There ARE honest people on the Left.

[pknopp]

The left didn't lie about Jan 6. Naomi Wolf is lying about that. The only interesting question is _why_ she lies.

Drop the gaslighting, conservative liars. It fools no one outside of your cult. You're fascist liars, we're honest and moral.

And drop the "Both sides do it!", bothsiderist wimps. Grow a spine. Pretending how you're above it all makes you look pathetic.

What did she lie about?

 

[mamooth]

What did she lie about?

About being lied to by Democrats about Jan. 6.

 

[pknopp]

About being lied to by Democrats about Jan. 6.

She said that they were wrong about not wanting all video released. I don't disagree. It all should be released. What issue do you have with that?

 

[Doug1943]

Most people don't have a clue about anything.

Do we base science of what "most people think"? No. We base it on what it is.

Well...

Protesters Burn American Flag at Colorado Capitol as Inauguration Underway

Roughly 40 or 50 protesters were present at the time of the flag burning, a law enforcement official said.

www.newsweek.com

"Protesters burned an American flag outside the Colorado State Capitol building in Denver Wednesday as inaugural proceedings were underway in Washington, D.C., to commemorate the swearing-in of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris."

Me thinks these were probably right wingers.

However yes, there is a reverence of the flag on the right wing that doesn't exist on the left wing. Probably the same logic they use as calling themselves "patriots" as if everyone else isn't because they don't agree with their views.

Doesn't mean it's so.
Also, right wingers are the ones, in the South, that wave the Confederate flags, I mean it's basically the same as flag burning, waving a flag of the enemy to that flag, a flag that represents 140,000 dead US military personnel.

There's no logic in these people either.

When you burn a flag it says whatever you want it to say. You can't be deciding what people are saying when they do something just because it's convenient for you.

What is at stake if people burn the flag?

Freedom of speech....

I would be surprised if it was right-wingers burning the flag in Colorado, although there are so many currents of thought within what is called 'the Right', including some which are clinically insane, that I wouldn't be extremely surprised. (I used to spend a lot of time on a couple of militia sites. Whereas the stereotype rightwinger 'backs the Blue', you would not infrequently come across people who were rightwing cop-haters. Probably because of a bad divorce and being forced to pay alimony. So it's possible to conceive of some of them -- like the 'Boogaloo Bois' -- who genuinely hate America, but with mainly rightwing instead of leftwing prejudices.)

As for the Confederate Flag. There are two types of white Southerner (of which I am one) who don't feel your sort of hostility to the Confederate Flag. (1) Most of us see the Civil War as a huge national tragedy -- those of us who know a bit about slavery and the world, know that it was brought on by the arrogance and stupidity of the Slavocracy, who could easily have negotiated a very lucrative buy-out, at taxpayers' expense, the way British slaveowners did.

Any thinking person by the middle of the 19th Century knew slavery was on the way out in the civilized world. But the South had such a strong position in Congress that the slave-owners thought they could defy history -- just like the French and Russian ruling classes did. And then a representative of this way of thinking went and assassinated Lincoln, who, rightly, would have been the best friend the defeated South had, being a truly great man.

Although it has probably died down a lot by now since when I lived in the South, there is a kind of sentimental class/regional feeling about the Confederate Flag. I believe there was a popular television show where the main characters, or some of them, had a giant Confederate battle flag painted on the roof of their car. ['Dukes of Hazzard' Car Banned Over Confederate Flag]

Of course now it's totally unPolitically Correct, but at the time, no one thought it meant being a white supremacist -- it was a general symbol of rebellion, against arrogant well-heeled educated Northern Yankees, although of course this attidude to this symbol, given its history, was restricted to whites.

Now, of course, the whole Confederacy thing allows liberals who vote to honor the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg to pretend to be patriots. It's ironic, because Southern whites used to volunteer for the military well out of proportion to their numbers. (Now, apparently, no one is volunteering for the military.)

(2) The second kind of Southerner who flies the Confederate battle flag is a white supremacist. Their main organization is here: [ https://leagueofthesouth.com ] They aren't openly white supremacists but no one should be fooled.

They would have some problems if they did manage to get independence, because today less than 60% of the South is white: a perfect figure for inter-ethnic civil war. [ https://statisticalatlas.com/region/South/Race-and-Ethnicity ] On the other hand, Blacks in the South -- in the sort of chaos that made Southern independence a practical possibility -- might want their own nation as well. This would require massive population transfers, a la Yugoslavia or the Raj (India/Pakistan), which are always bloody.

