For those under the age of 25; what does 9/11 mean to you?

[Delerious]

It's not cherry-picking if there aren't any examples of modern leftist leaders who are guilty of the same things. On a select few topics, the "both sides" argument is valid, but this isn't one of them.


Depends on what you consider a "good percentage," because I feel like many Americans do have the memory of a goldfish. Might be the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

By the logic of your first statement, you're practically saying that "leftists" are completely infallible, and you're completely dismissing the very core element of human behavior. You've also solely turned this into a "conservative" versus "leftist" issue, which yes, I would consider cherry-picking, because you're only choosing to have those who aren't "leftist" be represented only by "conservative" people in your previous argument. But, perhaps this is partly my fault, as I should have clarified in the beginning that I was referring solely to your statement saying "Conservatives value war profiteering over the lives of their own countrymen," which is a statement that I am vehemently against if it is generalization. After all, my own father and step mother are conservatives, and I can tell you that they place absolutely zero value in war, much less profiting off the lives of dead soldiers.

In regards to your second statement, considering you believe that most Americans have the memory of a goldfish alone speaks volumes. Because it tells me that you acknowledge that people have been made been made aware, but even among those that are, they are largely complacent. In that sense, I have often posed the question to myself on whether we, the people, are also failing our own duty. It is the duty of a leader to look after the well-being of their people, after all, but likewise, is it not also the duty of the people to hold our leaders accountable? How many of us can say that we are holding up to our duty in that sense? This is why I say that even among those of us who are aware, we are just as guilty as those who aren't, if not, even more so, because despite having the knowledge, we are unwilling to do something about it.

But to answer your question on your second statement, let's just say it's 50% of the people who acknowledge the military industrial complex as an issue. At least, that's what I would round it off to. I'm also not aware of any statistics on the matter though, so unfortunately, much to my detriment in this argument, I can't give a conclusive answer.

 

[zekro94]

You ought to see some of The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and Sanford & Son. You got some jokes about white people, you got some jokes about black people. Everyone watched. Everyone laughed. (There were only three channels anyway.)

I have to say I only heard things about those series online but they didn't air them when I was little, neither in romania or spain (or maybe they did but it was before I was born so that's why) Still, readinf the wikipedia entries about them really makes me want to watch so thanks for great recommendations

 

[supermist]

I can't remember how many times I have directly asked you simply not to speak to me.

I told you NO. I thought you lefties were all about respecting it when someone repeatedly says NO!

Just stop talking to me, man. We aren't friends. You only come here to run your mouth. Just stop.

I said NO. Take NO for an answer. Just ignore me.

You mad bro?

 

[Chrisssj2]

False flag

 

[Xzi]

But, perhaps this is partly my fault, as I should have clarified in the beginning that I was referring solely to your statement saying "Conservatives value war profiteering over the lives of their own countrymen," which is a statement that I am vehemently against if it is generalization.

No it is my bad, what I meant was "conservatives in government" more specifically. Enabling them by continuing to vote for them after they've repeatedly demonstrated self-serving behavior and a total lack of ethics is its own problem, however, and not an insignificant one. Individual and family values should always override political party allegiances.

After all, my own father and step mother are conservatives, and I can tell you that they place absolutely zero value in war, much less profiting off the lives of dead soldiers.

In other words: they're being used and lied to, but tribalism won't allow them to see that. Even Trump was ready to start a new war at the end of his term if it somehow could've kept him in office, and the man was extremely disrespectful to veterans.

It is the duty of a leader to look after the well-being of their people, after all, but likewise, is it not also the duty of the people to hold our leaders accountable? How many of us can say that we are holding up to our duty in that sense? This is why I say that even among those of us who are aware, we are just as guilty as those who aren't, if not, even more so, because despite having the knowledge, we are unwilling to do something about it.

It has been very frustrating seeing rich politicians get away with crimes in broad daylight, especially knowing the practice dates all the way back to Nixon. That said, Trump may be the first big name to see consequences for it, and if so that sets a positive precedent for the future. Willing to lend some modicum of trust to the justice system here until it give me reason not to.

 

[HalfScoper]

You let no opportunity pass to bash and hate anyone who isn't a liberal, for any reason at all.

