A few hundred years ago, the church and the state had a filthy habit of killing and imprisoning people because they didn't agree with the current king or the current pope. As a result of the Enlightenment, 'freedom of speech' came into being. It meant that the State and the Church couldn't imprison you or have you hanged.
This is what the founding fathers were permitting when they spoke about 'free speech.'
It has never been:
1. The right of anyone to lie, misinform, insult, influence, etc. anyone else.
2. The right to force one's opinion on anyone else. Nobody is forced to listen to anyone else.
3. The right of we-the-people to manipulate, coerce, etc. others by brainwashing, indoctrinating, and socializing them to believe errornous and dangerous lies (conspiracy theories, climate denial, etc.)
There is, however, a far more dangerous concept about being able to say what one likes on a public platform, and that is the way the human brain evolved.
There is a reason schools teach by rote. That is because the human brain learns by rote. The human brain believes (rightly or wrongly) anything it hears repeatedly. It doesn't matter how erroneous that information is. If someone hears something all the time, they believe it.
That is how human beings are socialized. That is how they come to believe in gods. That is why it is so difficult (impossible) to change someone else's mind despite reason and evidence being presented.
The more one is 'brainwashed,' the less one is able to accept information contrary to what one believes. And the more one has the brain chemistry of a follower (95% of mammals are followers with 5% being leaders), the more one will rigidly stick to what one has believed - in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
And this is the danger of free speech - that in our day of being able to spread anything we say to anybody, they will come to believe it because it is said so often.
If you're interested in learning more about how the far right managed a crises in 'free speech,' P E Moskowitz has just written a book called 'The Case Against Free Speech.' It is well worth a read.
I have repeatedly been told by those who want to force their opinions on me that I am denying their right to 'free speech.'
At this point, I think it's time to push back.
No one has the moral right to destroy others by what they way.
What say you?
Thank you for presenting this post. People think they're free but in actuality they are not. They have been inculcated by parents & other adult authorities to adhere to a particular paradigm. Each family has their particular paradigm. Those who adhere or succumb to the paradigm are rewarded & seen as manageable while those who refuse to succumb to the paradigm are viewed as quite problematic.
The educational system is the same way. Children are rewarded for conforming to the prevailing educational system while more independent thinking children are viewed as trouble-makers. History has always denigrated the nonconformist, revolutionary, & visionary while alive yet revering them decades, even centuries later.
Most societies have so-called freedoms only within certain parameters. People who go beyond such parameters are oftentimes ostracized, demonized, & even marginalized. There is also the premise that might equals right. The mighty among us staunchly, even vehemently maintain that their opinion is law & will exert every right to enforce their opinions upon those they deem weaker.
Freedom of expression comes with responsibility.
I think freedom of expression is a great good. Something to fight for, even if the opinion is not yours.
freedom of expression is not sewing hatred, discrimination, indoctrination, bulling, psychological abuse,
I'm strongly pro political correctness as what we have seen in the last 10 years politicians started openly to talk in a racist and sexist fashion. (not just the US)
The more powerful you are on the social media, the more responsibility you have. And the more restricted you should be with what you can say, and what not.
What Trump tweets today was 10 years ago impossible, this is the result of getting rid of the so called political correctness. But I wonder.. What do you want to hear in a conversation: nigger, negro or Afro American?
Words are stronger then swords and by using certain words you can trigger racism to become more openly for example. Trump divided the the US (and even the rest of the world) more then ever, simply by using a certain language. A language that got it's platform because people where taught that political correctness is something dirty. (against freedom of speech and hypocritical).
I think we need it again to make politicians accountable for blatant lies and racist and sexist slurs.
It's an interesting topic. As Freedom of speech is great, but it needs a boundary. But where and how strict...
I find your comment directed at conservatives I'm strongly pro political correctness as what we have seen in the last 10 years politicians started openly to talk in a racist and sexist fashion. (not just the US) incredibly bizarre, considering the surrounding facts.
It's as if factions on the left are completely disinterested in context, entire statements, and intent. They appear to use a spellchecker to find specific words within the entirety of a statement and remove them in order to pummel. I find more racism and sexism coming from the left than the right. More power on social media which is used to injure and attack, by the left.
The left has become a religion whose adherents are no less self righteous, no less blind to reality, than any crazed religious sect I can think of.
I was not talking about left or right.
I was talking about political correctness in connection with freedom of speech.
Since you stated this freedom of expression is not sewing hatred, discrimination, indoctrination, bulling, psychological abuse, firstly before your statement I was questioning in the previous post then it was not unreasonable to conclude you were using one to call out the other.
The left, by my estimation, is currently guilty of everything described in your above statement.
That being said, I still support their rights to free speech. Free speech allows some to abuse that right because, hopefully, that abuse will cause reasonable people to clearly see the unreasonable nature of their arguments.
I don't think it's a good idea to generalize and talk about "the left" or "the right". It's painting a black and white world
You can accuse "the left" of sewing hatred, discrimination, indoctrination, bulling, psychological abuse. etc. sure they will, so will do "the right".
I don't give a @#€ if somebody vote for the left or for the right if he or she discriminate, uses verbal abuse, bullies or makes sexist remarks. This has nothing to do with political preferences but with respect or disrespect.
And in this light I strongly advocate Political Correctness. As you can not say everything you think out loud. It is fashion nowadays to do so. But as a politician or Prime minister/President you represent the whole country. and not just the party you represent.
The president of a country should have a neutral voice. He/She is there for all the people, from all coulors, religions, sexe, rich or poor.
You say you don't care if a person is left or right but then you advocate 'political correctness'. Something seems in conflict in your arguments.
Not at all.
To be in favour or against political correctness has nothing to do with your political preferences.
I know people who vote "right" who are against Political Correctness and I know people who vote left who are against it. Also the other way around. People who vote "right" are in favour and people who vote left are in favour of Political Correctness.
Funny, I was talking about this on facebook yesterday - that we need to begint to define what we mean when we use various terms.
For instance, people confuse antifa with black bloc, and black bloc (far left) with antifa (which just means anti-fascism).
What does it mean to be far left, left, moderate left, centre, moderate right, right, far right and/or alt right.
We throw around these terms, and what one man means by them is not necessarily what another man hears when it is spoken.
LOL. Every bit of scientific research has shown that conservatives are incapable of complex analysis while liberals are. That is actual brain research.
Various other studies have shown that Trump supporters are racist and hate women.
This research is pretty much international. So it's not 'American liberals.'