Some of these people pretend that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about tarrifs, and defend the South on the grounds of national self-determination, abstractly no bad thing. But in reality, if the South had gotten her independence, it would have set a precedent, and we would probably have ended up with four or five separate nations on the current territory of the US. We would have been all set to repeat Europe's national wars among ourselves, and would also have been unable to intervene in the world to stop Nazi-ism and Communism. So it's good that the North won. [Winston Churchill once wrote an essay on this subject, as an 'alernative history' in which the South gets its independence, and as a result, we don't have WWI. It's summarized here: [ Churchill’s Alternative History: Robert E. Lee’s Triumph at Gettysburg ]

And I suppose the people who show up with Confederate flags and other Confederate regalia at conservative demonstrations, embarrassing us, may include some wily false flag leftists -- doing the same to us as the open Communists who turn up at progressive demos with hammer-and-sickle flags do to liberals. But probably the great majority of both of them are working for free.

The thing that should interest political people is the question of the multi-national character of the US. Many people who are new Americans, or the descendants thereof, retain a dual national identity: they're Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans or Jewish-Americans (since the establishment of Israel gave them a state) or Mexican-Americans.

Some Southerners have same sort of dual identity: Americans, but also Southerners. (I leave out African-Americans from this list, as there are very few of them who actually identify with Africa, and for good reason. And for the same reason, when some Mexican-Americans became 'nationalists' in the 1970s, they had to invent a nation, 'Aztlan', because they were ashamed of Mexico.) This dual-identity tends to fade with each new generation.

As for 'most people' not 'having a clue about anything' and basing our beliefs about 'what is' -- you are right, if we're talking about something like the age of the earth, or the composition of brass. These are just objective facts. (Really, you would only be right if you said 'many', not 'most': American knowledge about science is actually greater than you might think. Details are here: [ What Americans Know About Science ] This survey contrasts Republicans' knowledge about science with Democrats' knowledge, 'extreme' partisans' knowledge (for both sides) with moderates' knowledge, whites' knowledge with other races. It's very interesting, although if you're on the Left and looking for your preconceptions about how stupid the Right is to be vindicated, you shouldn't look at it.)

But if we're talking about human consciousness, then it's exactly what we must do, i.e. to try to determine what someone really thinks/feels about, say, the American flag. It's not the sort of thing we're likely to be able to find objective evidence for, but I would assert that people who burn the flag are not protesting the particular current government in power, nor are they protesting particular clauses of the Constitution. Their hatred is for the whole American system -- which most of them couldn't analyze in any depth, their anarchism not being ideological, but personal.

And, to be fair, they're not all that different in this respect from many people on the Right, who don't have a thoroughly worked-out ideology. Their love of country (and therefore for its flag) is not based on some dispassionate analysis of America and its role in advancing human welfare, or otherwise ... it's not instrumental. They feel it's their country, period. Even if many of them have not, over the last few decades, had a very satisfactory time of it, as globalization destroys their livelihoods.

I should say that I am all for Leftists burning the flag at demonstrations. It's a powerful statement of their true goal.

 

[sartre play]

I would be surprised if it was right-wingers burning the flag in Colorado, although there are so many currents of thought within what is called 'the Right', including some which are clinically insane, that I wouldn't be extremely surprised. (I used to spend a lot of time on a couple of militia sites. Whereas the stereotype rightwinger 'backs the Blue', you would not infrequently come across people who were rightwing cop-haters. Probably because of a bad divorce and being forced to pay alimony. So it's possible to conceive of some of them -- like the 'Boogaloo Bois' -- who genuinely hate America, but with mainly rightwing instead of leftwing prejudices.)

As for the Confederate Flag. There are two types of white Southerner (of which I am one) who don't feel your sort of hostility to the Confederate Flag. (1) Most of us see the Civil War as a huge national tragedy -- those of us who know a bit about slavery and the world, know that it was brought on by the arrogance and stupidity of the Slavocracy, who could easily have negotiated a very lucrative buy-out, at taxpayers' expense, the way British slaveowners did.

Any thinking person by the middle of the 19th Century knew slavery was on the way out in the civilized world. But the South had such a strong position in Congress that the slave-owners thought they could defy history -- just like the French and Russian ruling classes did. And then a representative of this way of thinking went and assassinated Lincoln, who, rightly, would have been the best friend the defeated South had, being a truly great man.

