places where Jefferson was right.
But both were revolutionaries, and patriots. You can’t get around that. (For my part, I make no claim to be a revolutionary.)
I don’t understand why my politics seem so infuriating or even baffling to so many here. Some things are just obvious – should be obvious to Libertarians, let alone Republicans. E.g., regarding the distribution of wealth and power:
Different social classes do exist, in a vertical-hierarchical order, even in America where formal hereditary prescription (among white people, at least) has never existed. In some respects the different classes have identical interests, and in other respects conflicting interests. That’s plain common sense and you don’t need to be any kind of Marxist to see it. That does not automatically mean the lower classes are any better or any more deserving than the upper. It does automatically mean that siding with the lower classes’ interests in any case of conflict should be the default position (only the default position, always adjustable according to circumstance) of any person of truly good will – just because the lower classes are the only ones who really need extra support to get even a chance at a chance of a fair shake. “The poorest he that is in England has a life to live as much as the greatest he.” – Slogan of the Levellers.
In many ways – not in nearly as many ways as some populist or socialist zealots would assume, but still in very many very real ways – the upper classes really are exploiters who accumulate their wealth by taking unfair advantage of the less fortunate. Only fair they should be forced to give some of it back to society. (Of course it’s true that, nowadays, upper-class people are also “workers” in the sense that they work, even if they are independently wealthy and don’t have to – it’s a cultural thing; and it’s also true that they are also, in some respects, creators of wealth and providers of employment. Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one that is.)
Above a certain level, wealth means not only purchasing power but political power; and it runs clean against the very idea of democracy to allow the rich to wield political influence out of proportion to their numbers – which they do, especially nowadays. Being raised in the profit-centered ways of thinking of the business world (which cannot comprehend or acknowledge even the concept of “enough”), most of them (not all, but most) will only use that power to take ever unfairer advantage of everybody else and to build up their political power ever more and more in an endless and socially destructive cycle – which they do, especially nowadays.
Even if a democratic and egalitarian society, which this is supposed to be, does not strictly require equality of outcome, it does at the very least require equality of opportunity. Everybody should be born with roughly equal chances to make it in life. At present, we’re not, to put it mildly, and only a fool or a liar would say otherwise. Measure our present social order against anything you might come up with to meet the test of the veil of ignorance.
None of this means it is imperative to destroy the American overclass as a class; nor even to knock them out of their place at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid. Within limits, a case could be made for the positive social value of an elite class, even to people who are not in it. What we do need, however, is a much flatter pyramid, with the top and the bottom a lot closer together than they are now. As George Orwell put it in 1941 in The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (Part III, Section II):
Maybe even a 10-to-1 ratio is unrealistically strict for contemporary American conditions, but we should at least begin to begin thinking seriously along these lines; so long as the principle is accepted, or at least considered, the numbers are always negotiable.