Across the pond

Posted by: webroach

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 05:30

Quote:
Quote:
Once again, the comments made by my countrymen make me ashamed to be American. At least I can take solace in the fact that I have nearly nothing in common with most of them.

Right, because you are so OBVIOUSLY better than those people who responded.

Actually, no. I just don't share most American's taste for childish attacks towards people that don't fit nicely into their ethnocentric worldview.

Quote:
Take any cross-section of any society and you will get comments with just as varying amounts of wisdom/eloquence. Being dumb, ignorant, racist or imperialistic is not the sole realm of Americans.

You're correct. But Americans sure can corner the market on taking belligerent pride in being all those things, can't they?

Quote:
Accept the fact that you live in a society that is free to express their opinion, if you agree with it or not.

Hrm... I think I made reference to the "comments of my countrymen", not their right to make said comments. I agree 100% with the right to express one's opinion. I, however, think that with that right comes a modicum of responsibility.

Quote:
You do not know the content of the e-mail that was sent to those people.

Nor do you...

Quote:
As I understand it, the e-mail content sent to a person from Clark county (45 minutes from my house, and where my wife graduated from college) was left up to the individual who requested an e-mail address from the Guardian's webpage. I would imagine some letters sent could have been just as nasty.

You should have spent more time reading the article that you did getting mad at my comment.

The only email came from Americans. The Guardian set up a program where Brits could sign up to get the "name and address" of a Clark county voter. They could then send a snail mail letter to the voter in question. I find nothing in any of the responses from Americans shown on the Guardian website that even hint at the possibility that anyone has even received a letter from a Brit yet.

Quote:
I think the vast majority of people who recieved e-mails from across the pond either a) ignored them, b) politely declined the advice given (this is what I would do), or c) the e-mail was caught in their spam filter and deleted. The people who responded with offensive comments are going to be the loudmouth redneck types who are not representative of Americans as a whole.

I think we've already covered the whole "email" issue. If nothing else, one should question how the Guardian would have gotten the email address for all registered voters in Clark county.

And, sadly, I do think that the loudmouth redneck is somewhat representative of America's global image. Are all Americans like that? Of course not. Are many? Yes. Even our president puts forth the "good ol' boy" image.

Quote:
Which ones do you think the Guardian would have printed?

Was this a rhetorical question? Of course they're going to print the ones that make it seem that they're correct in their views. Just as the American media spins everything to be positive for the US, or at least as positive as possible.

Quote:
This letter is not exactly a polite request, it is more: "Your administration sucks, here's how to vote in November".

Actually, your paraphrase sounds more like most of the emails the Guardian received. The letter you link to, while definitly biased, is at least coherent, not ALL IN CAPS, and uses proper grammar. Is it a bit preachy? You bet. But at least it's thoughtfully written.

Quote:
Americans, above all, hate being told what to do or how to think. This is especially true when it comes to politics.

I have to disagree. I think most people in America love to be told how to think. Especially when it comes to politics. I don't know about you, but I've been assaulted by political ads on TV telling me how to think for the past couple of months.

Quote:
We in the US at least are able to respect others who do not share the same views as we do. I get the feeling that this is not true in other countries.

Sadly, you're right. The poor girl had to lie so she wouldn't be hassled. I can only speak for myself, but I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who not only is proud of being partisan to the bone, but doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what she believes in. Not to mention how reassuring it is to have her point out that it's ok to lie in politics. Do I think we can ever get rid of lies in politics? No. But it's a sad state of affairs when we just accept it out of habit.

Posted by: frog51

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 06:47

To be fair, there are an awful lot of Americans, so 11000 emails is not a huge percentage. There will always be some rabid nutters anywhere - and this little spoof definitely drew some out.

I have to say, though, that all the Americans I have met over here seem to share the same dismay that those of their contrymen who have never left the US to see the rest of the world do misunderstand the world's opinion of the US in a big way.

