3 ms·

If something is under attack, is it not in danger?

• colanderman 9y ago
  I've re-read your comment a few times and am no longer sure how to parse it. At first read it very much sounds like you are defending several backward institutions which you term "American culture" (I would not), as opposed to an impartial observation. (Your use of words like "under attack", "our", and "danger", and negative examples of multiculturalism really make it sound like you wish women stayed at home and everyone was Christian.)
  • TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    I used "under attack" and "danger" to emphasize the massive cultural shift occurring, and to imply that there will be resistance to it. This isn't just one or two minor things changing, it's several massive things, meaning current American culture is in danger of changing into something fundamentally different. Things can be "in danger" in a positive way. For example, in 1945 Nazi Germany was in danger of being defeated, but its defeat was a net positive for the world. I used "our" because I am an American in the midwest that is part of majority American culture, and I assume most readers are too. These changes affect me. I used negative examples of multiculturalism because people tend to react more strongly to negative stimuli, so these are the changes that most people are going to react negatively to, emphasizing the "under attack" portion of my statement. I did edit my original comment to emphasize that I'm not trying to attach my belief of whether or not it's a net positive or negative to the situation, so hopefully that will help a bit.