Although it has probably died down a lot by now since when I lived in the South, there is a kind of sentimental class/regional feeling about the Confederate Flag. I believe there was a popular television show where the main characters, or some of them, had a giant Confederate battle flag painted on the roof of their car. ['Dukes of Hazzard' Car Banned Over Confederate Flag]

Of course now it's totally unPolitically Correct, but at the time, no one thought it meant being a white supremacist -- it was a general symbol of rebellion, against arrogant well-heeled educated Northern Yankees, although of course this attidude to this symbol, given its history, was restricted to whites.

Now, of course, the whole Confederacy thing allows liberals who vote to honor the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg to pretend to be patriots. It's ironic, because Southern whites used to volunteer for the military well out of proportion to their numbers. (Now, apparently, no one is volunteering for the military.)

(2) The second kind of Southerner who flies the Confederate battle flag is a white supremacist. Their main organization is here: [ https://leagueofthesouth.com ] They aren't openly white supremacists but no one should be fooled.

They would have some problems if they did manage to get independence, because today less than 60% of the South is white: a perfect figure for inter-ethnic civil war. [ https://statisticalatlas.com/region/South/Race-and-Ethnicity ] On the other hand, Blacks in the South -- in the sort of chaos that made Southern independence a practical possibility -- might want their own nation as well. This would require massive population transfers, a la Yugoslavia or the Raj (India/Pakistan), which are always bloody.

Some of these people pretend that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about tarrifs, and defend the South on the grounds of national self-determination, abstractly no bad thing. But in reality, if the South had gotten her independence, it would have set a precedent, and we would probably have ended up with four or five separate nations on the current territory of the US. We would have been all set to repeat Europe's national wars among ourselves, and would also have been unable to intervene in the world to stop Nazi-ism and Communism. So it's good that the North won. [Winston Churchill once wrote an essay on this subject, as an 'alernative history' in which the South gets its independence, and as a result, we don't have WWI. It's summarized here: [ Churchill’s Alternative History: Robert E. Lee’s Triumph at Gettysburg ]

And I suppose the people who show up with Confederate flags and other Confederate regalia at conservative demonstrations, embarrassing us, may include some wily false flag leftists -- doing the same to us as the open Communists who turn up at progressive demos with hammer-and-sickle flags do to liberals. But probably the great majority of both of them are working for free.

The thing that should interest political people is the question of the multi-national character of the US. Many people who are new Americans, or the descendants thereof, retain a dual national identity: they're Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans or Jewish-Americans (since the establishment of Israel gave them a state) or Mexican-Americans.

Some Southerners have same sort of dual identity: Americans, but also Southerners. (I leave out African-Americans from this list, as there are very few of them who actually identify with Africa, and for good reason. And for the same reason, when some Mexican-Americans became 'nationalists' in the 1970s, they had to invent a nation, 'Aztlan', because they were ashamed of Mexico.) This dual-identity tends to fade with each new generation.

As for 'most people' not 'having a clue about anything' and basing our beliefs about 'what is' -- you are right, if we're talking about something like the age of the earth, or the composition of brass. These are just objective facts. (Really, you would only be right if you said 'many', not 'most': American knowledge about science is actually greater than you might think. Details are here: [ What Americans Know About Science ] This survey contrasts Republicans' knowledge about science with Democrats' knowledge, 'extreme' partisans' knowledge (for both sides) with moderates' knowledge, whites' knowledge with other races. It's very interesting, although if you're on the Left and looking for your preconceptions about how stupid the Right is to be vindicated, you shouldn't look at it.)

But if we're talking about human consciousness, then it's exactly what we must do, i.e. to try to determine what someone really thinks/feels about, say, the American flag. It's not the sort of thing we're likely to be able to find objective evidence for, but I would assert that people who burn the flag are not protesting the particular current government in power, nor are they protesting particular clauses of the Constitution. Their hatred is for the whole American system -- which most of them couldn't analyze in any depth, their anarchism not being ideological, but personal.

And, to be fair, they're not all that different in this respect from many people on the Right, who don't have a thoroughly worked-out ideology. Their love of country (and therefore for its flag) is not based on some dispassionate analysis of America and its role in advancing human welfare, or otherwise ... it's not instrumental. They feel it's their country, period. Even if many of them have not, over the last few decades, had a very satisfactory time of it, as globalization destroys their livelihoods.