I can see why - in the US you can travel 3000 miles and still be in the same country, so it may seem that nothing else is important. In Europe you could visit pretty much every country in the same distance (ish - I haven't really calculated this one) so you are made very aware of the multitude of different viewpoints, languages etc.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:17

Ahem.. coming from a somewhat larger country, I'm not sure that semi-vast distances explain much here..

EDIT:

It is more just the sheer isolated nature of the USA. The country borders on conquered Mexico to the south, and Canada to the north. And since the USA has considerably more soldiers and equipment than either of their neighbours, they generally just get to play bully in the sandbox, without worrying what anyone else thinks or cares. All of the countries populated enough to shove back are simply far enough away not to matter to them.

Cheer

Posted by: frog51

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:30

Nice description

I by no means meant to include Canada, Greenland, Russia and...erm...other really big chunks of land in my previous sweeping statement.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:34

Quote:
they generally just get to play bully in the sandbox

Or should that instead be, elephant in a china shop? Mmm.. that's a different way of looking at it, and might fit equally well..

Posted by: pca

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:40

Possibly tapdancing rhino in a minefield? Sooner or later you just know a foot is going to be blown off

pca

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:57

Here is my point: I believe most people who live in the US are able to think for themselves, concerned about politics and concerned about world affairs (albeit with a bias toward world affairs that affect the US). This majority is the non-vocal majority, those who go about their daily business in Small Town, USA without posting on Internet message boards, responding to Guardian articles or doing TV interviews.

The minority of loudmouth right or left wingers give the world a view of the US that I feel is inaccurate.

You say you are ashamed to be an American. I am proud to be an American because of that non-vocal majority of sane, level-headed people that to many people's eyes are invisible. I see those people more often in my town than right or left wing wackos.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 12:02

Quote:
Quote:
We in the US at least are able to respect others who do not share the same views as we do.

And taking a moment to meta-comment, that's a load of crap. I've seen and heard of more removed or defaced Kerry signs than Bush signs, but also a non-zero number of Bush signs. Would someone who agreed deface or remove them? Is that mature, respectful behavior?

You are trying to refute my comment by giving an example of vandalism? Come up with something better than that.

Posted by: Daria

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:19

Quote:
Here is my point: I believe most people who live in the US are able to think for themselves, concerned about politics and concerned about world affairs (albeit with a bias toward world affairs that affect the US).

Many (not most) with a considerable bias toward that, in some cases overtly so.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not drawing the conclusion that Americans are better or worse than anyone else in particular; I don't know. I'm just telling you what I see.

Quote:

You say you are ashamed to be an American. I am proud to be an American because of that non-vocal majority of sane, level-headed people that to many people's eyes are invisible. I see those people more often in my town than right or left wing wackos.

Try working at a college, in a neighborhood with another college nearby. All sorts of nuts, on all sides of the issues. Maybe I *am* jaded, but I didn't get this way because I was bored.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:33

Quote:
Why? There are other nearby signs which are not vandalized, it's clearly targeted vandalism.

My original point was that people in the US tend to respect opinions that are different. You called this a load of crap, and cited an example of vandalism (something that your average "people in the US" would not do). How does your example of vandalism, something that is not performed by the majority of people in the US, back up your statement that people in the US do not respect other viewpoints?

Posted by: Daria

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:59

Quote:
Quote:
Why? There are other nearby signs which are not vandalized, it's clearly targeted vandalism.

My original point was that people in the US tend to respect opinions that are different. You called this a load of crap, and cited an example of vandalism (something that your average "people in the US" would not do). How does your example of vandalism, something that is not performed by the majority of people in the US, back up your statement that people in the US do not respect other viewpoints?

You added majority in the lower sentence, it wasn't present in the upper one. If you want to phrase it that way, it proves nothing, but that's not what you said before.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 00:36

Quote:
My original point was that people in the US tend to respect opinions that are different. You called this a load of crap.....

Uh...it IS a load of crap. Don't get me wrong Mark. I know there are a lot of good people out there. But how can you say Americans respect opinions that are different from their own?

I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you? Sure, there are some, and in a large country like the US, "some" adds up to quite a few people. But still, are we respecting that opinion?

