World's biggest hotel to open in Mecca, ISIS style

[Broomstick]

You guys voted in your president. You guys take ownership of your leaders' problems. Don't pretend you have no ownership of anything. The next time some big terrorist attack happens, you can only blame yourselves for the latest fiasco.

So let me get this straight:

Your argument is that citizens in a democracy are liable to be criticized personally for decisions they opposed. And that they have no grounds to complain about negative consequences they predicted stemming from actions they opposed.

To me, that sounds incredibly stupid. It sounds less like a logical basis for apportioning blame, and more like you trying to come up with a weak justification for your desire to vent your spleen in the general direction of the only Americans handy.

Yes, god forbid he distinguish the individual from the collective... Judging the individual by membership of a group they were born into is called what again.....?

[AniThyng]

Not racism, I guess, because as an American you still benefit from power+privilege that we as non whites do not have?

[Broomstick]

It's called "prejudice", it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

And you do realize that a significant percentage of the US is non-white, correct? Or will you assert that the likes of Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and Clarence Thomas (among many others) are neither American nor "not-white"? Not to mention that several of those people were involved in the cock-ups in the Middle East in the past couple of decades. Yes, in general black Americans are poor and underprivileged, but the Obamas are more wealthy and more powerful the vast majority of white people on the planet.

That's why I keep saying that there would be a lot less yelling and screaming around here if people made a little more effort to distinguish the individual from the collective. I don't mind if you attack my country for dumbshit actions the collective have taken, I do mind if you attack me personally for views I do not hold or actions I have actually opposed.

[K. A. Pital]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung?

Of course, many of them, because the Workers' Party of Korea insisted and executed anyone in North Korea who wrote an insufficiently glowing one. That's just the way Workers' Parties roll.

An eulogy from Western leaders, my illiterate comrade, from Western leaders.

I bet that world leaders who do not have an incentive to antagonize Russia will say all manner of nice things.

Well, in this case they are friends and allies. Sometimes people can be allies from necessity, but in this case they rarely spout stuff about deep friendship, really. Unless they are subjugated vassal states. Which the Western nations are not. No one forces the US to kowtow. That is its own, conscious choice of friends. Sweden sacrificed relations with this "producer", and so can other nations. Many sacrificed relations with such major powers and oil producers like Russia and the US itself. So why kowtowing to Saudis is a must? It is not.

[Metahive]

Yes, god forbid he distinguish the individual from the collective... Judging the individual by membership of a group they were born into is called what again.....?

Sorry, but in an actual democracy you do in fact do bear responsibility for your government, no matter who you actually voted for because whoever is sworn in does reign with a mandate of the whole population, not just those who elected them*. That is one of the duties and obligations that come with living in such a state. If you want to wash your hands of your government's actions, you gotta' live in an authoritarian dictatorship where rule is based on force of arms and popular approval is secondary to irrelevant. Yeah, kinda' ironic, ain't it?
Besides, the US had their chance of repudiating Bush and his policies and instead re-elected him, which means his actions now had the explicit approval and blessing of the US citizenry. You blew it, now you gotta' own your mistakes and failures.





*If it were different and elected governments were only required to govern for their electorate...well, such states wouldn't stay democratic for very long.

[Grumman]

That's a load of shit, Metahive. You cannot rationally hold somebody responsible for something that is beyond their capacity to influence. Unless you are complaining that somebody didn't do enough to oppose a politician or a law that needed to be opposed, your stance is worse than useless.

[AniThyng]

It's called "prejudice", it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

And you do realize that a significant percentage of the US is non-white, correct? Or will you assert that the likes of Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and Clarence Thomas (among many others) are neither American nor "not-white"? Not to mention that several of those people were involved in the cock-ups in the Middle East in the past couple of decades. Yes, in general black Americans are poor and underprivileged, but the Obamas are more wealthy and more powerful the vast majority of white people on the planet.

