7 ms·

Can you point to the "provocative" part? I don't see it...

by soc88 14y ago

koglerjs 14y ago
Civilized is not exactly a well defined term. It's essentially a subjective criticism.
- drone 14y ago
  "Civilized is not exactly a well defined term. It's essentially a subjective criticism." Actually, it is quite well-defined. Here you go: "1. Having a highly developed society and culture. 2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world. 3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished." So, either America has no: 1: Highly developed society and culture 2: Evidence of moral and intellectual development or 3: Refinement in taste and manners Now, which of those do you think we Americans would take the least offense to, at being lumped into a board category of "uncivilized". I find it striking that there are people taking the time to make pot-shots at America on a technology site. We need only look back a short period in history to see that civility is a very recent trend in most parts of the world, and especially so in Europe. It would be most beneficial to all of us to politely ask how we can improve each others' lives, rather than goading people into defensive postures.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    In my dictionary, "civilized" means "living in cities".
    - fhars 14y ago
      Yes, and "digital" means "done with fingers". Linguistic essentialism is not a very helpful communicative strategy.
      - cperciva 14y ago
        Ever heard of a Digital Rectal Exam? And the origin of the word is very helpful: Behaviours we think of as civilized are precisely those which are necessary in order for cities to function.
    - batista 14y ago
      Buy a new one.
  - soc88 14y ago
    > So, either America has no: [...] If I would keep making fun of American exceptionalism I would propose striking the "either". :-) > It would be most beneficial to all of us to politely ask how we can improve each others' lives [...] How about stopping to kill people for a start? :-) Civilized countries managed to resist that urge decades ago, why not the US? ___ So, don't take these remarks serious. It just amuses me how many people behave as if they are personally offended. C'mon guys, it is just an arbitrary line on a map. :-)
  - batista 14y ago
    >So, either America has no: 1: Highly developed society and culture 2: Evidence of moral and intellectual development or 3: Refinement in taste and manners Well, America is not the pinnacle of western (or any other) civilization, is it now? Wasn't it like 40 years ago that black people couldn't sit in front at the bus? Or 5 years ago that you elected an incompetent idiot for a president for the SECOND time? Or like 30 years ago when you bombed the shit out of countries in Asia and poisoned the places with chemical agents? Or like 60 years before when you dropped two atomic bombs on civilians? Or like today that you still have the death penalty?
    - drone 14y ago
      Firstly, I never claimed America to be the pinnacle of civilization, and I don't see anyone else doing the same. I simply stated, that it's rather offensive to come in here and cast all Americans as uncivilized because one disagrees with how one police force operates related to another. Whether you consider a particular elected official of a nation to be of your measure of specific intelligence quotient you desire does not either speak to the general civilized nature of a particular society. Are we really going to rate individual leaders? Where shall we start in Europe? There's so much wonderful material to work with... We could talk about each of those incidents you mentioned, and the role that Europe played in each of them, we could play these tit-for-tat arguments that will result in no change. What does that achieve? Will you try forever to make all of us feel bad about where we were born? What's so lofty about that position? Why here, why now?
silentscope 14y ago
yes you can, you just don't want to acknowledge it. unless you don't speak fluent english, in which case I apologize.
evilduck 14y ago
At risk of invoking Godwin's Law... The USA and Germany have both done terrible things, claiming moral superiority of one or the other is treading on thin ice.
- chc 14y ago
  At the risk of invoking common sense: Things that you did nearly a hundred years ago are not especially relevant to the discussion of what you're doing today. If somebody used to smoke in the 60s and now campaigns to help fight substance abuse, can we still not call them an anti-smoking advocate? Would it be accurate to call you a gamete? You used to be one, after all — probably more recently than the terrible things you're talking about Germany doing. It's useful to remember the past, but to excuse present wrongs because of past ones is inane, as is placing equal people on the person who did the deed and his or her grandchildren.
  - batista 14y ago
    >At the risk of invoking common sense: Things that you did nearly a hundred years ago are not especially relevant to the discussion of what you're doing today. For a person, yes, for a country, not so much. A country has "continuity of the state" (if I recall the term correctly). Besides that legal difference (under international law), what a country has done in the past cannot be erased from the country. Even if all the old perpetrators are now dead, the deed remains within the country's history, and affects relations within its population (descendants of the perpetrators and/or the victims), relations with other countries if it was a foreign affairs issue, etc. For example you have freed the black slaves. You also stopped segregation (in the bloody 60's !!!). That doesn't mean that there is not a friction between black and white people in the country still, based among other things on historical reasons. And it doesn't mean that the black people that live today have it as if those things did not happen at all. Their past also affects their future. For example, a guy that arrived as a poor _white_ immigrant in the US in the twenties, is far more likely to have made it (and his descendants) than a poor black guy freed from some Southern cotton picking farm and left with nothing + plus the prejudice of the era + plus unfavorable laws (Jim Crow etc). Which kinda explains why blacks are the disproportionate majority of the prison population in the US. Besides that, what a country has done in the past is probably indicative of the idea the country has for itself and it's role. That kind of state and populace thinking doesn't die with a generation or two. For example the US likes to play global cop, Germany has several times brought war to Europe (and the world at large), other countries had colonial history for 3-4 centuries and continue to feel "entitled" to the countries they occupied in the past, etc etc.