I sure didn't see anyone respecting the opinions of the Guardian readers or staff, either.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 10:55

Quote:
Quote:
My original point was that people in the US tend to respect opinions that are different. You called this a load of crap.....

Uh...it IS a load of crap. Don't get me wrong Mark. I know there are a lot of good people out there. But how can you say Americans respect opinions that are different from their own?

Different point of view, I guess. I do not agree with you on this point, but...

I still respect your opinion.

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 11:00

Now, if this were an episode of Star Trek (original series), this logic loop would destroy whatever entity was trying to analyze it, allowing the Enterprise to escape unharmed in the last five minutes of the show...

Posted by: frog51

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 11:11

Sadly without the attractive alien love interest who got stuck in the logic loop, leaving poor Kirk alone once again...

Posted by: Daria

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 14:07

Khaaaaaannnn!

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 15:11

Quote:
But I do have to point out that you ignored / chose not to quote the part of my post that gave my example of one way Americans do not respect the opinions of others.

I find that sort of interesting.

I think he was trying to drop the discussion in a graceful way. But if you insist on talking about your specic examples:

Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you? Sure, there are some, and in a large country like the US, "some" adds up to quite a few people. But still, are we respecting that opinion?

Gay marriage is a far murkier subject than simply respecting opinions. You can't make a legal statement one way or the other without stepping on someone's opinion. But the important thing is that respecting another's option doesn't mean agreeing with it, it means seperating people from their views and recognizing that however much you might dissagree with somone else, you never have a right to be abusive or denegrade them. Saying "I don't think gays should marry" is not intolerant or disrespectful. You can disagree with the statement, challenge it's validity, or even believe it to be backward and of 0 value, but in the end it's a point of view and the person stating it has every right to do so, despite it's validity. Or put another way, if everyone agreed on the issue of gay marriage, what difference would anyone be tolerating or respecting? The fact is that gay people get married every day and their right to do so is respected. Pastors stand up in church every week (somewhere I'm sure) and say that it's wrong, and their right to do so is respected. Whether the law should recognize the former officially is about determining what marriage is in the legal sense and why it's important to the government. I repeat: this is far more complicated than simply respecting opinions.

Quote:
I sure didn't see anyone respecting the opinions of the Guardian readers or staff, either.

Of all the people who have read the Guardian, how many have you heard from? Yes many of the printed letters were disrespectful, but it is likely only a VERY small subset even made their opinions known and even a smaller number were printed publically. I'm sure there were TONS of people who thought the Guardian was out of line who respectfully didn't air their views. There were probably even some who wrote in to say they thought it was a bad idea without denegrading the Guardian or it's staff.

I'm not arguing for or against whether Americans respect others in general, but I do think your examples fall short of proving your point. Respect is not about agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit, it is about the way you treat others when you disagree.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 15:14

Quote:
I appreciate that, Mark. But I do have to point out that you ignored / chose not to quote the part of my post that gave my example of one way Americans do not respect the opinions of others.

I find that sort of interesting.

I did not want this thread to turn into a gay marriage debate, that's all. If we can keep it on-topic (Americans respecting the opinions of others), we can continue. Here is your quote:

Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you? Sure, there are some, and in a large country like the US, "some" adds up to quite a few people. But still, are we respecting that opinion?

The argument of Americans who are against "gay marriage" is simply one of language. They believe that the term "marriage" is reserved for a male-female relationship. As much as they respect the right of people to have same-sex unions, they would like to have their interpretation of the word "marriage" honored also. The majority of Americans are not against same-sex unions. They are not against people who are gay. They are against someone calling a union between two people of the same sex "marriage".

Americans who wish to call a same-sex union "marriage" are asking our government to make this law. Americans who wish to retain the word "marriage" for a man and a woman are also asking the same thing. Eventually our country will have to decide one way or another, but this does not mean that either party cannot understand (and respect the opinion of) the other side's viewpoint. You could call it a polite disagreement. When this happens in America, we all orderly file to the voting booths and let our opinion be heard.