Your comment is so fraught with bias it shouldn't warrant response.
Call me a sucker. You want to hate, that is your choice of action. You want to make up bs. Again, your choice.
I actually believe liberals are completely capable of intelligent thought, but avoid it out of fear. Fear from the cannibals of the social media left.
You should know me better than that. I only use hard science as a source.
This research is from University College in London.
QUOTE: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, Professor Rees and his colleague Dr Ryota Kanai at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL (University College London) analysed the brain structures of ninety young adults who had reported their political attitudes on a scale from 'very conservative' to 'very liberal'. They found a strong correlation between an individual's view and the structure of the brain, particularly two regions.
QUOTE People with liberal views tended to have increased grey matter in the anterior cingulated cortex, a region of the brain linked to decision-making, in particular when conflicting information is being presented. Previous research showed that electrical potentials recorded from this region during a task that involves responding to conflicting information were bigger in people who were more liberal or left wing than people who were more conservative.
QUOTE: Conservatives, meanwhile, found increased grey matter in the amygdala, an area of the brain associated with processing emotion. This difference is consistent with studies which show that people who consider themselves to be conservative respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions.
So, sorry, when I say every bit of scientific research, it's not my bias. I just happen to read research abstracts quite regularly, and there is a lot of research currently on what makes people liberal or conservative.
Research shows that conservatives are fearful people with limited capacity in terms of complex reasoning. They tend to be one dimensional. That's not my bias. That's the science.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2010/dec/lef … tten-brain
Read the study. This explains why conservative minds have a tendency to get alzheimers because conservatives prefer to do the same thing & aren't open to change. Tess, you are right. Conservatives are FEARFUL of change. There is a psychosis relating to conservatives. Change is a total anethema to the conservative mind.
Yup. By the time a kid is 16, neurologists, just by looking at the brain using MRI equipment, can determine whether the kid will be conservative or liberal. There is an actual physiological difference in the brain between liberals and conservatives.
This does not make one superior to the other - really, they bring different strengths (and weaknesses) to the table.
We need to find (create) a system that suits us all.
" As Freedom of speech is great, but it needs a boundary. But where and how strict."
That's why I started this thread.
Where to draw the line.
"freedom of expression is not sewing hatred, discrimination, indoctrination, bulling, psychological abuse"
While I agree with this, how much of being PC is simply carrying a chip on the shoulder, looking for ways to be offended. Your example of what to call black people is pertinent; we've gone through a half dozen terms, ending with "afro-American", which makes no sense at all. A person is either American or not - what their geographical genetic background was is irrelevant.
Trevor Noah had something really pertinenent to say about that...
The problem with political correct language, and I think it's a pretty useless thing, is that using a different word does not change the contempt behind it.
So one can use all sorts of words for African people, but the bottom line is that sooner or later they become associated with a negative slur.
I find it interesting that the people who don't want political correctness are the same people who use those words to slur others...
"So one can use all sorts of words for African people, but the bottom line is that sooner or later they become associated with a negative slur."
True. The reason is that some people will always produce that slur, and it doesn't matter what terminology is used. Is the solution, then, to require the remaining 99% of the people to struggle to keep up with constantly changing terminology, and be demonized when they don't know the current "proper" word? I think not, and one reason is that it seems today that every group in the world produces the same kind of changes.
No, it isn't "queer"; it's "homosexual". No it isn't; it's "gay" and "lesbian". No it isn't, it's LBG. No it isn't; it's LBGQT (or whatever the latest string of letters is). A never ending change of terminology - a change that accomplishes nothing except to demonize people innocent of any intentional offense simply because they can't keep up with it all.
"I find it interesting that the people who don't want political correctness are the same people who use those words to slur others."
Or because they're simply tired of the whole charade.
What I find interesting is the people who demand the use of the words from everyone else have no problem using them against people they disagree with.
I've heard black conservatives being called atrocious things by liberals when they don't toe some party line.
I don't think political correct language is useless.
Language changes. And people who still use the word nigger under the excuse of not using PC are not to be excused.
Language is important and makes a culture, it has a huge influence on the way you think and act.
You don't use the word queer or fag unless in a insulting way.
It is indeed an never ending change of terminology, but it is important to keep up with it. (and yes the best is simply to say American)
Words have power and therefore you have to use the right words.
This has nothing to do with censorship but with respect and understanding. You gain nothing by aggressive language accept deepening the chasm between groups.
You are correct in saying that languages changes.
My point is that over a period of time, the words that were selected to replace derogative words become derogative as well.
Certainly, for a short time, it isn't.
I don't think the problem we need to solve is one of language. I think the problem we need to solve is one of hierarchy.
One of the most fascinating articles I have read in the last six months was about how those in positions of power have always tended towards psychopathy.
And that's the problem we have to solve.
We have to figure out a way in which we can go from systems of hierarchy to systems of equality.
This is why free speech is a constitutional right, it is to protect unpopular speech. Things that are offensive, things that you don't like, things that you consider to be wrong or immoral.
I don't agree with anything you just said, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
I say one persons freedom ends where a another persons nose begins. We have the freedom to say what we want but should go elsewhere once a person says they do not want to hear it.
I like that. What happens when we are exposed to advertising all day long? Advertising works even if we don't pay attention to it. What happens when we walk along the road and there is a street preacher yelling. We hear if even if we don't want to hear it.
I'm afraid you don't have a right to silence those you don't want to hear. Not in America, anyway.
It's about true freedom, not just freedom to do what others want us to do.
Exactly. And true freedom is a concept many just can't grasp. Especially those not raised with the expectation of it.
Of the civilized nations, the US has the most freedom. Others will disagree, but only because they either do not recognize what they have given up or because they don't care. When you are satisfied with only what is allowed you it may seem to be nothing and inconsequential, but that is not the case - anything and everything lost to government control is important.
Are you sure there is more "freedom" in the US then the UK, Germany, Norway, Holland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Denmark...just to name a couple of European countries....?
You guys may not define freedom the same. I do know that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech is not a reality in Great Britain, judging by articles I've read on people who have lost jobs and liberties because they refuse to comply with government approved and legislatively mandated speech.
The people who have lost jobs and 'liberties' in the UK are Nazis and the scum of the earth. We landed up in WWII because of scum like that. I have absolutely no problem preventing racists, etc. from speweing their filth.
Would you say that Neville Chamberlain played a major role in getting the UK into Wold War II? Why do you think he was so very wrong about Hitler and Germany?