I should say that I am all for Leftists burning the flag at demonstrations. It's a powerful statement of their true goal.

Always thought it was mostly young people being rebels no matter what state they lived in?

 

[Laslow]

Would you prefer 'false narrative' rather than 'lie'? My side has been conditioned by the Russia Collusion, Hunter Biden laptop, and other things like that, to expect dishonesty from the other side.

It is a shame we can no longer talk to people we don't agree with. The one thing I think both sides can agree on is that our representatives support their own goals more than any idea of what is good for the country. So much propaganda and bull crap, it is disgusting. It is obvious there are no consequences for people in power, and I truly fear for the average person with no protection.

 

[mamooth]

Now, of course, the whole Confederacy thing allows liberals who vote to honor the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg to pretend to be patriots.

You're not accurately describing that. In 2015, the NYC council voted to honor her as a labor organizer, and they pointed out that she _wasn't_ a spy. I don't think they were right -- that is, she was a communist spy -- but the NYC city council at the time seemed to honestly not think that. They weren't communists, they were just wrong.

The bothsiderism thing is wrong because both sides don't act in an awful manner.

The leftists-acting-badly group doesn't exist in any significant way. Anarchists are not liberals. Actual communists don't exist in any significant numbers in the USA. Common criminals rioting for loot are not representatives of the left. Communists and anarchists are irrelevent to the politics of the Democrats, so it's not correct to try to paint liberals with a communist brush.

In contrast, radicals make up the majority of the Republican party, so it _is_ correct to paint the Republicans with a radical brush. Trying to end democracy and institute one-party rule is radical. Republicans are trying to do that by suppressing votes, gerrymandering, stacking courts, using both state-endorsed violence and brownshirt violence, and rigging election laws to create a permanent one-party state, and the majority of Republican voters approve. That makes Republicans radicals.

The two threats are not even close to being the same level, so bothersiderists can't be taken seriously.

 

[mamooth]

I'd classify it this way.

To liberals, there are good and bad actions.

To conservatives, there are good and bad people.

 

[Doug1943]

Always thought it was mostly young people being rebels no matter what state they lived in?

Possibly. Was the Confederate battle flag common in the North among young working class whites?

 

[Unkotare]

You're not accurately describing that. In 2015, the NYC council voted to honor her as a labor organizer, and they pointed out that she _wasn't_ a spy. I don't think they were right -- that is, she was a communist spy -- but the NYC city council at the time seemed to honestly not think that. They weren't communists, they were just wrong.

The bothsiderism thing is wrong because both sides don't act in an awful manner.

The leftists-acting-badly group doesn't exist in any significant way. Anarchists are not liberals. Actual communists don't exist in any significant numbers in the USA. Common criminals rioting for loot are not representatives of the left. Communists and anarchists are irrelevent to the politics of the Democrats, so it's not correct to try to paint liberals with a communist brush.

In contrast, radicals make up the majority of the Republican party, so it _is_ correct to paint the Republicans with a radical brush. Trying to end democracy and institute one-party rule is radical. Republicans are trying to do that by suppressing votes, gerrymandering, stacking courts, using both state-endorsed violence and brownshirt violence, and rigging election laws to create a permanent one-party state, and the majority of Republican voters approve. That makes Republicans radicals.

The two threats are not even close to being the same level, so bothersiderists can't be taken seriously.

Hyper-partisan nonsense. Not worthy of being taken seriously.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There ARE honest people on the Left

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Doug1943]

You're not accurately describing that. In 2015, the NYC council voted to honor her as a labor organizer, and they pointed out that she _wasn't_ a spy. I don't think they were right -- that is, she was a communist spy -- but the NYC city council at the time seemed to honestly not think that. They weren't communists, they were just wrong.

The bothsiderism thing is wrong because both sides don't act in an awful manner.

The leftists-acting-badly group doesn't exist in any significant way. Anarchists are not liberals. Actual communists don't exist in any significant numbers in the USA. Common criminals rioting for loot are not representatives of the left. Communists and anarchists are irrelevent to the politics of the Democrats, so it's not correct to try to paint liberals with a communist brush.