Take your average American gay couple, pair them with your average American straight couple, and send them out to dinner to have a discussion. If they disagree on this issue, most of the time this would result in both couples saying: "They were pleasant, I just did not agree with their viewpoints". I say rarely would you have a fistfight or loud argument. This is the type of "respect my opinion" that I am talking about.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:29

Quote:
I say rarely would you have a fistfight or loud argument. This is the type of "respect my opinion" that I am talking about.

Ahhh...now I understand.

If your idea of respect is the lack of physical violence or loud arguing, then I concede. Many Americans are capable of not beating people up or screaming at them while disagreeing.

We have soldiers for that part. Oh, and politicians.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:48

Quote:
If your idea of respect is the lack of physical violence or loud arguing, then I concede. Many Americans are capable of not beating people up or screaming at them while disagreeing.

Not just beating them up or screaming at them, but politely disagreeing while still recognizing their value as a person/citizen. It is about having the freedom to be in the minority of people who believe what you do without fear of reprisal. Also, not acting like this:

"A waiter,'' she wrote, "looked as if he was going to spit in my pizza. A man in the dining hall asked me what the pin said, twice, and then walked away. I felt like dirt. I felt worse than dirt.''

Quote from this article which I referenced in my original statement.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:54

Quote:
Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you? Sure, there are some, and in a large country like the US, "some" adds up to quite a few people. But still, are we respecting that opinion?

Gay marriage is a far murkier subject than simply respecting opinions. You can't make a legal statement one way or the other without stepping on someone's opinion. But the important thing is that respecting another's option doesn't mean agreeing with it, it means seperating people from their views and recognizing that however much you might dissagree with somone else, you never have a right to be abusive or denegrade them. Saying "I don't think gays should marry" is not intolerant or disrespectful. You can disagree with the statement, challenge it's validity, or even believe it to be backward and of 0 value, but in the end it's a point of view and the person stating it has every right to do so, despite it's validity. Or put another way, if everyone agreed on the issue of gay marriage, what difference would anyone be tolerating or respecting?

I agree with you when you say everyone has a right to disagree with opinions and views. But what you a conveniently ignoring here is that people are not saying "gays should not marry". People are saying "gays will NOT marry. And if they do, we'll nullify it. Oh, and we want to make a law saying they can't be married in the future." And that is the sort of respect (or lack thereof) that I'm talking about. You may think it's a show of respect to say "I respect the fact that gays want to get married" as you cast your vote to ban them from doing so. I think it is, at best, lip service and at worst hipocrisy. Of course, I say that as a hypothetical; I have no idea how you personally would vote on such a measure, nor whether you would say that while doing so.

I didn't intend to make this a gay marriage thread, but it happens to be a very good example in current events of what I'm talking about.

Quote:
The fact is that gay people get married every day and their right to do so is respected. Pastors stand up in church every week (somewhere I'm sure) and say that it's wrong, and their right to do so is respected.

So exactly where is the US are gay couples getting married every day? And where is their right to do so respected?

Quote:
Whether the law should recognize the former officially is about determining what marriage is in the legal sense and why it's important to the government. I repeat: this is far more complicated than simply respecting opinions.

As much as I'm sure many Christians think they invented marriage, thay did not. So they need to back off and realize that marriage is between the individuals involved, not the individuals involved and the government. Maybe the church could go spend a few dollars on an anthropology book and "get their learn on"?

Quote:
I'm not arguing for or against whether Americans respect others in general, but I do think your examples fall short of proving your point. Respect is not about agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit, it is about the way you treat others when you disagree.

When did I ever say respect meant "agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit"? You'll have trouble finding it, because I never said that. I think, in fact, that I made the point that what bothered me was the rude nature of the comments made.

Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said. I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing. What I disagree with, and the sort of behavior that makes me feel ashamed, is that people seem to be unable (for the most part) to do so without ending with a comment like "And by the way, brush your fscking teeth you limey bastards".

I don't mean to come off all snotty, but it's getting pretty old having to re-explain what I've already said in fairly plain language.

Posted by: cushman

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 17:24

Quote:
Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said.

