Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#171

Post by DontForgetMe »

tombert wrote: post #62

When I was in sixth grade I found out (I am not sure how actually) that I didn’t have to say the pledge if I didn’t want to. I didn’t (and don’t) believe in God, and I didn’t believe in the “under God” part of the pledge, so I decided that I wouldn’t stand for the pledge anymore. This was an extremely conservative area, and so my teachers were very upset. I told them I don’t have to say the pledge if I don't want (an…

Meh, I think it's more disrespectful to pretend you love someone or feel something noisy just because it seems to be expected.

Very 'come a give Grandma a big kiss and tell her how much you love her' vibes

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#172

Post by erxam »

za3faran wrote: post #76
jjtwixman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. Americans want to export their fascist ideology to Europe under the guise of "freedom of speech". They need to get their own house in order first, frankly.

Not just to Europe, we've seen what they did to Western Asia "Middle East" over the past decades under the guise of "freedom".

The whole world, frankly. The mere concept of "freedom of speech" is a Trojan horse for far-right movements to gain ground amongst the peoples of the world.

We fucked up from the very moment we let agitators spread their poison around without any sort of punishment. Now the rot is widespread enough that they're making their moves.

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#173

Post by tolerance »

mindslight wrote: post #157
tolerance wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your time here.

Do you have a constructive point, or are you just doing some vague both sidesism ?

Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you?

I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#174

Post by netsharc »

xethos wrote: post #153
netsharc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reminds me of what one American college student said in public in Italy. It was 2018, Trump was president, I was on a shuttle bus that takes tourists up and down a viewpoint. It was just leaving the viewpoint when it stops, a man hops in and asks in English "Did anyone see an Apple Watch?". "Yeah, right here!". The first person had forgotten it in the bus, and the second person had found it, and returned…

> "Boy, he's lucky this bus is full of Americans!" Perhaps only because they have a high likelyhood of speaking English and being able to help him? And sure, many Italians speak English, but if I needed help finding my watch, I like my odds of able to communicate with the Americans over almost any other nationality

Like that college kid, it appears you also suffer under the myth of American superiority...

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#175

Post by insane_dreamer »

mindslight wrote: post #154
insane_dreamer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these truths ... all men* are created equal *white male landowner

That the founders were able to articulate lofty ideals while steeped in being oppressors in multiple ways isn't the condemnation you seem to think it is. Rather it's more commendable that they were able to be so forward thinking, as people with power benefiting from the society they were in. Our modern interpretation of that sentence would most certainly have shocked many of the people who supported it in the context…

yeah, no

a lofty ideal is worthless if you're not actually striving to put it into practice, which they did not

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#176

Post by mindslight »

tolerance wrote: post #173
mindslight wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a constructive point, or are you just doing some vague both sidesism ?

Was my line of questioning absurd or offensive to you? I’m happy to withhold my own points to figure out more from another’s if they choose to present them and I don’t have a problem with acknowledging when they beat me to a constructive one and thank them for it.

In the direction of absurd.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47103957 felt dismissive. If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.

The whole exchange feels in the realm of "just asking questions" both-sidesism. With this last comment I can see how that is perhaps not your goal, but it's close enough that it feels like it.

There is something here I am still chewing on - where does good-faith asking questions from a non-fully-fleshed-out place actually fit in modern large-scale Internet forum discourse? It's a crappy dynamic [0] to reflexively jump against that, but the "just asking questions" attack has been pretty damn effective too.

[0] in case it's unclear: I'm examining my own judgement, this isn't directed at you

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#177

Post by mindslight »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #175
mindslight wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the founders were able to articulate lofty ideals while steeped in being oppressors in multiple ways isn't the condemnation you seem to think it is. Rather it's more commendable that they were able to be so forward thinking, as people with power benefiting from the society they were in. Our modern interpretation of that sentence would most certainly have shocked many of the people who supported it in the context…

yeah, no a lofty ideal is worthless if you're not actually striving to put it into practice, which they did not

They did strive to put it in practice, in the societal context of their time.

You seem to be missing that progress is a gradual process of painstaking change. Presumably you're looking at what we currently have, thinking its manifestly obvious, and taking it for granted. But to me, this kind of thinking actually contributes to sliding backwards.