In contrast, radicals make up the majority of the Republican party, so it _is_ correct to paint the Republicans with a radical brush. Trying to end democracy and institute one-party rule is radical. Republicans are trying to do that by suppressing votes, gerrymandering, stacking courts, using both state-endorsed violence and brownshirt violence, and rigging election laws to create a permanent one-party state, and the majority of Republican voters approve. That makes Republicans radicals.

The two threats are not even close to being the same level, so bothersiderists can't be taken seriously.

There were many labor organizers in the 1930s. Why did they pick Ethel Rosenberg to honor? (In 1934, probably the year the US came closest to revolution -- not very close, just closer than it has ever been -- there were three city-wide general strikes in America: in San Francisco, in Minneapolis, and in Toledo. All three were led by communist parties, three different ones: the San Francisco one by the 'official' Communists; the Minneapolis one by Trotskyists; and the Toledo one by an eclectic communist group which merged with the Trotskyists a bit later. [More about the interesting fellow who led that group here: A. J. Muste - Wikipedia ]. There were thousands of people who could have been honored. But the NY City Council picked Ethel Rosenberg.

Of course Ethel Rosenberg was a spy, and by 2015 anyone who wanted to know, knew it. From the Wikipedia article on the Rosenbergs:
For decades, many people, including the Rosenbergs' sons (Michael and Robert Meeropol), maintained that Julius and Ethel were innocent of spying on their country and were victims of Cold War paranoia. When the U.S. government declassified information about them after the fall of the Soviet Union, the declassified information appeared to have included a trove of decoded Soviet cables (code-name: Venona), which detailed Julius's role as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, and information about Ethel's role as an accessory who helped recruit her brother David into the spy ring and did clerical tasks such as typing up documents that Julius then passed to the Soviets.
[ Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia ]

By the way, I have a different attitude to Communists who were spies, than to spies who do it for money, like Robert Hanssen [Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia]. The former were idealists, albeit ones whose idealism had been horribly distorted by the Stalinist regime, which turned them into apologists for totalitarianism. Nonetheless, they did what they did because they believed it would lead to a better world. So I would not have voted to execute the Rosenbergs. (In addition, it was a propaganda victory for the Communists. "Worse than a crime, it was a blunder," as the old cynic Talleyrand said about Napoleon's assassination of a political enemy.)

As for which side, Left or Right, is the greater danger to American democracy. There is certainly potential on the Right to go down a very bad path. It is a historic accident that Trump, rather than someone else of better intelligence and character, broke the mold of the Republican Party. His main saving grace in this respect is that he doesn't have the mental capacity to plot the destruction of the Republic.

On your side, we see the resort to violence now becoming commonplace among young Leftists. I will grant that the nihilistic 'anarchists'of AntiFa (and the looters during the riots) do not represent mainstream American progressivism.
Although, every progressive publication I know of -- from the Nation magazine, to New Republic, even to Teen Vogue -- carries sympathetic articles on AntiFa. None of them criticize their violence against my side, which has included cold-blooded murder.

But the college kids who now routinely break up conservative meetings on campus do represent your side -- or will within a few years.

And we see mainstream American progressivism (I used this word to distinguish them from old-fashioned liberals who still believe in free speech) now adopting 'hate America' ideology, like Critical Race Theory.

And the real difference is this: my side is the bottom half of society. Your side has most of the 'intelligentsia', to borrow a word from Europe: the college-educated, who became and are becoming the teachers, lawyers, journalists, corporate HR managers, etc. (The people who have done well and are doing well out of globalization.)

It's a 'new class war' to borrow the title of an old-fashioned Leftist's book. [ Michael Lind - The New Class War - https:// amazon.com/New-Class-War-Democracy-Metropolitan/dp/1786499576 ]

My side may, in many cases, have a shaky grasp of the importance of the Rule of Law, Freedom of Speech, etc ... I'm quite aware of this. But they're not the ones running Hollywood (from where most Americans get what they know about the world), being teachers or professors, running the mainstream media.

And the illiberal -- in the original sense of the word -- reactions from people on my side are just that: reactions.
Reactions to things like this: [ Mayor Suspends Pledge of Allegiance at Town Meetings Over 'Direct Threats' ]

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would be surprised if it was right-wingers burning the flag in Colorado, although there are so many currents of thought within what is called 'the Right', including some which are clinically insane, that I wouldn't be extremely surprised. (I used to spend a lot of time on a couple of militia sites. Whereas the stereotype rightwinger 'backs the Blue', you would not infrequently come across people who were rightwing cop-haters. Probably because of a bad divorce and being forced to pay alimony. So it's possible to conceive of some of them -- like the 'Boogaloo Bois' -- who genuinely hate America, but with mainly rightwing instead of leftwing prejudices.)

