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

181–190 of 196 posts

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

#181

Post by mindslight »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #178
mindslight wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

For starters, nobody needs to push "patriotic ads". When the country does good things worth being proud of, patriotism arises naturally.

But either way, the grave error here is conflating civic mindedness as having anything to do with the current administration. These clowns would find a way to divide us over a children's spelling bee.

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

#182

Post by JohnTHaller »

rcdemski wrote: post #74
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…

The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.

It should rub everyone the wrong way.

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

#183

Post by JohnTHaller »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #4
mindslight wrote: post #2

Let's start with some readings of the Declaration of Independence. They promised us another American Revolution. They neglected to mention that they were planning on taking the position of King George and the redcoats.

No, they didn't neglect to mention it at all: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/16/project-2025... “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” Almost all of history's greatest, most-destructive conspiracies were not concealed in smoke-filled rooms, they were published and advertised to great fanfare. This one included.

Yup. Millions happily voted for Project 2025. It reminds me of the people who railed against Obamacare but were horrified ending it would also effect their Affordable Care Act plans.

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

#184

Post by MrSkelter »

rcdemski wrote: post #74
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…

The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.

It’s deeper than that. You shouldn’t have to pledge allegiance to any system or set of beliefs in a country that claims to enshrine free thought.

There’s nothing more American, in principal, than seeking to change America for the better.

How ridiculous would it have been for civil rights leaders to have pledged to preserve the America that existed till the mid 60s.

The pledge, or similar, is almost unique to the US and other authoritarian states.

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

#185

Post by tolerance »

mindslight wrote: post #176
tolerance wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If I made a good point, you could have signaled agreement.

Great point! [Deliberately mimicking an LLM here—not dismissively, but in jest.]

In all serious though, I understand where you’re coming from and I am aware that my approach throughout this thread is agitating. My response was a legitimate attempt to express appreciation for the time you spent answering my questions.

To be honest I was hesitant to signal agreement because I was worried that you’d interpret the entire exchange as me goading you into a point that I otherwise could’ve made on my own. I didn’t want you to think that you were working for my approval.

> 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…

Hope you don’t mind the ellipse where I left it. I do agree with this all though. And I don’t think the dynamic is inherent crappy [1], but in society’s current state and especially online it is; particularly when a certain line of questioning can be reasonably interpreted as provocative instead of curious or congenial at best.

Are we supposed to signal to each other that we are of the same ideological tribe beforehand? And what if we aren’t?

[1] I did break the quote there to gently diverge from what you actually said about reflexively jumping against the dynamic; In a way I don’t think I’m diverging though, maybe giving my take on why it’s crappy to jump, in a way I’m claiming my own judgmental stake alongside your own.

I know what I’m doing puts a strain on another person’s the cognitive bandwidth. I think that’s sort of the point. In return I reckon I presume the role of a knave.

What’s interesting is seeing how long a person tolerates my advances and how their answers develop.

Lately my primary motive is to try to drive discussions past exchanging platitudes toward something more…I don’t know yet. I started with that LLM reference for a reason but this comment is already long. If you even read this maybe you can sort of catch my drift.

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

#186

Post by insane_dreamer »

mindslight wrote: post #177
insane_dreamer wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

thanks, but I've read history too. The "revolution" (which despite the name wasn't much of a revolution since it maintained much of the social structure that came before it) was the opportunity to make some great leaps of progress, which the founders, is their now revered wisdom, failed to do. These did eventually come but some of them only at great expense and activism (abolition movement, workers progressive movement, suffrage movement, civil right movement).

Voting rights in the new US were much the same as those in British Empire they broke away from, where white adult landowning males had been able to vote for some time.

As for slavery, most countries still allowed it, but abolishing it, while admittedly a big step forward, would still have been possible within the context of the time, and one of the strides of progress one would expect from people who declare independence on the basis of "all men being created equal". Some States began to abolish it shortly afterwards, and France did so with its own actual revolution (with its own set of problems).

You might be comfortable with it all, but I expect much more from the founders than some nice words on a page.

Ironically, the fundamental basis for the revolution was "taxation without representation", which we _still_ have in the United States today (i.e., PR).

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

#187

Post by wakawaka28 »

mindslight wrote: post #181
wakawaka28 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For starters, nobody needs to push "patriotic ads". When the country does good things worth being proud of, patriotism arises naturally. But either way, the grave error here is conflating civic mindedness as having anything to do with the current administration. These clowns would find a way to divide us over a children's spelling bee.

I don't think it "arises naturally" -- Our country is still something to be proud of, despite its flaws, and patriotism is a dirty word these days. The current administration is mainly seen as unusually divisive because of a relentless smear campaign against Trump conducted over a period of about 10 years. He's no saint, but if you look at it objectively then this breathless hysteria is unwarranted and downright harmful.

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

#188

Post by butterbomb »

iAMkenough wrote: post #83
rcdemski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.

I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime. Hopefully as part of the upcoming rebuke of sacrificing our nation's values for a megalomaniac coopting religion for political gain (with very public examples of hypocrisy). Jesus preached feeding the hungry, healing t…

> I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime.

Overplayed their hand? They’re reaching mainstream appeal now. There’s a whole religious revival around young zoomers but it’s a bit strange. A few months back I noticed the rage bait algorithms had my feeds looking like the 30 years war.

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

#189

Post by mindslight »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #187
mindslight wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters, nobody needs to push "patriotic ads". When the country does good things worth being proud of, patriotism arises naturally. But either way, the grave error here is conflating civic mindedness as having anything to do with the current administration. These clowns would find a way to divide us over a children's spelling bee.

I don't think it "arises naturally" -- Our country is still something to be proud of, despite its flaws, and patriotism is a dirty word these days. The current administration is mainly seen as unusually divisive because of a relentless smear campaign against Trump conducted over a period of about 10 years. He's no saint, but if you look at it objectively then this breathless hysteria is unwarranted and downright harm…

Smear campaign? It's the man's own actions - incompetence backed up with divisive bullying. If you don't see that, then you're still in the reality distortion field.

As for patriotism, I see quite a lot of it at the weekly protest I drive by and sometimes attend. As I said, it arises naturally.

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

#190

Post by UncleMeat »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #179
UncleMeat wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

"Justice for all" is demystified by spending any amount of time looking at the criminal justice system, which regularly abuses people in about a thousand different ways. The fact that the courts depend on the bulk of defendants taking plea deals to function at all is sick.
Post reply on HN