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#178

Post by wakawaka28 »

mindslight wrote: post #170
wakawaka28 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalistic content is not fascist. They already air content of national interest such as election debates and presidential speeches.

"Nationalistic" is not a synonym for "national interest". And the point was not just that its nationalistic content, but rather that broadcasters are being pressured to air it.

I'm not sure who you expect to push for airing essentially patriotic ads and content, besides the government. It is not necessarily nefarious. We need to have some modicum of civic mindedness and that needs to come from somewhere. The government itself is at least usually not partisan when it comes to generic campaigns like this.

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#179

Post by wakawaka28 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #151
embedding-shape wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the country has values As I've never said "The Pledge of Allegiance", this seems to be the original one, I'm guessing there might be some other modern variation schools use today, but anyways: > I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I wouldn't be surprised that most people see it as a joke today, given the "with liberty a…

Today it includes "under God" in the text. There are really two values expressed in the pledge. "Liberty and justice for all" and "the nation is below God." I'm happy saying that the former is a national value, though it is rarely achieved in practice. The latter... oof. It is definitely propagandistic. Even if we ignore the religious component, it more expresses an idea that "liberty and justice for all" is already…

I think "liberty and justice for all" is actually the norm in the US, at least within fairly ordinary bounds. We can only have liberty up to a point being under a government. A human living in the wilderness, in anarchy, would also have liberty limited by other humans.

You can say "oof" to "under God" but most of the founders believed in the divine and cited it as a reason for granting "god-given" rights to the people. I am an atheist and I kinda don't like the religious aspect of the pledge, but I'm not so upset about it either. Most people believe in a deity, even in 2026, and on the whole I've been treated better by those people than by fellow atheists. Regardless of whether God exists, Christian moral standards are mostly beneficial and too often abandoned when people give up religion. It represents hard-won cultural knowledge and survival strategies for civilization.

Re: FCC asks stations for "pro-America" programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

#180

Post by wakawaka28 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #145
wakawaka28 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds kids that they live in the United States, and that the country has values, and that they will be expected to defend the country as part of the social contract. I don't know if other countries have pledges like this but on the surface it seems OK to me. I think it also inspires worthwhile conversations about what we owe to the country (or not).

I'd rather they pledge allegiance to the values rather than to the country. I can see defending those values as part of the social contract, but not the country. If the country and the values are aligned, then sure. But if not, then it is no longer worthy of that allegiance. Otherwise, you can wind up with something like Nazi Germany where people have to go along with it because "my country". If you think about it, t…

>I'd rather they pledge allegiance to the values rather than to the country. I can see defending those values as part of the social contract, but not the country. If the country and the values are aligned, then sure.

The "values for which we stand" are quite numerous and too lengthy to reiterate on a daily basis, in a short pledge. The pledge may inspire more interest in finding out more about those values, and that is worthwhile.

>Otherwise, you can wind up with something like Nazi Germany where people have to go along with it because "my country".

Funny you should mention this. Most Germans, even Nazis, had no idea what their government was actually up to and would have never supported anything more than deporting those they saw as troublemakers.

>If you think about it, the main reason for the Bill of Rights, and especially the 2A (I vehemently disagree with guns in today's world but I understand the original purpose of the 2A), is because they understood that governments can be subverted away from the country's values and citizens need protection from the government in such cases.

Today's world needs the 2A and the Bill of Rights more than any other time. Idk why you think 2A doesn't apply now. Guns did not go away. The government is bigger than ever. The founders were not only worried about "subversion" but governments going rogue in overt and shameless ways. There was no standing army back then, and the founders did not want one. That is one thing that isn't practical anymore... We need professional soldiers. But we ALSO need people armed and ready to defend the homeland if necessary. We let in way too many people and grant citizenship way too easily. There are 1.5 million Chinese coming of age soon who never lived in the US but will be eligible to vote here due to birthright citizenship tourism! It's insane that we allow this, or any of the BS asylum claims. If a war pops off, I expect that thousands of operators who were let in under false pretenses will spring into action and sabotage everything. If you tell most people this, they will look at you like you're the crazy one.

Post reply on HN