6 ms·

I'm sorry what? If ever there were a glaring example of the blind extremes of American exceptionalism this comment is it. Exactly which countries are you compa

I'm sorry what? If ever there were a glaring example of the blind extremes of American exceptionalism this comment is it. Exactly which countries are you comparing the US to that would not tolerate similar "lavish helpings of self-directed criticism"?

dosy 8y ago
No, you're okay, you just didn't get it the first time, I'm fine with that. I never said 'tolerate', and I think it's more promotion that tolerance being the plan. The Americans have really become experts at strategic self-criticism. I remember learning about Italian Commedia dell'arte and how the satire of power was a cathartic mechanism of control, yielding an outlet for pent up feelings, and assisting in the maintenance of the status quo by directing the desire for change to the outlet, rather than to actual change. Could be related, just saying.
- umadon 8y ago
  This is exactly it. These articles offer an ultimately vacant catharsis in place of change. Afterwards, the type of people who read the New Yorker can go about their business, feeling full of rectitude and seriousness and even, perversely, a kind of pride in their country.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    So, offline outrage culture ?
- mijamo 8y ago
  I still don't get your point. Many countries have good investigation press and LOTS of criticism towards their government and policies. How is the US any special in that regard?
  - DubiousPusher 8y ago
    I don't think the OP is being genuine. Their point is an intensely cynical one. Basically implying that the American system which allows for cruelty abroad and then also allows revealing expsoses of that cruelty is well designed for maintaining international power. They are noting America's exceptionalism at self manipulation. They are sardonically praising the Machiavelian nature of our society.
    - jancsika 8y ago
      > Basically implying that the American system which allows for cruelty abroad and then also allows revealing expsoses of that cruelty is well designed for maintaining international power. Except that the U.S. is losing out to China which builds out physical infrastructure-- everything from highways to supplying the digital chips, devices and firmware that provide internet access and control electrical grids. That system is vastly superior for asserting international power than OP's alleged system of U.S. "do-cruelty-then-expose-cruelty." (It's also more sustainable in the long run as evidenced by the Iraq war vs. say, China's current influence in Africa.) Given that reality, such journalistic exposés are perpetuating a system that causes the U.S.'s sphere of influence to decrease relative to another superpower. At the same time, the dominance of the U.S. "do-cruelty-then-expose" system in political circles makes it difficult to adapt and use soft power where it would be more efficacious geopolitically. The more exposés we get, the faster this vicious cycle diminishes the ability of the American system to use cruelty to gain power. Therefore I must conclude that OP supports these exposés as a way to decrease the reach of the U.S.'s cruelty. I don't necessarily support this cynicism train-- was just curious where it went.
      - DubiousPusher 8y ago
        Have some mercy here cause now I'm in the weird position of having to not just interpret but argue the OP's point. I think the OP's point is that these exposes are a kind of release that allows those who would otherwise agitate for change do nothing because they get a sense of justice merely from reading such a piece. So the OP is expressing a sort of smug disdain for 'The New Yorker' here because they are complicit in easing the America conscience. I personally do not believe this. I think this kind of breaks down because this creates a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the media does publish expose journalism then their creating catharsis that aids American human rights violations. If they don't report these things then citizens don't know there's anything to protest or attempt to change. Perhaps the OP is just generally fatalistic, I don't know.
- samirillian 8y ago
  Huh? Can you please state your argument clearly?
  - dosy 8y ago
    if you're having trouble with reading comprehension and would like to know more, go back and read it, summarize it as you understand it and then ask specifically which part is unclear to you. do you understand that?
dondawest 8y ago
Obvious answer, but China wouldn’t be too crazy about it
- nailer 8y ago
  Malaysia and Indonesia would be other prime examples.
taejo 8y ago
> Exactly which countries are you comparing the US to If one were to take that kind of comment at face value then one would have to assume that those making them consider Eritrea and Burma to be the kind of benchmark a country should compare itself to. Of course, the real background is just ignorance of how well other developed countries function.
BubRoss 8y ago
Singapore jailed someone for a Facebook post criticizing the amount of money the government spent on the special olympics.

