Meta- is a Greek word, often used as a prefix, which can mean something that is about itself. An example that Wikipedia uses is metadata, which is data that’s about the data (i.e. details about the who, what, when, where about the entries in the database.)
By using meta-, I’m trying to express in a shorthand sort of way, a discussion among Americans of various camps that’s about . . . discussing things among Americans of various camps.
In other words, meta- as a discussion, in particular, that’s about the discussion, in general.
To address the witnessing issue - every moderator has their own interpretation of this rule, but I don’t think discussing your faith in the context of offering your opinion constitutes ‘‘witnessing.’’ That would be reserved for actively and annoyingly trying to convert others to your belief system. I see nothing here warranting action.
The corollary of this, of course, is that you offer your beliefs in formulating your opinion, you are submitting those beliefs to criticism and scrutiny by posters who disagree with you.
That said, let us not hijack this into an argument about the merits of Christianity, and try to keep things on topic.
You may be coming off as being, ummm, overly circumspect if you’re approaching the message board with an a priori assumption that we see one another as “friendly neighbors and acquaintances.” To be sure friendships, both virtual and meatspace, have grown and blossomed from origins in this community, and we are, by and large, welcoming of new voices joining our conversation. That said, however, the primary motivator for many of us who post here is that we find participation and the participants to be interesting, and often entertaining.
Welcome to the Dope; I hope you find your stay here to be both interesting and entertaining.
Yes and the aspirations outlined probably are impossible because of the old YMMV factor. To me, the local dealer may be “a waste” but to the neighbor who enjoys a little recreational substance the same way I enjoy a shot of Wild Turkey he’s a gifted part of society. We can go down the list of things we consider good or bad and draw the same lines. The problem comes that human nature seems to emphasize where the lines diverge rather than the many intersections.
Ah. As I alluded to above, I’ve only seen “meta” used as a standalone word in the context of mocking hipsters. Thank you for clearing up that you’re actually referencing the concept of “having a conversation about a conversation” (to coin a phrase).
This is all well and good. But keep in mind this is your belief, and that it may not be 1) universal, nor 2) shared by many (particularly on this board).
Ahhh. Now we’re getting somewhere. Your original question about Americans being a “waste” was somewhat vague and subject to different interpretations.
In the context of Americans holding differing views, considering the others (who don’t share those views) being a “waste”. This might be better stated as (considering those who don’t agree, and are also unwilling to hear out the other’s viewpoint) to be “hopeless”. That is, “so stuck in their viewpoint there is no point debating with them.” Or it would be a “waste of time” to try to convince them to see things another way.
I agree that the state is really sad. And seems the worst it’s been in recent memory. But I think, for the most part, we do treat each other in a civilized manner. Yes, there have been violent clashes. But for the most part it is a battle of words. We may not be getting anywhere, and “battle lines” seem to have been drawn. But no actual lobbing of grenades has started ! If nothing else, I think we learned from the Vietnam protests that violence doesn’t really achieve anything and is just sad. So I would consider that since it is just words, this could be considered “getting along superficially.”
Honestly I have no idea, and the fact that other posters have commented on the same aspect of your OP shows I’m not alone. I considered a longer response but I was in a bit of a hurry so I commented on the aspect of the OP that stood out to me the most.
But from what I’ve seen of your comments in other threads (and really from what I’ve subsequently seen in this thread as well) it’s certainly possible that your answer could be “yes,” though I suspect if that were the case you’d find a way to avoid stating that outright.
Can I ask you what you were thinking when you chose to limit the scope of your OP to Americans only, when you could have reasonably expected other posters to comment on the obvious exclusion on non-Americans?
There are without doubt people who are wastes of the oxygen that it takes to keep them alive. I would not break it down by political beliefs though, I would look at actions and inaction and while voting or not voting counts I’d look more at like how many children have you raped or how you destroy the people around you then whether you’re pro-abortion or anti-women.
How are we defining a “waste”, again? ‘misusing their gifts’, ‘not contributing to the overall good’, ‘whose gifts, talents, and energy that the country can afford to let go to waste’?
As a fully employed and productive citizen with no criminal record and a nonzero number of friends and family who would be sad to see me go, I’m fairly confident that I’m pretty close to meeting those definitions - I may meet the first one and I certainly meet the last one. If I were to suddenly become unemployed I’d quite certainly meet all three. And that’s without me actually doing anything bad.
So by these metrics lots and lots and lots of people are wastes.
(For the record I don’t believe for one nanoscopic instant that any creator put everyone on earth, for a reason or not, so if that’s where you’re hoping to derive worth from then I won’t be able to agree with you on that.)