That's why I keep saying that there would be a lot less yelling and screaming around here if people made a little more effort to distinguish the individual from the collective. I don't mind if you attack my country for dumbshit actions the collective have taken, I do mind if you attack me personally for views I do not hold or actions I have actually opposed.

Ah yes, touche, you got me there - prejudice it is.

Though I'm pretty sure those that bringing up those 3 black republicans (or at least, Thomas was nominated by GWB, based on wiki) though indirectly proves the point, in that their presence in the republican party does nothing to demonstrate that at large the republican party is not working against the interests of african americans, and we don't go around saying "the republican party except for the republicans we like" anymore than Condi Rice's presence indicates the republicans are not anti-woman? I mean, I'm very sure they've all been called, at one point or another...an...[obvious term redacted]

[Starglider]

An eulogy from Western leaders, my illiterate comrade, from Western leaders.

Why do you care about the opinion of those corrupt capit-elitist pig-dogs? Surely the only leaders whose opinions that matter are Fidel and/or Raúl Castro, and perhaps a few of the more hardline Chinese Central Committee members who meet your minimum bar for ideological purity.

[Metahive]

That's a load of shit, Metahive. You cannot rationally hold somebody responsible for something that is beyond their capacity to influence. Unless you are complaining that somebody didn't do enough to oppose a politician or a law that needed to be opposed, your stance is worse than useless.

No, that's exactly what living in a democracy entails. Any duly elected government acts in the name of the whole population, not just its own electorate and therefore all of Bush's crimes were comitted in the name of the US people as a whole, not just republican voters. US citizens might not share all equal amounts of blame, but you all do vouch for the government you voted into power. Again, you had your chance of expressing your disapproval in 2004 and you blew it. Now own your failure.

It might come as a shock, but living in a democratic state means you do bear certain duties, responsibilities and obligations when it comes to the government of the state, all those increased freedoms and rights do come with a price just like everything else in this universe.

[Soontir C'boath]

When voter turnout can be abysmal in general, when we bitch about gerrymandering and do not vote (which means they are achieving their goal further), and/or when voter suppression against minorities/students show that our votes do matter, but we still do not vote anyway, I suppose it is not necessarily "my" fault, but "our" fault.

[Darmalus]

So was there a glowing eulogy for Kim Il Sung?

If he controlled massive oil supplies the world was economically dependent on and his successor held him in high regard, then yes, there would be massive butt kissing going on. Same goes for anyone, really. If Stalin and Hitler rose from their graves and controlled the oil, you can bet the world would change it's tune and sing their praises to keep the oil flowing.

In reality Kim Il Sung is a powerless pest of no value, thus he is largely ignored, sometimes insulted.

[Broomstick]

Yes, god forbid he distinguish the individual from the collective... Judging the individual by membership of a group they were born into is called what again.....?

Sorry, but in an actual democracy you do in fact do bear responsibility for your government, no matter who you actually voted for because whoever is sworn in does reign with a mandate of the whole population, not just those who elected them*.

As I said, I don't mind you criticizing my nation for dumbshit things the collective did, I do mind personal attacks for views I'm on record as not holding and actions I have opposed.

Here's a rather extreme analogy: I'm going to propose that Germans who risked their own lives to smuggle people like Jews and other targeted groups out of the country or hid them are not as guilty as the Nazis who actively targeted them for extermination. Yes, being German they were subjected to penalties imposed on all Germans after the war, but those individuals should be praised for their actions, not condemned because their government committed genocide.

Now, you are also free to criticize me for not doing enough to try to sway my fellow citizens not to do dumbshit things, but realistically, I have very little power and influence in this world. I can vote. I can write my representatives. I can try to verbally persuade others to do the same. Um... that's about it, really. Unless you propose I take up arms and get violent. Hmm... trying to change peoples' minds via violence doesn't sound terribly democratic. Certainly can't donate mega-bucks to politicians or interest groups, I can barely pay the rent.