It puzzles me no end that I have lived in the UK, the EU, Africa, and the States, and the country that I was the least free in was the USA.
Like every brand, countries do their own Public Relation.
America - the land of the free....From paperboy up to a millionaire....
Holland the country I come from has as PR. "We are a tolerant country and respect other cultures, religions and way of life...." (it's a myth: Holland is not tolerant country... certainly not today..with a great support for extreme right wing parties..)
I think it's very wise to be sceptic about these images countries want themselves to be associated with..
The United States had the highest prisoner rate, with 655 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population. (Wiki)
With such a high rate you have to be very suspicious about the country when they talk about "freedom"
Am I sure? No. But we can start with the total tax bills required by government; how much of one's earnings does government collect, and what is it used for?
It seems to me that as population density grows, so does the number of rules and laws - almost by definition, then, a reduction in freedom. And the countries of Europe are, for the most part, far more densely populated than the US is.
It seems to me that as population density grows, so does the number of rules and laws
could well be. Holland is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. And indeed it has loads of regulations. You aren't allowed to paint your house green if the rest of the street is white. and every square meter has to be accounted for.
The Dutch will definitely moan about all those rules and regulations when asked about. But at the same time they can say whatever they want, publish whatever they want and feel free to express their opinion in whatever form they want.
I guess you always need rules and regulations to keep a country in check, it just depends on what kind of rules.
Please do explain.
I have never been 'unfree' and I have lived and traveled to many countries.
In the synthetic systemmantic world, freedom is not free, it cost trillions from you and me.
In my world, the best things in life are free. And can't find a better leader for me, than myself.
Washington said, without a third party elected, sheep will be led to their slaughter.
Sheep dogs and shleeps continue their endless comfortable numbness.
Free speech is grand. It allows even those who have no idea what they are talking about the freedom to just blurt it out, anyway.
You confuse the legal right to free speech with the conversational interaction.
Free speech, as defined by the constitution, is the legal right of citizens not be arrested by the government. It has nothing to do with what you can say or not say to anyone else.
The rules of politeness, consideration, fairness, integrity, honesty, etc. still apply.
The biggest difference between you and me. Is I would gather a few Ideas from these forums, then actually put them into alternative ways, physical experiments or new industries of possitive practices.
If know anyone who has actually engaged with many world leaders, traveled over a 100 countries. Won a 185 international artist awards and loved his work for most waking hours. If not, your talk is cheap, show me on what you have given the physical world.
I am not a talker, like you. Yet a doer who knows from actually experience.
The only time anyone has real freedom is when they are the only person in the world. The minute there are two people, that freedom is halved.
You are not free to murder other people.
You are not free to cause emtional harm to other people.
You are not free to steal from other people.
You are not free to lie and cheat.
You are not free to produce products that harm the environment.
There is no such thing as true freedom.
With respect, I think there is something seriously wrong with people who go on about 'freedom' when they are living in a democracy.
You are free to go shopping when you are not committed to working for someone else, etc.
You are free to eat whatever food you like.
You are free in a thousand different ways.
What, exactly, is it you think you should be allowed to do that you can't currentlyd do now?
Keep what I build and earn for myself rather than being forced to give it to someone else for their own personal purposes.
Dress as I please in public.
As a gay person, rent the apartment I wish.
Buy alcohol on Sundays.
Suffice to say that there are others.
Overall, out of all the impositions it is only the first one that I truly disagree with, though. The rest are minor, although annoying.
There is freedom but with that freedom, there are rules of civilization & decency. Humankind needs rules of civilization at this point for most of humankind is too unevolved & self-centered to have a positive inner sense of morality.
That's terrible. It always irritated the hell out of me when all these Christian preachers came to preach at comic-con and gay pride (San Diego).
Me, too. I once visited Vegas and stood watching the Bellagio fountains...while an evangelist set up a PA system on the sidewalk behind me and began blasting his message.
Outside of possible noise limit violations, though, he had a right to do so. It's called freedom of speech, or just freedom in general. I cannot control what he had to say any more than he could control what I wanted to say.
I think our founding fathers probably knew that you choose to be irritated by the words of others. It's an action more so than a reaction.
If we started to legislate because of people's irritation, where would it stop? People just choose to get more and more irritated, by less and less, and expect the government to step in.
Edit. Actually, the eternal genius of the founding fathers is inspiring. How could they have foreseen the culture we live in today? They couldn't have. But, the principles used to form our Constitution worked the same against royal tyranny as they do against virtue signaling mobs.
I guess because there isn't a lot of difference between a bunch of people claiming to be aristocrats and noble, thus justifying subjugating others to their arbitrary sensibilities, religious zealots in power and the social media mobs of the left (and many governments of the West) trying to create an environment of fear and terror toward anyone who understands true diversity includes civil diversity of thought.
Oh, screw your founding fathers. The rest of the world had far more illustrious people than America's 'founding fathers.' What a lot of adulation of people who actually took their ideas from the French and the British.
Your founding fathers lived 150 or 200 years ago. They would be totally out of touch with what is happening today.
I do love Europeans. You guys rewrite history in your minds to make you seem more innovative than you've ever proven to be.
Don't make us have another tea party.
Careful careful Tess..
The founding fathers are holy. It's more blasphomy to say fuckin' founding fathers then fucki' Jezus Christ.
And you can wonder why.
Slurring the founding fathers is political. And as soon as you touch the holy 1% you are not free to say what you want.
It shows that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being chased like an animal. He had the guts to go against "the system" (aka the ruling class)
Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't have power. As soon as you gain power your freedom of speech is being monitored. And if it is not according to the party rules (with the party I mean the 1%) it will be dealt with.
"Oh, screw your founding fathers. "
Are you intentionally being hateful and insulting? I thought you, after all your talk, would maintain a higher level of civility. This is very disappointing.
There is saying in Ukrainian that goes "Don't put a standard on me you yourself can not live by."
(This is my best effort at translation.)
Our founding fathers created the most powerful and successful nation on the planet. Anyone who denies this makes me burst into laughter.
They did learn a lot from the French and English, but they perfected it and made it uniquely American. There is no more British or French Empire. There is only one country who has the largest economy, military and wealth. There is only one superpower in the world.
It is the country created by our founding fathers.
Rather than criticize them, an truly intelligent person would realize there is much they can learn from our founding fathers.
Unfortunately, the world is not populated with such intelligent people.
Thought that would get to you.
I never heard of the 'founding fathers' until I came to America. Not many people outside America have. Lincoln is a very minor figure. I wouldn't even be able to name them. They're extremely minor figures in history.