As for the Confederate Flag. There are two types of white Southerner (of which I am one) who don't feel your sort of hostility to the Confederate Flag. (1) Most of us see the Civil War as a huge national tragedy -- those of us who know a bit about slavery and the world, know that it was brought on by the arrogance and stupidity of the Slavocracy, who could easily have negotiated a very lucrative buy-out, at taxpayers' expense, the way British slaveowners did.

Any thinking person by the middle of the 19th Century knew slavery was on the way out in the civilized world. But the South had such a strong position in Congress that the slave-owners thought they could defy history -- just like the French and Russian ruling classes did. And then a representative of this way of thinking went and assassinated Lincoln, who, rightly, would have been the best friend the defeated South had, being a truly great man.

Although it has probably died down a lot by now since when I lived in the South, there is a kind of sentimental class/regional feeling about the Confederate Flag. I believe there was a popular television show where the main characters, or some of them, had a giant Confederate battle flag painted on the roof of their car. ['Dukes of Hazzard' Car Banned Over Confederate Flag]

Of course now it's totally unPolitically Correct, but at the time, no one thought it meant being a white supremacist -- it was a general symbol of rebellion, against arrogant well-heeled educated Northern Yankees, although of course this attidude to this symbol, given its history, was restricted to whites.

Now, of course, the whole Confederacy thing allows liberals who vote to honor the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg to pretend to be patriots. It's ironic, because Southern whites used to volunteer for the military well out of proportion to their numbers. (Now, apparently, no one is volunteering for the military.)

(2) The second kind of Southerner who flies the Confederate battle flag is a white supremacist. Their main organization is here: [ https://leagueofthesouth.com ] They aren't openly white supremacists but no one should be fooled.

They would have some problems if they did manage to get independence, because today less than 60% of the South is white: a perfect figure for inter-ethnic civil war. [ https://statisticalatlas.com/region/South/Race-and-Ethnicity ] On the other hand, Blacks in the South -- in the sort of chaos that made Southern independence a practical possibility -- might want their own nation as well. This would require massive population transfers, a la Yugoslavia or the Raj (India/Pakistan), which are always bloody.

Some of these people pretend that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about tarrifs, and defend the South on the grounds of national self-determination, abstractly no bad thing. But in reality, if the South had gotten her independence, it would have set a precedent, and we would probably have ended up with four or five separate nations on the current territory of the US. We would have been all set to repeat Europe's national wars among ourselves, and would also have been unable to intervene in the world to stop Nazi-ism and Communism. So it's good that the North won. [Winston Churchill once wrote an essay on this subject, as an 'alernative history' in which the South gets its independence, and as a result, we don't have WWI. It's summarized here: [ Churchill’s Alternative History: Robert E. Lee’s Triumph at Gettysburg ]

And I suppose the people who show up with Confederate flags and other Confederate regalia at conservative demonstrations, embarrassing us, may include some wily false flag leftists -- doing the same to us as the open Communists who turn up at progressive demos with hammer-and-sickle flags do to liberals. But probably the great majority of both of them are working for free.

The thing that should interest political people is the question of the multi-national character of the US. Many people who are new Americans, or the descendants thereof, retain a dual national identity: they're Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans or Jewish-Americans (since the establishment of Israel gave them a state) or Mexican-Americans.

Some Southerners have same sort of dual identity: Americans, but also Southerners. (I leave out African-Americans from this list, as there are very few of them who actually identify with Africa, and for good reason. And for the same reason, when some Mexican-Americans became 'nationalists' in the 1970s, they had to invent a nation, 'Aztlan', because they were ashamed of Mexico.) This dual-identity tends to fade with each new generation.

As for 'most people' not 'having a clue about anything' and basing our beliefs about 'what is' -- you are right, if we're talking about something like the age of the earth, or the composition of brass. These are just objective facts. (Really, you would only be right if you said 'many', not 'most': American knowledge about science is actually greater than you might think. Details are here: [ What Americans Know About Science ] This survey contrasts Republicans' knowledge about science with Democrats' knowledge, 'extreme' partisans' knowledge (for both sides) with moderates' knowledge, whites' knowledge with other races. It's very interesting, although if you're on the Left and looking for your preconceptions about how stupid the Right is to be vindicated, you shouldn't look at it.)