[Broomstick]

Though I'm pretty sure those that bringing up those 3 black republicans (or at least, Thomas was nominated by GWB, based on wiki) though indirectly proves the point, in that their presence in the republican party does nothing to demonstrate that at large the republican party is not working against the interests of african americans, and we don't go around saying "the republican party except for the republicans we like" anymore than Condi Rice's presence indicates the republicans are not anti-woman? I mean, I'm very sure they've all been called, at one point or another...an...[obvious term redacted]

Yes, that is true, however, it would inaccurate to characterize any of those black people as "typical African-Americans". It's not about them being Republicans, it's about them being wealthy and powerful. It is somewhat ironic that it's black Republicans that come to my mind more than black Democrats, maybe it's because they stand out more in contrast. I didn't mention them to somehow prove the Republican party had the interests of this or that group in mind, being Republican is something relatively easy to change and that's not what I'm talking about.

And I grabbed them because I thought people would be more likely to recognize them than someone like Tammy Duckworth, who is also "non-white" (actually, like Obama she's half European by ancestry) and defies a lot of group expectations, like being a combat veteran despite being a woman. She has been harshly critical of a lot of things the government has done, including how Iraq has been handled, to the point of running for Congress to try to get some power to influence things. She hasn't had much effect, either, but let's give her some points for trying, shall we?

And that's what I mean by distinguishing the individual from the collective. Yes, person A is part of group Y, but person A is different than the typical group Y member which may be relevant to a particular conversation. We have a bunch of Americans on this forum who do not hold typical American views, and the same can be applied to any other nationality represented here. You can treat people you're directly addressing either as individuals or as stereotypes and ignore what they do/say/think as individuals, which you choose to do says a lot about yourself.

[K. A. Pital]

Why do you care about the opinion of those corrupt capit-elitist pig-dogs? Surely the only leaders whose opinions that matter are Fidel and/or Raúl Castro, and perhaps a few of the more hardline Chinese Central Committee members who meet your minimum bar for ideological purity.

Oh no, it is not that I care - it is just that your close friends and allies in the House of Saud are even worse than Raul Castro, with prison sentences for celebrating Valentine's day and death penalty for homosexuality. Though considering the fact I am speaking to a person who cannot follow the discussion from the land that killed Alan Turing for being gay, I am not surprised you came here to defend the Western bootlicking for the House of Saud. After all, the modern values of the House of Saud are very much like the initial, pre-1960s "Western values" - convert to your religion by force, kill gays and build huge megastructures from the proceeds of transcontinental plunder.

[Starglider]

I am not surprised you came here to defend the Western bootlicking for the House of Saud.

Does that really seem even vaugely plausible? I realise that you are a ball of incoherent hate held together by a sticky web of rationalisation and hypocrisy, and probably see the world as a warped shifting nighmare populated by demonic caricatures, but it would be nice to see you shake that off for even a moment.

[Joun_Lord]

Though I'm pretty sure those that bringing up those 3 black republicans (or at least, Thomas was nominated by GWB, based on wiki) though indirectly proves the point, in that their presence in the republican party does nothing to demonstrate that at large the republican party is not working against the interests of african americans, and we don't go around saying "the republican party except for the republicans we like" anymore than Condi Rice's presence indicates the republicans are not anti-woman? I mean, I'm very sure they've all been called, at one point or another...an...[obvious term redacted]

I'd say their prescense proves that the Republican party is just bigoted against poor people. They don't care about your skin color or sexual organs so long as you got alot of green. They can be considered against the interests of African Americans because African Americans are on average pretty poor. But their policies are probably just as hostile towards poor white people. 25 dollar daily welfare withdrawal limits, restrictions against seafood and steaks, things like that are meant to punish poor people in general for the crime of not being born with a silver spoon up their rear and people of the caucasion persuasion get hit with it too as there are poor white people

Maybe even the "war on women" is much the same thing. Trying to restrict womens reproductive rights, limit access to clinics and create time consuming messes before abortions, they are far more likely to effect poor women who can't afford to travel to other counties or states to find abortion clinics, can't afford the time to be preached at by doctors or shown pictures of the alien monster growing in their wombs. Rich women ain't going to have any of those troubles.