Ever heard of Bismarck? Or Brunel? Or Charlemagne? Or Ghenkis Khan? Or Catherine the Great of Russia?
The British Empire last a few centuries. America has been the most powerful nation in the world for about 70 years - that's it. The Roman Empire lasted about 800 years.
The 'founding fathers' were NOT responsible for 'founding fathers did not create the most powerful and successful nation on the planet." They had nothing to do with it.
Other countries had exactly the same principles as America. You seem uniquely unaware of this.
These are the factors that made America powerful - not great.
1. The Reserve Currency was given to America (1948, I think)
2. The people were in a country were the mineral wealth had not been 'mined out' as in Europe, so they had a lot of natural reserves. And they had no issue with killing the indigenous people in order to take the land.
3. Coincentally, the outcome of the Enlightenment resulted in education fo r the masses, and this led to a technological society (as it did in every country).
4. America just had more land.
5. People from other countries with skills learnt in other cultures came to America for various reasons, but the most educated people no longer go there.
I'm just curious. America's star is waning. What are you going to say when America recedes more and more into the background? And it is. China is taking over. We, in the rest of the world, are not too concerned about that.
Why is it so important to you that America is the greatest, the most powerful, the richest?
Your country is 13th from the bottom in terms of inequality/ That is nothing to be proud of.
You seem to think might is right.
Why is that?
To put things into perspective, I think a great book to read is:
Why the west rules...for now... by Ian Morris. Showing that decline of the west as a power house. China will take over and it is only logical why the US has a economic power strugle with the new Power house of the world.
I don't like the way China is governing their peole. Not at all. But this does not change the reality.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/949 … es-for-now
And about the founding fathers... I guess Washington is one of them, Lincoln is the other president I know. That's it.
But I've never studied the history of the US. Except for knowing that the Indians came from Mongolia and inhabited the land until the Europeans came and were wiped out.
Then you had the slavery. still in the 1950's black people had to sit in the back of the bus, use different public toilets, different benches in the park. etc.
Not that I'm finger pointing. I know the history of the Dutch (the most notorious Dutch word is "Apartheid") as they joint the slave trade together with the UK. And many plantation owners were Dutch.
I just am sometimes amazed by the lack of criticism towards these so called founding father.
..The US has lot's of good things too. NASA, science, art, music. etc. So don't get me wrong. I simply think a bit of criticism and scepticism towards the history of your own country is not a bad thing.
"I just am sometimes amazed by the lack of criticism towards these so called founding father."
"I simply think a bit of criticism and scepticism towards the history of your own country is not a bad thing."
To try and get through to Republicans that pointing out some negatives is not 'hating America,' is difficult.
"2. The people were in a country were the mineral wealth had not been 'mined out' as in Europe, so they had a lot of natural reserves."
Right. By 1776 (the beginning of America) all the Uranium had been mined from Europe. All the oil gone, all the coal. No more deposits of minerals that had never been heard of yet. In truth, the only thing "mined out" of Europe was trees and surface coal.
"And they had no issue with killing the indigenous people in order to take the land."
You might want to reconsider this one, as it was Europeans that came to this "empty" land and killed off the indigenous peoples.
"Why is it so important to you that America is the greatest, the most powerful, the richest?"
Why is it so important to you that America is one of the worst of the "civilized nations" on earth? What have you got against it and it's people that you must denigrate them at every opportunity?
Things I would NEVER say to someone from another country.
A person proud of their British heritage “Oh, screw your Queen.”
A person proud of their Indian heritage “Oh screw Gandhi.”
A person proud of their South African heritage “Oh screw Nelson Mandela.”
I do not need to disrespect someone who is proud of their country to make a point. My command on the English language makes this possible.
“The 'founding fathers' were NOT responsible for 'founding fathers did not create the most powerful and successful nation on the planet." They had nothing to do with it.”
One one hand you say you never heard of the founding father before you came to the United States, BUT on the other hand, you know enough to say the America's founding fathers had nothing to do with the United States becoming the most power nation on the planet. I disagree.
They are the ones who wrote the United States Constitution. They are the ones who organized the Continental Army to battle the British. I know the Colonists didn't defeat the British, but they made the British move on and let them have their freedom. Colonists won their freedom from the most powerful country on the planet at the time. The founding fathers are the ones who determined we would have a representative republic. It is a type of governing that came from the Greeks. These were highly-educated and wealthy men. Many of them lost their lives and fortunes during the Revolutionary War. It was their vision and work that made it possible for the United States climb to the top nation in the world. You are from another country so I don't expect you to understand the brilliance of America's foundling fathers.
“People from other countries with skills learnt in other cultures came to America for various reasons, but the most educated people no longer go there.”
This statement is just plain ignorant. You should learn about our H-1B Visa program. There is a long list of applicants waiting for these visas.
“The H-1B is a temporary (nonimmigrant) visa category that allows employers to petition for highly educated foreign professionals to work in “specialty occupations” that require at least a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent. Jobs in fields such as mathematics, engineering, and technology often qualify. Typically, the initial duration of an H-1B visa classification is three years, which may be extended for a maximum of six years.”
“I'm just curious. America's star is waning. What are you going to say when America recedes more and more into the background? And it is. China is taking over. We, in the rest of the world, are not too concerned about that.”
I'm not too concerned about it either. I know that China needs the United States more than the United States needs China. I've been told this by Chinese business men. They have some unique problems in China the United States doesn't. Long story.
“Why is it so important to you that America is the greatest, the most powerful, the richest?”
It's not important to me as it is a fact of life.
“Your country is 13th from the bottom in terms of inequality/ That is nothing to be proud of.”
Oh, who cares? Probably another whinny study that probably puts Iran and Saudi Arabia at the top.
Having lived in other countries, I can tell you that plenty of Brits say "Screw the Queen' and lots of South Africans say "Screw Mandela" Or whoever else.
Here's the difference between people in the free world and people in your country.
We're okay with insulting and belittling our leaders, and we reallyd don't care if you do as well. We're okay with it, because we probably agree they're all jerks.
Heres' the other thing you need to know about most people who live in other countries. We are not patriots. We think patriotism is silly. Here's what Bernard Shaw said about patriotism "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
To quote from the Guardian "But the blind love and allegiance to America scares me sometimes. Perhaps as a young nation, the US is still undergoing an identity crisis (they've still hardly settled on one language, let's be honest). The problem is that a lot of Americans do not realise the impact of America on the rest of the world. They won't realise this either, until they get passports and leave the country to see the world, which it seems now they're doing more than ever."