But if we're talking about human consciousness, then it's exactly what we must do, i.e. to try to determine what someone really thinks/feels about, say, the American flag. It's not the sort of thing we're likely to be able to find objective evidence for, but I would assert that people who burn the flag are not protesting the particular current government in power, nor are they protesting particular clauses of the Constitution. Their hatred is for the whole American system -- which most of them couldn't analyze in any depth, their anarchism not being ideological, but personal.

And, to be fair, they're not all that different in this respect from many people on the Right, who don't have a thoroughly worked-out ideology. Their love of country (and therefore for its flag) is not based on some dispassionate analysis of America and its role in advancing human welfare, or otherwise ... it's not instrumental. They feel it's their country, period. Even if many of them have not, over the last few decades, had a very satisfactory time of it, as globalization destroys their livelihoods.

I should say that I am all for Leftists burning the flag at demonstrations. It's a powerful statement of their true goal.

I'm sure there are Communists who burn the flag because they want one nation under Communism. And others who burn it to protest inequality in the US.
There will always be lots of views on things.

However when a group take something over, especially divisive groups like white supremacists, that symbol suddenly becomes unpalatable for the rest of society.
Look at the word "Fuehrer" in Germany, they can't use it any more, it has too many conotations.

Language changes like this all the time. Culture changes like this all the time.

 

[leftwinger]

It is a shame we can no longer talk to people we don't agree with. The one thing I think both sides can agree on is that our representatives support their own goals more than any idea of what is good for the country. So much propaganda and bull crap, it is disgusting. It is obvious there are no consequences for people in power, and I truly fear for the average person with no protection.

"they" appluad things like pelosi ripping up the SOTU speech, two teired one way justice. "They" attacked Trump 2015-xxxx, now under BS criminal charges.

This small sample yet you want all to now "play nice"? Are you on LSD? You don't let a Mountan Lion play in the backyard with your Children? "They" launched a man-made virus? "They" would kill 89% if it would benefit them. "They" started a $32T war back to code Stink.

 

[Doug1943]

I'm sure there are Communists who burn the flag because they want one nation under Communism. And others who burn it to protest inequality in the US.
There will always be lots of views on things.

However when a group take something over, especially divisive groups like white supremacists, that symbol suddenly becomes unpalatable for the rest of society.
Look at the word "Fuehrer" in Germany, they can't use it any more, it has too many conotations.

Language changes like this all the time. Culture changes like this all the time.

Of course, symbols have no intrinsic meaning ... we give them meaning, and thus that meaning can change. My favorite example is the Swastika, which for many centuries was an Eastern symbol of, roughly, prosperity. Hitler gave it a new meaning. (There is a pre-Hitler swastika on the floor of a London subway station: [ London Underground station that has a massive 'swastika' built into the floor ]

Sure, white supremacists -- even Southern ones -- love to wave the flag. They're trying to push patriotism into (white) nationalism. Let's not surrender the flag to them. And the outright Nazis among them should be reminded that it was the American flag (with others) that was flying over the gallows where their leaders (not enough of them) were hung after WWII.

 

[Laslow]

"they" appluad things like pelosi ripping up the SOTU speech, two teired one way justice. "They" attacked Trump 2015-xxxx, now under BS criminal charges.

This small sample yet you want all to now "play nice"? Are you on LSD? You don't let a Mountan Lion play in the backyard with your Children? "They" launched a man-made virus? "They" would kill 89% if it would benefit them. "They" started a $32T war back to code Stink.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying both sides are the same, or that the democrat party hasn't been taken over by awful people. Republicans, while useless and not overly concerned with Americans, they have not gone off the deep end. When I say it would be nice to talk to people who don't agree, I'm not talking about people who want to hurt kids or sick the government on political enemies. I'm talking about policy stuff like tax rates, foreign affairs, trade, ect. I'm glad pknopp and Doug1943 actually talked to each other instead of calling each other names. That is the way it should be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course, symbols have no intrinsic meaning ... we give them meaning, and thus that meaning can change. My favorite example is the Swastika, which for many centuries was an Eastern symbol of, roughly, prosperity. Hitler gave it a new meaning. (There is a pre-Hitler swastika on the floor of a London subway station: [ London Underground station that has a massive 'swastika' built into the floor ]

Sure, white supremacists -- even Southern ones -- love to wave the flag. They're trying to push patriotism into (white) nationalism. Let's not surrender the flag to them. And the outright Nazis among them should be reminded that it was the American flag (with others) that was flying over the gallows where their leaders (not enough of them) were hung after WWII.