Literally their whole life essence, they ain't anything but a sad clown without that behaviour, not that being an unfunny one utilizing said behaviour is any better.

 

[Delerious]

No it is my bad, what I meant was "conservatives in government" more specifically. Enabling them by continuing to vote for them after they've repeatedly demonstrated self-serving behavior and a total lack of ethics is its own problem, however, and not an insignificant one. Individual and family values should always override political party allegiances.


In other words: they're being used and lied to, but tribalism won't allow them to see that. Even Trump was ready to start a new war at the end of his term if it somehow could've kept him in office, and the man was extremely disrespectful to veterans.


It has been very frustrating seeing rich politicians get away with crimes in broad daylight, especially knowing the practice dates all the way back to Nixon. That said, Trump may be the first big name to see consequences for it, and if so that sets a positive precedent for the future. Willing to lend some modicum of trust to the justice system here until it give me reason not to.

No worries. I also understand where your frustration comes from. The U.S. doesn't exactly have a clean history, especially in the realm of business and politics, and it seems like it's just gotten worse since the Reagan era. And yes, people should ultimately come before allegiances. Loyalty is well and good, but it must also be tempered with criticism. Thankfully, although my own family is all over the political map, we're usually pretty good about not trampling on each other's beliefs, and we've never let it get in the way of our family gatherings.

In reaction to your second statement, I wouldn't go quite that far in the case of my dad and my step mom. Although they are both conservative, there are times when you have to also be able to separate conservatism from the Republican Party, and likewise with liberalism from the Democratic Party. My dad and step mom are both openly critical of the Republican Party, especially so in recent years. They're also not the type who watch Fox News as their only news source, much less for commentary. In fact, my dad usually watches CNN, and only really watches the news to stay informed on what's going on in the world. And likewise, he and step mom both saw Donald Trump as more of a wolf in sheep's clothing from the very beginning. I even remember my dad telling me that apart from money, the one thing businessmen and politicians have in common is that they both have an odd knack for lying. My dad and I certainly don't agree when it comes to economics, and he is definitely a capitalist. but likewise, he, (and really most people, whether liberal or conservative) are staunchly against corporate welfare. Likewise, my dad believes that business should be done ethically and humanely. And though he's largely against unions, he also has very mixed feelings about union-busting practices, as he acknowledges that the reason for unionization often stems from poor treatment of those at the bottom. All that said though, I suppose you could say he's still set in his ways when it comes to staying in the Mormon church. Thankfully though, although it was a little hard for him to accept at first, I think he kinda always knew that at least a few out of his six kids would end up leaving the church. But thankfully, he never never disowned any of us that did. So in the very least, I'd say he's pretty good about not letting his beliefs get in the way of his relationships, especially when it comes to family.

Anyway, like I said, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, everything is ultimately a bit of a spectrum. Some people might say, "well, if someone doesn't totally fit the box, then they're not really a (fill in the blank)." And to that, I would say, "then what's the point of such labels to begin with, when not everybody agrees with every single idea?" In fact, I've always hated political labels in general, and I'd much rather we vote on people and their ideas, not on political parties.

 

[Xzi]

Literally their whole life essence, they ain't anything but a sad clown without that behaviour, not that being an unfunny one utilizing said behaviour is any better.

Trumpian politics are perpetual hate and division, and everybody who's bought into them knows this, it's what attracted them in the first place. If you can't handle the reaping, don't sow.

More broadly and on topic: failure to prosecute GWB and Cheney for their war crimes is what paved the way for a criminal Trump presidency. The Republican party is entirely unwilling to hold their own accountable, and they turn that into everybody else's problem.

 

[RetroGen]

No one uses more propaganda than the left. No other party works as hard to cancel people who don't drink the Kool Aid.

Luckily, America is getting sick of it, and we're not going to be forced to accept jabs, or use preferred pronouns, or let men compete against actual women, or allow racists to set up their own segregated sections in colleges and universities that are federally funded.

The left continues to get slapped down for their tyranny and attempts to control the public, and that's a good thing.