QUOTE: I'm not going to make any friends by saying this, but in all seriousness, there is something very creepy about the Americans who so diligently love their country. It's a little bit, just a tiny bit, North Korea.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … -see-world
Wow. That's about all I can say about your comments that are so convinced that America is superior to anybody and everything.
You need to read more carefully. I wasn't speaking about someone like yourself. I was speaking about "A person proud" of their country. I've been to England. I know there are people who are very proud to be English citizens. THESE people, who have the class, dignity and respect for their country would be offended. So, I wasn't speaking about someone such as yourself. Since I have respect for them, I would not intentionally insult them.
I feel sorry for someone who is not proud of their country. If you think I am American who loves his country you should go to the town where my relatives live in the Ukraine. These people are EXTREMELY proud of their country. Please don't comment on this. I seriously doubt you know their history and what events have brought them to this high level of patriotism.
Not being proud of the country where you come from speaks volumes about the kind of person you are and it's nothing impressive.
Sorry, maybe you aren't able to understand this, but Dunning/Kruger effect has nothing to do with patriotism.
North Korea? Truly you have lost it. I thought you were funny when you said the UK could have won WWII in two years without the help of the United States. That is still the funniest thing you've said. I've shared that one with others and they've enjoyed it as much as I do.
You really think I would care what George Bernard Shaw said? I care even less what the journalistic rag known as the Guardian prints. Liberal rag and nothing more. It is in the ranks of the New York Time liberal rag.
But, keep responding, I do enjoy your responses.
Okay Mike, don't let this give you any ideas, but with the exception of your "liberal rag" comment*--I agree with your comment.
*I do agree The Guardian presents a liberal bias, but I think they are far from a "rag." Britain's "The Daily Mail" does come to mind as a "rag."
Do you know that you project your global understanding of the world out there onto what I say?
For instance, I did not say anything about North Korea. The writer of an article in The Guardian did. My point was that I am far from the only one with my view, and that it is, in fact, the view of the majority of people in the rest of the world.
Here's the thing. As far as I know, you have never been a citizen of any other country. I have. I have far greater experience of this than you have. And the people on hubpages who live in other countries all say the same thing that I do. Why is that? It's because people in other countries perceive your kind of view negatively.
You said, "Not being proud of the country where you come from speaks volumes about the kind of person you are and it's nothing impressive."
Actually, the psychological mind set of people who are proud of 'their country" or 'their team' demonstrates a lack of personal achievement. They have to live vicarioulsy through the achievements of others because they are limited in their own achievemnts.
Oh lordy lordy, whenever I see someone proclaim, (or affirm), the "Dunning/Kruger effect" I am reminded of the saying that when you point a finger--three are pointed back at you.
And you would be wrong. But then you are wrong about a great many things. Dunning/Kruger effect.
I only made one declaration Tess:
"I am reminded of the saying that when you point a finger--three are pointed back at you."
As proof for that declaration I offer this simple illustration:
Source GA art library
You declare I am wrong, but it looks pretty obvious that I am right.
I was merely confirming that there's a higher percentage of nationalism than patriotism in a particular country when compared to other countries other than North Korea.
I do not know enough about the D-K effect to comment on whether that is what is at play or not. But that seems to be the name that goes along with this stuff as I see it come up often on similar posts.
I understand your closing point Brandon. To be honest about my intentions, I only used your comment to make a point of my own.
Though I would be interested in your thoughts about pointing fingers--aka the "Dunning/Kruger" determinations, and those that make them?
Americans love of country will be like North Korea's when instead of lawn mowers we harvest the grass to eat. Because that's the only thing between us and death from starvation.
Your statement is, without a doubt, the weirdest hodge podge of ignorance I've read today.
Those who make the biggest mistake of all . And through their hate of politicians which all do . Turn their hate upon voters and the general populace will find themselves in the world full of war. Now who are you calling ignorant
And you didn't read the article in the Guardian, and as a consequence you took what I said completely out of context.
In fact, you didn't even understand what I said. That is ignorance.
If your words can't stand on the weight of their own merit then that's not my problem.
I realize many here fall back on the 'authority' of an opinion piece they read but, again, if your words don't carry weight they can't expct to stand.
I completely disagree. No human is automatically correct just because he utters something. Every word out of anyone's mouth needs to be checked against the available evidence.
I provide back up for what I say because of that.
Anyone who thinks that just because s/he says something, it ought to be taken as gospel is far too self-important.
Even though that's the definition of patriotism in the dictionary, that's more akin to what nationalism stands for in today's world.
Nationalism and patriotism are two words which are often used inter-changeably. This is incorrect since there is a world of difference between the two concepts, in spite of a few shared ideals. While patriotism fundamentally means affection for one's country and willingness to defend it, nationalism is a more extreme, unforgiving form of allegiance to one's country. As opposed to patriotism, which involves social conditioning and personal opinion, nationalism involves national identity and the belief that one's nation and/or its government is supreme.
The French President said this: https://www.dailycaller.com/2018/11/11/ … tionalism/ which is in line with what I believe the two words to mean and most people I've been in contact with have the same understanding of these two words.
There are flaws in everything written. I base my life on good sense, the constitution dose makes alot of sense. Sure a few things are out date. Many Europeans have reused great ideas from the US Constitution, probably better than how the Americans have kept it.
Jesus or hell, up or down choice. If my ultimate love and choice happened to be the same sex, I would be screwed. What ever happen to, only God can judge?
Posts like this belong in the Topical forums, not on the HubPages side. Over there I would imagine there are many people willing to have a vigorous debate on the subject.
That's me exercising my right to free speech.
I know, but if you check through you'll see most of the posts that aren't "quotes of the day" have at least something to do with HubPages.
The problem is, when non-HP posts pile up in the HP forum area it becomes difficult for people who are trying to catch up with HP business to find relevant information.
Years ago there was only one forum section. HP separated by HP/Topics so that people who wanted to discuss topics had their area, and those who were just here to write didn't have to sift through two pages of political arguments to find something about HP.
That's up to you. Hopefully HP staff will move it over to the topics section eventually, so you probably don't have to do anything.
But people should be considerate enough not to push their "freedoms" to the point of making things uncomfortable for others. For example the bakers in Florida that had baked stuff for a gay couple but did not want to make their wedding cake. Gay marriage was against the bakers religious belief. That gay couple could have gone to any number of other bakeries and had their cake made. But they insisted on infringing on the bakers religious freedoms and ruined the bakers business with which he was supporting his family. That gay couple gave the baker a bloody nose with their freedoms. One persons freedom ends where another persons nose begins.
