81–88 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... by socialists ... No, it's done by Americans who don't fit the previous definition of "American identity". Picture the "ideal American" and see who that excludes; and you'll have an idea of who these people are.
Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity — that’s one of the things the US is historically famous for. Irish, Italians, and the “not white enough” Europeans; Chinese, Japanese, and Asian groups; recent African migrants, etc. Every one of these groups integrated and thrived over time, without stalling out the process, because they joined a shared American culture focused on merit and cultural…
1. The American identity never even existed, so all complaints of exclusion are invalid.
2. The identity existed, but some were excluded and that was bad, so the identity exists and is good, and assimilation is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... by socialists ... No, it's done by Americans who don't fit the previous definition of "American identity". Picture the "ideal American" and see who that excludes; and you'll have an idea of who these people are.
Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity — that’s one of the things the US is historically famous for. Irish, Italians, and the “not white enough” Europeans; Chinese, Japanese, and Asian groups; recent African migrants, etc. Every one of these groups integrated and thrived over time, without stalling out the process, because they joined a shared American culture focused on merit and cultural…
That list of originating cultures stands out to me for what it excludes: slaves and descendants thereof, native Americans and hispanics.
Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. (Too bad for those who get left behind or the weak, if they're not part of our group they can just get trampled in the process.)
> Starting with identitarian politics in the 60s that process has stalled
Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity — that’s one of the things the US is historically famous for. Irish, Italians, and the “not white enough” Europeans; Chinese, Japanese, and Asian groups; recent African migrants, etc. Every one of these groups integrated and thrived over time, without stalling out the process, because they joined a shared American culture focused on merit and cultural…
> Historically, those groups melted into a shared American identity That list of originating cultures stands out to me for what it excludes: slaves and descendants thereof, native Americans and hispanics. Perhaps that's what you're getting at, the American identity is risk-taking, ie those that would willingly leave everything behind for the chance at a better life. (Too bad for those who get left behind or the weak,…
My point is that Hispanics or blacks in the 1960s-1980s weren’t any worse off than say, the Chinese during railroad construction or the Japanese during internment in material terms — whatever the historic record.
So it’s worth examining why some disadvantaged social groups integrated while others did not — or perhaps a better phrasing is “better integrated”.
Unless you’re racist, surely you must agree that the answer is cultural.
> Identitarian politics, such as the civil rights movement? Women's lib? All a Soviet plot to destroy America, obviously.
You’re being facetious.
Those movements had roots in genuine domestic issues, however, radical segments of each movement were supported by Soviets or their sympathizers — offering things like funding and advice on effective propaganda in order to sow civil dissent. These radical arms of the movements eventuall took over, and transformed genuine civil rights movements into regressive and harmful ones.
It’s similar to their actions in 2016, when they funded advertisements for radical positions on the issue of race, gender, immigration, etc.
That kind of psyop to destabilize a country by funding radicals within is older than the US, and has been practiced by the CIA as well.
None of that detracts from the fact that radical feminism, identitarian politics, and intersectionalism all emerged from Marxist philosophy partially sponsored by Soviets.
Researching the Soviet idea of “useful idiots” is interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you're making an implicit distinction between deciding to be a Christian and accepting God > But the Christian is not in the same position as either Plato or the atheist. Within the Christian's position, Yes, the position they just chose. It's like saying after you've made a choice, you can either take it or not
> It seems like you're making an implicit distinction between deciding to be a Christian and accepting God I wasn't intending to, but perhaps I should have been. A Muslim has the same situation as a Christian - somewhat different morals, but the structure of the situation is the same. The distinction I was drawing was between polytheistic gods and a monotheistic, absolute God. > Yes, the position they just chose. It'…
The parallel to "choosing the atheist position" would be "choosing the theist position," which would not define your morals either. From there, you can choose from a massive range of Christian positions which have different morals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they would have evolved with that inner monologue. It's not like it would be this strange thing to them. I was born with the inner monologue. I wasn't told by others what it was, I figured it out for myself. It's me. I'm not my body, I am the voice inside my head, looking out through the eyes of a body that is nothing but a vessel for a genetic code.
> I was born with the inner monologue. Are you sure? It seems very unlikely that it would predate language acquisition by much, at least in the form I experience.
I can 'think' without speaking to myself internally. My 'inner monologue' doesn't always express itself in words. I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was born with the inner monologue. Are you sure? It seems very unlikely that it would predate language acquisition by much, at least in the form I experience.
I wouldn't say my inner monologue is speaking to me in my native language. That's just how my conscious mind tries to interpret it. I can 'think' without speaking to myself internally. My 'inner monologue' doesn't always express itself in words. I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it.
You're also making assessments of how other peoples minds work without having any perspective outside how your own works. My monologue is fairly conversational. I also don't need to be thinking, "out loud" to think. That seems like it would be incredibly slow. Much of my day to day doesn't require active thinking. However, my internal monologue comes in when I've got a meaty problem to work over. It's like talking the idea out with another person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was born with the inner monologue. Are you sure? It seems very unlikely that it would predate language acquisition by much, at least in the form I experience.
I wouldn't say my inner monologue is speaking to me in my native language. That's just how my conscious mind tries to interpret it. I can 'think' without speaking to myself internally. My 'inner monologue' doesn't always express itself in words. I think people are reading too much into the 'monologue' part and ascribing too many actual conversational qualities to it.