Can you point to the "provocative" part? I don't see it...

by soc88 14y ago

Can you point to the "provocative" part? I don't see it...

koglerjs 14y ago

Civilized is not exactly a well defined term. It's essentially a subjective criticism.

drone 14y ago
"Civilized is not exactly a well defined term. It's essentially a subjective criticism." Actually, it is quite well-defined. Here you go: "1. Having a highly developed society and culture. 2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world. 3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished." So, either America has no: 1: Highly developed society and culture 2: Evidence of moral and intellectual development or 3: Refinement in taste and manners Now, which of those do you think we Americans would take the least offense to, at being lumped into a board category of "uncivilized". I find it striking that there are people taking the time to make pot-shots at America on a technology site. We need only look back a short period in history to see that civility is a very recent trend in most parts of the world, and especially so in Europe. It would be most beneficial to all of us to politely ask how we can improve each others' lives, rather than goading people into defensive postures.
- cperciva 14y ago
  In my dictionary, "civilized" means "living in cities".
  - fhars 14y ago
    Yes, and "digital" means "done with fingers". Linguistic essentialism is not a very helpful communicative strategy.
    - cperciva 14y ago
      Ever heard of a Digital Rectal Exam? And the origin of the word is very helpful: Behaviours we think of as civilized are precisely those which are necessary in order for cities to function.
  - batista 14y ago
    Buy a new one.
- soc88 14y ago
  > So, either America has no: [...] If I would keep making fun of American exceptionalism I would propose striking the "either". :-) > It would be most beneficial to all of us to politely ask how we can improve each others' lives [...] How about stopping to kill people for a start? :-) Civilized countries managed to resist that urge decades ago, why not the US? ___ So, don't take these remarks serious. It just amuses me how many people behave as if they are personally offended. C'mon guys, it is just an arbitrary line on a map. :-)
- batista 14y ago
  >So, either America has no: 1: Highly developed society and culture 2: Evidence of moral and intellectual development or 3: Refinement in taste and manners Well, America is not the pinnacle of western (or any other) civilization, is it now? Wasn't it like 40 years ago that black people couldn't sit in front at the bus? Or 5 years ago that you elected an incompetent idiot for a president for the SECOND time? Or like 30 years ago when you bombed the shit out of countries in Asia and poisoned the places with chemical agents? Or like 60 years before when you dropped two atomic bombs on civilians? Or like today that you still have the death penalty?
  - drone 14y ago
    Firstly, I never claimed America to be the pinnacle of civilization, and I don't see anyone else doing the same. I simply stated, that it's rather offensive to come in here and cast all Americans as uncivilized because one disagrees with how one police force operates related to another. Whether you consider a particular elected official of a nation to be of your measure of specific intelligence quotient you desire does not either speak to the general civilized nature of a particular society. Are we really going to rate individual leaders? Where shall we start in Europe? There's so much wonderful material to work with... We could talk about each of those incidents you mentioned, and the role that Europe played in each of them, we could play these tit-for-tat arguments that will result in no change. What does that achieve? Will you try forever to make all of us feel bad about where we were born? What's so lofty about that position? Why here, why now?

silentscope 14y ago

yes you can, you just don't want to acknowledge it. unless you don't speak fluent english, in which case I apologize.

evilduck 14y ago

At risk of invoking Godwin's Law... The USA and Germany have both done terrible things, claiming moral superiority of one or the other is treading on thin ice.

chc 14y ago
At the risk of invoking common sense: Things that you did nearly a hundred years ago are not especially relevant to the discussion of what you're doing today. If somebody used to smoke in the 60s and now campaigns to help fight substance abuse, can we still not call them an anti-smoking advocate? Would it be accurate to call you a gamete? You used to be one, after all — probably more recently than the terrible things you're talking about Germany doing. It's useful to remember the past, but to excuse present wrongs because of past ones is inane, as is placing equal people on the person who did the deed and his or her grandchildren.
- batista 14y ago
  >At the risk of invoking common sense: Things that you did nearly a hundred years ago are not especially relevant to the discussion of what you're doing today. For a person, yes, for a country, not so much. A country has "continuity of the state" (if I recall the term correctly). Besides that legal difference (under international law), what a country has done in the past cannot be erased from the country. Even if all the old perpetrators are now dead, the deed remains within the country's history, and affects relations within its population (descendants of the perpetrators and/or the victims), relations with other countries if it was a foreign affairs issue, etc. For example you have freed the black slaves. You also stopped segregation (in the bloody 60's !!!). That doesn't mean that there is not a friction between black and white people in the country still, based among other things on historical reasons. And it doesn't mean that the black people that live today have it as if those things did not happen at all. Their past also affects their future. For example, a guy that arrived as a poor _white_ immigrant in the US in the twenties, is far more likely to have made it (and his descendants) than a poor black guy freed from some Southern cotton picking farm and left with nothing + plus the prejudice of the era + plus unfavorable laws (Jim Crow etc). Which kinda explains why blacks are the disproportionate majority of the prison population in the US. Besides that, what a country has done in the past is probably indicative of the idea the country has for itself and it's role. That kind of state and populace thinking doesn't die with a generation or two. For example the US likes to play global cop, Germany has several times brought war to Europe (and the world at large), other countries had colonial history for 3-4 centuries and continue to feel "entitled" to the countries they occupied in the past, etc etc.