Or did the baker try to give the gay couple a bloody nose by not treating them as he would have anyone else?
One persons freedom is another persons requirement, from riding in the front of the bus to getting a wedding cake. Sadly, we haven't learned the lessons about discrimination that our history showed us, and will still discriminate against those that are different than us. Religion is only one of the excuses used.
I would say that the baker:
1. Wasn't a Christian as he didn't treat the gay with love, and he discriminated.
2. Was unkind.
3. And he was probably an ignoramas and a jerk.
That said, he has the right of association. And that is something that a lot of people don't want to look at.
Part of being free is the right to associate with whom one likes.
In a publicly owned business, this choice isn't available. But in a privately owned business, people should be free to serve and employ who they like. After all, customers have the right to select who they shop with.
There is one carveat.
If a business decides not to serve minorities or anyone else, there should be a big notice on the windows saying so, so that clients/customers can choose not to shop at that store.
The problem with that, Tess, is that America is incorrigible. The last paragraph of your comment was just the way it was here as recently as 60 years ago. White/Colored, was that not the case in South Africa prior to 1994? Under the apartheid regime where were the Black Africans allowed to eat and congregate?
I don't trust reverting from our current law and instead, relying on an individual's "conscience" to do the "right thing". Conservatives love to talk about this kind of stuff, but it never really works. Nothing ever changed in America without persistent litigation and civil disobedience.
Is that ever really a solution? It was unacceptable and as part of the Civil Rights movement, public accommodations must provide goods and services to all on an equal basis.
There is a world of difference between apartheid and discrimination.
The following was law under apartheid.
1. Black people were not legally allowed to be educated to the same level as white people. As my university text book (anthropology) said, 'Black people are half monkey, half human."
2. Black people were not allowed to live in the cities/towns. They had to live outside the cities and towns in areas allocated to them. If they needed to come into town to do their jobs, they needed a 'pass' (form of ID) to do so. If they didn't have one, they were arrested by the police.
3. If there was a job vacancy, the job could only be given to a black person if there wasn't a white person to fill it. If the black person got it, that person wasn't allowed to be paid the same wage as a white person. If the white person was less skilled than the black person, the white person still had to get the job. These were all actual laws.
4. White people were now allowed to have sex with black people. If they did, they were arrested for the 'immorality act' and jailed.
5. Every building was built was a black entrance and a white entrance. White people did not come into contact with black people. There were beaches set aside for black people and beaches set aside for white people.
Again, there is a vast difference between the right of association and a legal law that forbids any fairness.
A private business is exactly that - a private business. Just as we are all permitted to tell some people that we don't want them in our home, why would it be any different if we opened a private business? Why can't we employ who we like?
Certainly, there can be discouragements.
1. Notices to say that the custom of certain people is not wanted.
2. Legislation to say that bankruptsy laws do not apply to those businesses that chose not to serve certain people in the population.
Why is it that it's okay to home school in America when the parents do not want their children to associate with others in case they are 'misled,' but privately owned business is forced to employ people they do not want to employ?
The problem with a lot of laws is that they are misguided. They don't know where to draw a line. And lines must be drawn.
If public money is involved, then all are treated equally. If it is a private conversation/events, etc. then the right of association prevails.
Where do you draw the line between the right of association and the freedom for other people to come into your life when you don't want them there?
For the record, both my parents were anti-apartheid. My late mother was a founder member of the Black Sash of South Africa.
I became a Progressive in 1966 when I joined the Progressive Party of South Africa - the anti-apartheid party.
This is not about the conscience of individuals. It is about how far the State can impose on one's personal life, and how far one's personal life can impose on the right of the community to safety and well being.
'Free speech' has come to mean something that it does not mean. It does not mean that one can destroy others emotionally because one is full of hatred, or because one think's one's own race is superior.
This morning, I was the lone white woman traveling on a train full of black people. That was my choice. Very few other white people would do that. That is their choice. What is NOT their choice is to make the train journey illegal to some for any reason.
Tess, we had our own form of apartheid here,
1. "Separate but equal" in effect consigned blacks to inferior education and facilities, de jure in the South, de facto, in the North.
2. This, not being able to live in cities and towns as part of apartheid had no equal here. But, you can bet that within them segregation by law or by custom was enforced.
3. As for jobs and employment discrimination outcomes you described for Black employment, what was a provision of law under apartheid had been de facto here, with basically the same result.
4. Until a landmark Supreme court case in 1967, miscegenation was unlawful in many of the states.
5. As for association between the races, for America, I offer "Jim Crow". Separation of the races was mandated by law, with "separate" virtually never meaning equal.
Is any business operating as a public accommodation really private? They must pay taxes, and in the example of restaurant must submit to health inspection just for public health and safety. And you can't just pay employees in the manner you wish. So, no, you can't do whatever you want. Only the kid's lemonaid might get by without a myriad of municipal, State and federal regulations. So, if you want to choose whom to serveand who to associate with send out invitations to your back yard barbecue.
I do see your point that the proprietor of a business should be able to hire who he or she wishes. When I think about employment discrimination, I am thinking on larger scale corporations, who asks me as a resident of Denver to subsidize them in exchange for moving business operations into our community and offering jobs. Since that subsidy comes from my pocket, I can insist on equal opportunity employment on their part.
I get your point with private owned business employing who they want, many our family owned and operated, I get that. Parents are free to home school their kids, and send kids to private schools, but the public school system tax base cannot be undermined on account of it.
Good inquiry about drawing the line between public and private. As far as I am concerned once when you step outside the door of your property, you are in the public domain.
Determining the balance that you speak of is necessary and has always been a topic of discussion in America. With 300 millions here, cooperation is a requirement. In other words, my rights and prerogatives must end where yours begin.
We may have a different view on free speech. I have to allow the Nazi the right to peaceably assemble and promote their ideas in the public square, as I want the freedom to promote my own. They can even march if they can get a permit. As a consequence, I oppose religious "establishment" while appreciating their right to engage in public discourse. People can think or believe what they want, just don't become an impediment to my life and property in the assertion of your views.
In the example of your train travels, no one requires that you travel the bus if it was not your choice to associate. It is just fine as long as everybody that chooses to ride the bus are offered equal courtesy and accommodation, that is all that I can assist upon.
I actually agree with you about this.
I also think business owners should be allowed to employ who they like.