dosy 8y ago

No, you're okay, you just didn't get it the first time, I'm fine with that. I never said 'tolerate', and I think it's more promotion that tolerance being the plan. The Americans have really become experts at strategic self-criticism. I remember learning about Italian Commedia dell'arte and how the satire of power was a cathartic mechanism of control, yielding an outlet for pent up feelings, and assisting in the maintenance of the status quo by directing the desire for change to the outlet, rather than to actual change. Could be related, just saying.

umadon 8y ago
This is exactly it. These articles offer an ultimately vacant catharsis in place of change. Afterwards, the type of people who read the New Yorker can go about their business, feeling full of rectitude and seriousness and even, perversely, a kind of pride in their country.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  So, offline outrage culture ?
mijamo 8y ago
I still don't get your point. Many countries have good investigation press and LOTS of criticism towards their government and policies. How is the US any special in that regard?
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  I don't think the OP is being genuine. Their point is an intensely cynical one. Basically implying that the American system which allows for cruelty abroad and then also allows revealing expsoses of that cruelty is well designed for maintaining international power. They are noting America's exceptionalism at self manipulation. They are sardonically praising the Machiavelian nature of our society.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    > Basically implying that the American system which allows for cruelty abroad and then also allows revealing expsoses of that cruelty is well designed for maintaining international power. Except that the U.S. is losing out to China which builds out physical infrastructure-- everything from highways to supplying the digital chips, devices and firmware that provide internet access and control electrical grids. That system is vastly superior for asserting international power than OP's alleged system of U.S. "do-cruelty-then-expose-cruelty." (It's also more sustainable in the long run as evidenced by the Iraq war vs. say, China's current influence in Africa.) Given that reality, such journalistic exposés are perpetuating a system that causes the U.S.'s sphere of influence to decrease relative to another superpower. At the same time, the dominance of the U.S. "do-cruelty-then-expose" system in political circles makes it difficult to adapt and use soft power where it would be more efficacious geopolitically. The more exposés we get, the faster this vicious cycle diminishes the ability of the American system to use cruelty to gain power. Therefore I must conclude that OP supports these exposés as a way to decrease the reach of the U.S.'s cruelty. I don't necessarily support this cynicism train-- was just curious where it went.
    - DubiousPusher 8y ago
      Have some mercy here cause now I'm in the weird position of having to not just interpret but argue the OP's point. I think the OP's point is that these exposes are a kind of release that allows those who would otherwise agitate for change do nothing because they get a sense of justice merely from reading such a piece. So the OP is expressing a sort of smug disdain for 'The New Yorker' here because they are complicit in easing the America conscience. I personally do not believe this. I think this kind of breaks down because this creates a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the media does publish expose journalism then their creating catharsis that aids American human rights violations. If they don't report these things then citizens don't know there's anything to protest or attempt to change. Perhaps the OP is just generally fatalistic, I don't know.
samirillian 8y ago
Huh? Can you please state your argument clearly?
- dosy 8y ago
  if you're having trouble with reading comprehension and would like to know more, go back and read it, summarize it as you understand it and then ask specifically which part is unclear to you. do you understand that?

dondawest 8y ago

Obvious answer, but China wouldn’t be too crazy about it

nailer 8y ago
Malaysia and Indonesia would be other prime examples.

taejo 8y ago

> Exactly which countries are you comparing the US to If one were to take that kind of comment at face value then one would have to assume that those making them consider Eritrea and Burma to be the kind of benchmark a country should compare itself to. Of course, the real background is just ignorance of how well other developed countries function.

BubRoss 8y ago

Singapore jailed someone for a Facebook post criticizing the amount of money the government spent on the special olympics.