Such irony... your points above are all rightwing propaganda. Hopefully at some point you will realize just how deeply immersed in rightwing propaganda and disconfirmation bias you actually are. Let's be clear that, in no way, are you non-partisan or anything close to objective, though you don't seem self-aware enough to realize it yet. Try seeking information outside of your partisan bubble. A bit of study of science, philosophy, and critical thinking, would probably do wonders to mitigate that bias and help plot a course somewhere closer to objectivity.

 

[Zajumino]

Such irony... your points above are all rightwing propaganda. Hopefully at some point you will realize just how deeply immersed in rightwing propaganda and disconfirmation bias you actually are. Let's be clear that, in no way, are you non-partisan or anything close to objective, though you don't seem self-aware enough to realize it yet. Try seeking information outside of your partisan bubble. A bit of study of science, philosophy, and critical thinking, would probably do wonders to mitigate that bias and help plot a course somewhere closer to objectivity.

Let me ask you a difficult question: what is or is not propaganda?

There isn't really a correct answer, but in my opinion your criteria for what qualifies as propaganda seems a bit loose. Anyways, I am pretty sure that most Americans agree with at least one of the points, namely the one about jabs. Plus, it is not completely clear what his full opinion is with regards to the above points.

You really ought to realise that everyone is biased in some way, and that politics is oftentimes not an objective topic in the first place. Politicians, especially, like to present information (which may not be true) in a intentionally biased manner to make themselves look good. And did he ever claim to be completely non-partisan or objective? Personally, I approve of objectivity and non-partisanship, but apparently some journalists/editors, who justify their view with left-wing rhetoric, think otherwise.

Your "science, philosophy, and critical thinking" comment smacks of condescension. As if he hasn't studied 'a bit' of science! I might find that comment a bit insulting if it were made about me. I will say, though, that I am sometimes no better, but I at least try to be as subtle as I can.

So, what am I trying to say? I don't really know, but your comment felt wrong to me.

__________

As for my opinion on 9-11, it was unfortunate, but at least the reaction makes people safer (I hope). On the other hand, I have to be more concerned about my privacy, but in the age of mass data collection, I suppose it makes little difference. In 2023, there is a war in Ukraine, which reminds me that the US has an important role in global affairs, and the impact of our actions can last a long time both inside and outside our own country. The 9-11 flavor of terrorism is not really a problem (that we think about) anymore, but other much more dangerous threats are present, namely China.

Basically, 9-11 is not really important nowadays, possibly in part because some of the behind the scenes stuff, but mostly because there are bigger things to worry about.

 

[RetroGen]

My comment was a response to someone who seems to portray themselves as a non-partisan, critical thinker, yet accuses the "other side" of using "more propaganda" (which seems to be objectively false) whilst failing to realize that many of his own positions are living testament to the great success of rightwing propaganda. The disinformed points about transgender people are straight from the current rightwing propaganda playbook, as are the disinformed points about vaccination and affirmative action. Not only that, the fact that he makes these specific points, which happen to coincide with the current issues being promulgated in rightwing media, demonstrate obvious partisan bias. So, while I am on board with critical thinking, I'd suggest it is not a good idea to present oneself as non-partisan when that is obviously not the case.

 

[Zajumino]

My comment was a response to someone who seems to portray themselves as a non-partisan, critical thinker, yet accuses the "other side" of using "more propaganda" (which seems to be objectively false) whilst failing to realize that many of his own positions are living testament to the great success of rightwing propaganda. The disinformed points about transgender people are straight from the current rightwing propaganda playbook, as are the disinformed points about vaccination and affirmative action. Not only that, the fact that he makes these specific points, which happen to coincide with the current issues being promulgated in rightwing media, demonstrate obvious partisan bias. So, while I am on board with critical thinking, I'd suggest it is not a good idea to present oneself as non-partisan when that is obviously not the case.

From my understanding, he did not actually claim to be unbiased, non-partisan or objective. The closest thing he did was criticise @Xzi 's "conservatives are bad always" kind of thinking (which is frankly annoying because of the fallacies of composition that are often implied). He attacks the left, which is a fairly clear indicator of partisanship. I am not sure why you think he is trying to hide that. No offense, but your username, account history and lack of reading comprehension combined with decent grammar makes me suspect someone is using a GPT to generate responses.