I both read the posts I am replying to, and try to reply with the original post in mind.

Quote:
I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing. What I disagree with, and the sort of behavior that makes me feel ashamed, is that people seem to be unable (for the most part) to do so without ending with a comment like "And by the way, brush your fscking teeth you limey bastards".

Here is your original quote (2nd post in this thread):

Quote:
Once again, the comments made by my countrymen make me ashamed to be American.

This is why I responded with this comment (directly below your post):

Quote:
I think the vast majority of people who recieved e-mails from across the pond either a) ignored them, b) politely declined the advice given (this is what I would do), or c) the e-mail was caught in their spam filter and deleted. The people who responded with offensive comments are going to be the loudmouth redneck types who are not representative of Americans as a whole.

My point: Being ashamed to be an American because of those comments published insults the majority of Americans (like myself) who would not make such comments (and indeed, look down on those who do). I may be embarassed that someone from the same country as myself could say such things, but I am never ashamed to be an American.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Across the pond - 22/10/2004 00:20

Quote:
Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said.

Honestly, this was a very frustrating remark for me, and initially I was going to stop this conversation altogether. Maybe I should. However, due to my stubborn nature, I at least want to clarify the points I was trying to make. I did a poor job, perhaps, but I definitely have read your post and put a great deal of thought into my response. I am disappointed you could not tell that.

Quote:
. I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing.

Ok, I didn’t argue or mean to imply that you did. What I did mean to say is that the statements you made

Quote:
I just don't share most American's taste for childish attacks towards people that don't fit nicely into their ethnocentric worldview.

and

Quote:
But how can you say Americans respect opinions that are different from their own?

are not supported by the statement

Quote:
I sure didn't see anyone respecting the opinions of the Guardian readers or staff, either.

Because the responses in the Guardian are the “squeaky wheels”, you cannot say that that is evidence that “most” Americans don’t respect others. That is analogous to saying that most people in the US hate black people because we have some still active in the KKK. Clearly the KKK does not represent the typical mindset of most Americans. Regarding the statement

Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you?

I was trying to make the point that gay people do get married. Perhaps there aren’t any churches in your area that perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but I certainly know of some. I also know people who are very clear in their opinions on both sides of this. But I assume you’re not talking about opinion as much as your are the state recognition of these marriages and granting certain rights based on them. As I said, this is a far more complicated issue and to say that the state should not grant this status to gay couples is not the same as saying that their opinions are not being respected. As I’ve stated before, I’d be in favor of the Government getting out of the marriage business altogether and not granting legal status to anyone on the basis of marriage. I am not for “Gay Marriage” in the legal sense, nor am I for “Heterosexual Marriage” in the legal sense. Since this is an unrealistic solution, however, I’m willing to concede to Civil Unions as an imperfect solution to an impossible solution. I know you don’t agree with me, but I’m not trying to justify my position; I’m trying to show this is a complicated matter far beyond simply respecting someone else’s opinion. Truth be told, I DO think marriage is meant to be between one woman and one man for one lifetime, but I’m not going to treat a fellow human like dirt because he/she is involved in a gay marriage. I’m going to respect their decisions which I don’t agree with.

Quote:
When did I ever say respect meant "agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit"? You'll have trouble finding it, because I never said that.

No, you didn’t. I sort of got off on a tangent trying to make my point. It happens to the best of us.

Across the pond

Across the pond - 19/10/2004 10:57

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 12:16

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 12:46

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 12:48

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 13:17

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 13:43

Re: Across the pond - 19/10/2004 13:55

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 05:30

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 05:49

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 06:02

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 06:32

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 06:47

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:17

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:30

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:34

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:40

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 11:57

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 12:02

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:16

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:19

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:33

Re: Across the pond - 20/10/2004 16:59

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 00:36

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 10:55

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 11:00

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 11:11

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 14:07

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 14:22

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 15:11

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 15:14

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:29

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:48

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 16:54

Re: Across the pond - 21/10/2004 17:24

Re: Across the pond - 22/10/2004 00:20