politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I never argued the aid guaranteed faster recovery on national level. I argued aid helped people who had their lives destroyed by a massive war. There are billions of factors that influence GDP growth, of course its not guaranteed aid can create it.
For a major geopolitical action from a superpower- honestly yeah.
We didn't do things. I am not proud of the Marshall Plan, I am not proud of any actions by any government or any country at any point. I disagree with the person saying that you should be proud to be American- just as you do. But, I also disagree with your criticism of the Marshall Plan as harmful imperialism. I can disagree with two things at once. I said here you shouldn't be proud of your country in another thread before even seeing your comment
Your entire discussion seems milquetoast at this point. You didn't mean this, you didn't say that. Even here you send mixed messages-- is "lacking harm" something to be proud of? You say: "honestly, yeah".
I think you're just wasting my time at this point.
What am I supposed to say when you accuse me of saying something I never said?
Well, first off, you should have never made the dig about "speaking for yourself". Unless, of course, you just didn't know what I meant or what we were talking about, which clearly you did. You may disagree with whether it's correct to have national pride, but in a comment where I was replying to someone who did suggest they had national pride, your remark is borderline trolling, and it is what caused by misunderstanding at your actual point.
I see from the link you provided that you're a mod of this community. Behave better, lest we end up right back where we were with Reddit.
That's how you interpreted it, but I stated my intent clearly when you asked for clarification- yet you're still using it as a way to criticize.
Edit: Also, I don't see how me being a mod is relevant.
My point is that you shouldn't have made that comment at all. What purpose did it serve? You are aware that many people do take collective responsibility for their country, right? You would agree that if one is to take pride in the good, they should also shoulder responsibility for the bad, right? You are aware that when someone uses the collective "we", especially in the context of criticizing a country, that they may not (and are probably not) including their own personal stance in that comment, right?
You were trolling. The new question is: why? Are you so emotionally attached to the Marshall Plan being seen as an overall good thing that you needed to lash out? I don't get it. In fact, the only non-troll reason I see is that you do take credit for the good but refuse to take responsibility for the bad.
And since we're obviously belaboring this point: If not the individual citizen's responsibility, whose is it? Do you believe "every vote matters", or not? Do you believe in "of the people, by the people, for the people"? You may not feel comfortable taking pride in any national accomplishments, and that's fine-- I'm not sure there are even many in which to take pride-- but we all have a say in how society conducts itself and when it conducts itself badly, that is a failing for all of us. And if I'm being blunt, it has the same general feeling of some white man first learning about white male privilege and saying "You must be talking about yourself; I wasn't privileged!"
To critique your assertion of collective responsibility? You are free to disagree with what I said, but just as I have no authority to tell you what you should or shouldn't say- you have no authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't say. So, please stop(at least from my perspective) talking down to me in a condescending way.
Yes, and I have and will continue to voice my opposition to that.
Yes and no, it depends on what their reasoning is for what they do take pride in.
I don't agree with "probably not" but yes they may not be. But when they say we they are regardless collectivizing responsibility.
(Accused me of ad hominem)
I explained why I said what I said, you continue to use it to derail the conversation and criticize me personally.
I oppose the Marshall Plan.
That depends what you mean, it is a lot of individual citizens responsibility- but it is not mine. I do not advocate hate, I do not vote for hateful politicians, and I don't fund hateful organizations?
What does that mean? A vote can be used to have some impact, sometimes, but usually most votes don't have much of an impact when taken individually. That is to say, if one person changed who they voted for individually it wouldn't have much of an impact. Of course individual actions can add up?
Not really the principle or the reality, the reality really is "of some people, by some people, for some people"
No one has any obligation to act unless they agree to it. Inaction doesn't make them responsible for the actions of others. Furthermore, I have and do act in advocating for, voting for, and funding what I support.
Because it is the same rejection of tribalism.