The problem with the Confederate flags is they're already on the wrong side of the road. You can't wave that flag one day and then shout "U-S-A" the next, the Confederate flags are symbols of separating from the US, of killing US soldiers.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

lol

Another leftard moron.

Sigh.

Another magaturd.

 

[Doug1943]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying both sides are the same, or that the democrat party hasn't been taken over by awful people. Republicans, while useless and not overly concerned with Americans, they have not gone off the deep end. When I say it would be nice to talk to people who don't agree, I'm not talking about people who want to hurt kids or sick the government on political enemies. I'm talking about policy stuff like tax rates, foreign affairs, trade, ect. I'm glad pknopp and Doug1943 actually talked to each other instead of calling each other names. That is the way it should be.

Exactly! PKnopp either hopes to convert me to his side, or at least to weaken my belief in my own side -- he's not a softy, he's a political fighter. Perhaps he also hopes to convince people who read these threads and who are bored by childish insults, but want to read the back-and-forth argument of committed people who have something to say. Just like me.

Hollywood has conditioned us to think in terms of Pure Good people, and Pure Evil people. It's not a dastardly plot, it's just entertainment -- it's what bards were doing before Gilgamesh -- usually with a single powerful Hero to rescue the Good People. It's what sells.

What kids see on a screen -- in color, with pretty girls and handsome men! car chases! guns! -- makes a hundred times more impression on them than what some teacher can tell them in a classroom, assuming that they even learn about the complexity of society in classrooms nowadays. (We didn't when I was a kid either.)

I should say that this has changed a bit over the years, though. There are some really excellent movies and TV series -- Like Clint Eastwood's Flags of our Fathers, and Letters from Iwo Jima.
[ Flags of Our Fathers (film) - Wikipedia
Letters from Iwo Jima - Wikipedia ]

and the Sopranos TV series and Better Call Saul sequels.

But we're in a cold civil war, and in wars, it's inevitable that the enemy will be demonized. (And, to give the Leftist Demon his due, it's the rational kernal of the Left's objection to patriotism.)

 

[Mac-7]

It's important for patriots to realize that the Left is not monolithic. There are free thinkers there, classical liberals (not in the free market sense, but in the 1960s sense, ie pro-free speech), Leftists who have not been pulled into the neo-con corporate globalist orbit. All human life is there.
One such person is Naomi Wolf, who was a leading feminist theorist, an advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore ... certainly an enemy of the Right. But ... she is a deeply honest person, with a strong sense of personal morality, and the courage to defy the popular opinion of her friends. Her Wiki bio is here -- her enemies have dredged up every bit of negative trivia they can find, but who she is comes through very clear: [ Naomi Wolf - Wikipedia ]

She bought into the Jan 6 narrative at first. But then
... read her story here. I've excerpted the first few paragraphs: The comments are also interesting.
[ Dear Conservatives, I Apologize ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Conservatives, I Apologize
My "Team" was Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda
Dr Naomi Wolf
Mar 9
There is no way to avoid this moment. The formal letter of apology. From me. To Conservatives and to those who “put America first” everywhere.

It’s tempting to sweep this confrontation with my own gullibility under the rug — to “move on” without ever acknowledging that I was duped, and that as a result I made mistakes in judgement, and that these mistakes, multiplied by the tens of thousands and millions on the part of people just like me, hurt millions of other people like you all, in existential ways.

But that erasure of personal and public history would be wrong.

I owe you a full-throated apology.

I believed a farrago of lies. And, as a result of these lies, and my credulity — and the credulity of people similarly situated to me - many conservatives’ reputations are being tarnished, on false bases.

The proximate cause of this letter of apology is the airing, two nights ago, of excepts from tens of thousands of hours of security camera footage from the United States Capitol taken on Jan 6, 2021. ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her whole essay is well worth reading: she goes into the history of protest a the Capitol ... it's very interesting!

[ Dear Conservatives, I Apologize ]

Sorry, but Naomi Wolf is nothing but a curiosity

I applaud her honesty even if it does not make up for all the lies coming from the left