 

[RetroGen]

From my understanding, he did not actually claim to be unbiased, non-partisan or objective. The closest thing he did was criticise @Xzi 's "conservatives are bad always" kind of thinking (which is frankly annoying because of the fallacies of composition that are often implied). He attacks the left, which is a fairly clear indicator of partisanship. I am not sure why you think he is trying to hide that. No offense, but your username, account history and lack of reading comprehension combined with decent grammar makes me suspect someone is using a GPT to generate responses.

LOL... actually, I'm AI posting from the future using a quantum computer!

Was speaking about an impression of being a "truth seeker" given elsewhere, in other posts. Have you read them? Lack of reading comprehension?

 

[smf]

Yep, agree, comedy should be a free for all. I consider the holocaust a great tragedy but still laugh about memes of hitler or other insensitive jokes. If someone gets offended then they should just turn the other way and let people enjoy things. 9/11 was a tragedy but I still laugh at jokes made about it. Sometimes people should just live and let live

It would depend on exactly what the joke is.

There is a difference between



and making fun of the people who died in the holocaust, or their families who survived.

My dad and step mom are both openly critical of the Republican Party, especially so in recent years. They're also not the type who watch Fox News as their only news source, much less for commentary. In fact, my dad usually watches CNN, and only really watches the news to stay informed on what's going on in the world. And likewise, he and step mom both saw Donald Trump as more of a wolf in sheep's clothing from the very beginning

Do they still vote Republican and did they vote for Trump?

So, while I am on board with critical thinking, I'd suggest it is not a good idea to present oneself as non-partisan when that is obviously not the case.

It's better to think of yourself and everyone else as an idiot, who has no idea what their biases are so that you can check them. Than it is to assume your opponent is the idiot who has no idea of their biases and you have no biases.

If you can assume that nobody really knows anything, then playing it safe by calling someone by their preferred pronouns makes a lot more sense. Someone who refuses is suffering from delusion of grandeur.

 

[zekro94]

It would depend on exactly what the joke is.

There is a difference between


and making fun of the people who died in the holocaust, or their families who survived.

Unfortunately I stand my ground that everything should be made fun of. If I said anything then that means everything, I know most people wouldn't like it but I can't just say: "yeah, anything however not that....." People have different humor so naturally not everyone would laugh

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

Such irony... your points above are all rightwing propaganda. Hopefully at some point you will realize just how deeply immersed in rightwing propaganda and disconfirmation bias you actually are. Let's be clear that, in no way, are you non-partisan or anything close to objective, though you don't seem self-aware enough to realize it yet. Try seeking information outside of your partisan bubble. A bit of study of science, philosophy, and critical thinking, would probably do wonders to mitigate that bias and help plot a course somewhere closer to objectivity.

I made ONE comment cheekily throwing back Xzi's same rhetoric back at him, but you decide to go after ME, even though literally EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT that he has made has been openly bashing the right.

I find THAT ironic. But not surprising.

 

[RetroGen]

It's better to think of yourself and everyone else as an idiot, who has no idea what their biases are so that you can check them. Than it is to assume your opponent is the idiot who has no idea of their biases and you have no biases.

If you can assume that nobody really knows anything, then playing it safe by calling someone by their preferred pronouns makes a lot more sense. Someone who refuses is suffering from delusion of grandeur.

I'm reasonably aware of my biases. I don't think absolute objectivity is possible, except maybe for a god, and gods seem rather unlikely to exist.

As far as pronouns go, using the correct pronoun seems to be a simple sign of respect. And if you're aware that the person is transgender, refusing to do so and deliberately misgendering is a sign of disrespect. And if you think that transmen are nothing more than women pretending to be men, then you need some remedial education on what transgender means.

That said, a friend of mine told me about a problem his brother-in-law is having; one of his employees seems to be non-binary and changes their gender whenever they feel like it. This makes things a bit difficult as far as knowing which pronoun to use in the office. Are they male, female, or non-binary today? Or are they perhaps dressing male but feeling female, non-binary, or whatever? I suggested to him that, in such a case, it might make sense to settle on one pronoun, like 'they', or just use their name instead. But such cases are outliers.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

What does ANY of this have to do with how young adults who were either not alive or still children when 9/11 happened are react to this date in history?

 

[RetroGen]

Both you (post#10) and smf (post #54) mentioned preferred pronouns, so I responded to it.