There is one exception. When a business is public owned (shareholders), they no longer have those freedoms.
I have no issue with people not wanting to talk to me or associate with me. It just shows how dumb they are.
The baker did serve and sold baked goods to the gay couple many other times. Just did not want to do the wedding cake because of his religious beliefs. the gay couple could have gotten a wedding cake many other places. I call the baker the nonconformist and independent thinker that gmwilliams was talking about
I understand that. But I call that baker discriminatory, as he would have made a wedding cake for others but not this couple. It's difficult to view that as anything but discrimination.
I am going to say it is possible you do not have a serious religious conviction of any kind.
Asking a devout Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is similar to asking a Muslim who owns a meat market to sell you pork.
I would also like to point out that Muslim bakers were asked to bake a gay wedding cake and also refused. See the link below. Why is this never discussed in the media? Why hasn't the state taken the Muslim baker to court for discrimination?
Can you say hypocrisy?
I'm sure this would also be an issue for an Orthodox Jew who owned a bakery.
Why should someone be required to forgo their religious beliefs? I believe freedom of religion in guaranteed in the Constitution.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … eries.html
"Asking a devout Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is similar to asking a Muslim who owns a meat market to sell you pork."
No it isn't, for the Muslim does not carry or sell pork to anyone. The baker sells wedding cakes...to anyone that isn't gay. That's a huge difference.
Yes, we are guaranteed freedom of religion. But that freedom does not apply when it is used to discriminate or harm others. For instance, you may not carry out human sacrifice no matter what your religion says you must do. You may not beat your children whether your religion says to or not. You may not execute girls that go to school or refuses to marry who you say they shall whether your religion says to or not. Similarly, you may not raise the spectre of discrimination yet again in this country (IMO). We've had enough of that and it caused thousands upon thousands of deaths.
But, unlike the other examples, you may refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage...until you enter the public arena and open a business welling wedding cakes. When behind closed doors you may do lots of things that are not permissible in public. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and do not force them onto the public.
Is this a law that only applies to Christians? Isn't that a bit anti-Christian?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
“The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel to First Liberty, which represents the Kleins. “The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … wedding-c/
What on earth are you talking about? You keep insinuating something - as if the rest of us must be mind readers. Please do be explicit. Words are there for a reason. The dictionary explains what each word means.
To be exact. Those who advocate limitations on free speech only want limitations on other's speech or on those they don't agree with. Never their own or those they do agree with. They are usually just people who can't deal with open dialogue and opposing opinions.
+1 This is almost always true; there are very, very few exceptions to that general rule.
True. If they think it is okay to limit speech would they still feel that way if the opposing party were the ones determining what is and is not offensive?
Freedom of religious belief is for everyone whether you believe in anything or not.
What does that have to do with Religious Freedom? We have criminal law for those who violate the law.
It doesn't have much to do with it. But there have been a few cases where religious freedom is used as an excuse in a public business not to serve those that are seen as not belonging to the same religion. It has long been accepted (rightly so) within the church (you don't hire an atheist as a pastor), but it is spreading to public businesses, open to anyone that walks in the door.
I wasn't a part of it, but have heard in my area some years ago that the Mormon sect would not allow anyone not of the Mormon church to build their churches. Something about it being holy ground and non-believers would contaminate the site or some such. By the time I got into the building trade it had been settled in court and neither contractors nor their employers were required to be Mormon.
That has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is bigotry and bias.
wilderness, readmikenow said a muslim baker reused to bake a wedding cake for gay people and yet was not taken to court.
And that Orthodox Jews also would not want to because of religous belief
Jews might not want to. IMO, as soon as they enter the public market place they must serve everyone the same, regardless of religious beliefs. To do otherwise simply puts us back in the same place we were in 100 years ago; a nation of bigotry and discrimination. Don't forget that religion was one of the excuses justifying slavery.
Have you seen the multiple cases filed in Canada by Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv? Yaniv is a male who claims to be a transgender woman, and is taking female waxing aestheticians to court (human rights tribunal) because they work on female clients only. Yaniv wants these women to perform a Brazilian wax on him, which means the women, some of whom work alone out of their homes, would have to welcome him into their homes and handle his penis and testicles. The women refused on the basis that they only accept female clients, that they do not feel safe hosting male clients in their homes when they are alone or only their small children are present, and they are not trained to work on male genitalia. Yaniv says he is a woman and has taken them to court for discrimination.
https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-cana … r-self-id/
Sure thing - testicles are female organs because a woman is a woman.
It will be fascinating to see what happens with the case, if it actually goes to a verdict. Are Canadian courts as stupid as American ones? He might win!
Yes, will be very interesting to learn the result. Three of the cases were heard together over the summer and will be ruled on sometime this month, I believe (I have forgotten the date, it may actually be in October or November).
Yaniv is despised by just about everyone. Not only is he a vexatious litigant, he is also a pedophile with a menstruation and feminine hygiene product fetish. He is using his status as a transgender woman not only to harass adult female aestheticians (many are Asians - guess what, Yaniv is also racist), but also to access girls in women's restrooms and swim locker rooms. There are a number of "receipts" showing him sexually harassing young teen and tween girls online.
Yet, it does seem British Columbia human rights code is on his side, as people with a self-declared gender identity are considered a protected class under the code, and therefore it is illegal to discriminate against them. Because he has declared himself a woman, the code says he must be treated as one and to refuse to do so is discrimination and incitement of hatred.
The brain is a brain, a useful organ for the body to function. It is not the individual. The brain is used to facilitate the nervous system. We are our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking.
It is my understand that it was an excuse given back in colonial times. Blacks were inhuman creatures and God had told man the creatures of the world were theirs. Or they were following God's wishes and "improving" the life of the slaves. One can justify most anything with the "proper" rationalizations, especially if it is determined that it was God's wish in the first place.
Not everyone approved of slavery. Saying it's was justified by God is farfetched. It's the individuals not the religion.
Well, if you want to own slaves you need something to justify an obviously wrong decision! Especially when all those do-gooders in the north are saying you're such a bad person. Historically religion has been used to justify a great many evils - some of the worst ever seen. That some would use it so they didn't feel bad about owning slaves should not be a surprise.
The problem I have with your statements is they are generalities. I am sure slave owners justified their actions, but not all of them used God as their reasoning. Some groups did not have slaves because of their religious beliefs - Quakers.
Yes. Some did, not all. Some did not support slavery for religious reasons.
Should Dave Chappelle be silenced? Does HIS free speech rights enable him to offend people during his comedy show? I've watched this and he IS really funny and offends MANY segments of American society. Here is an article about it.
Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special Is Hilarious (And Even Subversively Pro-Life)
“It is offensive, deliberately so. But above all else, it’s really funny, even if Chappelle occasionally pulls his punches. If you are sensitive to vulgarity, indecency, and in-your-face offensive humor, regardless of your politics, this probably isn’t the stand-up special for you.”
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/29/da … -pro-life/
Okay, thanks for the heads up on that.
I have a choice (right of association) not to watch something that will offend me.
And that is one of the issues I bring up here. Where does one draw the line between the right not to listen and the right to force other people to listen to you because you have 'free speech?'
"In this competition of ideas, the government doesn’t outlaw speech that it disagrees with but instead assures that everyone may speak and confront ideas that they find offensive. By defending individual rights, this approach ensures that everyone can voice their opinions regardless of who controls the levers of power."
The problem is that if this was private/personal debate, it's okay, but advertising and promotion throught the media affects the human brain. We have an evolutionary bias to believing what we hear frequently. So money can buy sufficient time to 'brainwash' people, and this is not taken into consieration when people have the money to spread evil ideas.
People who are scared are not aware of the fact they have nothing to be afraid of other than their own dark shadows in their mind.
I always used to question that belief system. Living in Africa, I'm pretty scared of boomslangs and cobras and lions and shamans who kill people for their body parts (muti - medication).
And, yet, I have found that most of my fears in my life have been pointless. They were never going to happen, and it stopped me from going forward.
So I would, I suppose, like some more input on what you mean.
Can a liberal and a conservative in America ever come to agreement. ha! They both trust such different sources of information. It is like the old saying of the east meeting the west.
As for Patriotism, I once saw of video of Trump speaking in front of the UN I believe and he said that every person should be proud of his country and do what he can to make it as great as possible.
I truly don't understand why one should be proud of one's country or proud of one's team, etc.
I once read a book 'Wealth 101' and it said that when one is proud and excited over someone's else's achievement, one is sort of reverse-projecting their 'win' onto oneself.
No, I don’t get nationalism either. To be proud of a country is a strange thing. Every country has good things and bad things. To be proud of a country means you are proud about everything the country does or has done in the past. This makes no sense.
You can be proud on a specific achievement, but to be proud on a country as a whole is foolish and shows lack of criticism.
There was someone here not so long ago who said the USA caging children is okay (let's not get into an argument if thi is true or not, that was not the point just that it was okay if they did) because apparently other countries do so. There are some people who are in your words "proud about everything the country does". So there are people who are truly proud of their country. It's sad, but it's true.
No reasonable person in America or any other country can think their country is better than any other country in every possible way.
But anyone who thinks that Abraham Lincoln and the Founding Fathers are nobodies either has a severe gap in their education or is revealing anti-American bias.
Either way, such claims aren't based on fact or logic.
Then again, maybe Ghandi and Winston Churchill are nobodies and we ignorant Americans are giving them too much respect.
They aren't nobodies, but they aren't saints either. They all had huge influences on the countries they were in and beyond.
Likewise, America has had leaders who had huge influences on the countries they were in and beyond.
They also weren't nobodies. For example, I don't know how anyone can think Winston Churchill is more prominent in world history than Franklin Roosevelt.
Only President Kennedy had a profound beautiful effect on my life. The many Presidents started out with good intentions than ended up becoming puppets.
Winston Churchill and Gandhi are as opposite as you can get.
Did I say otherwise? Also, you mentioned them in your post and they were covered in my reply when I said "They".
I'm simply responding to a series of comments on this thread and others that seem to denigrate America in general terms.
The fact that some posters are proud of everything American doesn't mean we all are.
It would be stupid to think everyone is. It's not even the majority, just the loudest of the lot because noise stands out. You should really view the forum in chronological mode if you aren't already, makes it easier and there's less confusion. Seems like you were replying directly to me as my reply is quoted before your reply in what I see.
I did view it in chronological mode. I stand by my comment that several people wrote a series of posts that showed anti-American bias. Likewise, I have seen the same thing in other recent threads.
Since you were the most recent poster and made supporting comments to them, I replied to you. My reply was not meant personally.
The fact that some posters are proud of everything American doesn't mean we all are.
I think it would be simplistic to think so. Generalising Americans is the last thing you can do. When discussing topics generalising is a blunt knife and should be avoided.
It’s good to be reminded of that.
Brandon, Yes. Those definitions are correct. Nationalism is not as bad as Imperialism but close.
The founding fathers of America were wise to recognize the inalienable right to free expression. It is by that same freedom that the op is able to mock and belittle them while standing on their shoulders.
Well, let me explain the Dunning Kruger effect. If one has insufficient knowledge or intelligence to determine the facts/outcomes, one is incapable of realizing that, while if has a lot of intelligence/knowledge, one tends ot suffer from inferiority and thinks one knows less than one does.
As my point of view is backed by hard science, and as I know that most of the first world thinks the same way as I do, regardless of how dominant the right is on hubpages, I am still in the majority elsewhere.
I honestly find it impossible to cope with the drivel about American been the greatest country on earth.
I have also come to the conclusion that the constant 'America is the greatest country in the world' is like a refrain from a girl who has been the prettiest girl in her school in a small town, and she has never set foot outside. She thinks she is the prettiest girl in the world, simply because she has never been outside that small town.
Hard to be humble, when your perfect in every way.
I realize that. I have tremendous American friends. I truly love them. They have been the most incredible people. We differ in small details, but big picture is very similar. And we don't take offence at differing perspectives.
by irachx 15 months ago
Do we really have freedom of speech?
by Schandee Decker 4 years ago
Is anyone else sick of the words "politically correct"?Who thought this up, a politician and why are so many people going along with it. We keep changing in America to accommodate more people we don't need. Who else is sick of being told what to say and how to, isn't this going against...
by Josak 7 years ago
At this point most people will be agreeing with me, most of us believe in the first amendment and freedom of speech but it seems in the last few years something has turned around and people are shying away from the reality of what that means. It means we must be OK with violence being portrayed in...
by Yves 3 years ago
Is anyone else here feeling pretty much turned off by the elitist moderators on HubPages?Their explanations for allowing some questions to stand and banning others are beyond lame. Then there is that "thing" of banning decent people without explanation and choosing not to respond to...
by RealityTalk 6 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to same-sex marriage if the article is anti-same-sex marriage; even if the...
by LoliHey 2 years ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|