3 ms·

While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term

While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.

pc86 11d ago
I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.
- rickdeckard 11d ago
  It could e.g. be "anti-democratic" by a universal definition of democracy and civil liberties which no single country then gets to fork and redefine...
  - smallmancontrov 11d ago
    Let's suppose you had your way and the cultural concept of America as a set of ideas and values related to democracy was erased. Would the universal non-national concepts of democracy and civil liberties have been able to inspire Mike Pence to stand up to Donald Trump on January 6th?
    - rickdeckard 11d ago
      Sorry, I don't know what this conversation is about. This is not about a "concept", it is about the label itself. When the term "anti-American" is used, it is a placeholder for "against my values". Noone is ever anti-American himself, it is only a label applied upon others. That's why IMO it should be rejected when used by people in a public role, see original comment. You are free to think otherwise, which I may then label as "anti-American" in passing, while quickly moving on to you mentioning Mike Pence and some random conspiracy I have /s Again, /s/s/s/s
      - smallmancontrov 11d ago
        "Trump is misusing a term, better roll over and let him do it!" Gross.
        rickdeckard 11d ago
        Which is not what I'm saying, I'm saying to NOT let him use this term. How can you miss this fundamental aspect of what I'm repeatedly stating? "Sad."
  - 8note 11d ago
    its encoded in the US constitution, so its anti-american. it can be anti-other things too, but its certainly anti-american
- Joker_vD 11d ago
  Ah, I see, it's the same as "un-American", only without being a word too onerous to use (yet) due to obvious historical implications.
  - lioeters 11d ago
    > The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives created in 1938. Their goal was to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. It was abolished in 1975. I'd heard of this but didn't realize it went on for decades. Turning it around, I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do. At least according to the values for which the nation stands (or supposed to stand).
    - Joker_vD 11d ago
      > I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do Dude. Dude. You've said yourself: this Congress committee went on for almost four decades. And before it, it was Yellow Peril, or anti-Irish sentiments, or manifest destiny with its "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". So, no, it's a very American thing to do, has been since the foundation of the US and arguably from even before than that.
  - pc86 10d ago
    I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?
parineum 11d ago
Not really. America stands for something, they wrote a whole document about it. There is a big difference between being "American" and being something like "German" because Germany has existed for so long as different governments and the thing that ties it together is not an ethos, but an ethnicity. Being American is different, there's no ethnicity that makes one American, there is only it's ethos. The ideals written in the declaration of independence are American values.
- rickdeckard 11d ago
  And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country: The group elected to lead and represent this location also represent ideals and values, so THEIR ideals and values become inseparable of the location they were elected to represent. For a certain period in the mid-1900s, "German values" meant something different than it did before and after, because Germany was represented by a different leader...
  - parineum 11d ago
    > And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country My entire post is about exactly how this is not the case, American values are defined in a document[1]. [1]https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
    - rickdeckard 11d ago
      And what I'm trying to explain is, that this paper doesn't matter if it is represented by someone who doesn't uphold its content. Germany had the Paulskirche-, the Bismarck- and the Weymar-Constitution, all of them before that certain Leader elected into power. He got to define who is worthy/unworthy, decide how to read the document his party represents and change the definition of "un-German"
      - parineum 11d ago
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]
georgeecollins 11d ago
It's just the idea that vague terms get misused so much I demand the specific. "Anti" anything can just mean you aren't "pro" it enough, or not pro a particular version. So for restricting speech, you could say not honoring the first amendment or something like that. I think about this because sometimes people or ideas are described as "problematic". Sometimes for very good reason, but sometimes you find out the speaker has trouble being specific. I like to hear the specific reason when I can to understand the facts or logic. Sometimes these classifications come third hand.
rpdillon 11d ago
I mean, there are American values. The country was built around the idea of limiting the federal government's power, and adherence not a person, but to a set of values (like freedom of speech). We're explictly founded on the concept of rule of law. Through that lens, it is very clear what anti-American means: adherence and loyalty to a person instead of a set of values, expansive government overreach, erosion of individual liberties, including the ability to express dissent.
- iamnothere 11d ago
  It was also built around a process by which those values can be codified and changed to reflect changing times, i.e. the amendment process. Which we have forgotten about entirely.
- cestith 11d ago
  What Trump and his followers mean by it, though, is that any disagreement with Trump on policy, strategy, tactics, procedure, or belief is anti-American. The way they use the term "anti-American" is anti-American. Therefore the term outside of context is meaningless. It's been coopted, twisted, and perverted.
flir 11d ago
Is it exists, something must be antithetical to it. (Truth is its just rhetoric and it doesn't mean much of anything. That's why its main use is as a cudgel).
- saltcured 11d ago
  Clearly, the southern Indian Ocean and a tiny slice of the Antarctic coast are the most anti-(US of) American. It only involves a swathe of South-East Asia and China once you are inclusive of South America... ;-)
RobRivera 11d ago
I disagree. I would define confidently that Anti-American is aligned with Anti-Constitutional. By definition, it is this nation's founding document and treatise. An the Supreme Court's ultimate role is to affirm or deny nebulous case law as aligned with the Constitution.
- rickdeckard 11d ago
  For you that might be a confident definition, for others it might not mean "anti-constitutional" but "against the declaration of independence", for even others it might not create any clear association at all. That's because something being "American"/"anti-American" is not sufficiently defined in this context. It triggers a highly subjective assumption of what it means, allowing people to evoke "us vs. them" solidarity without actually taking a position. Example: I can (probably) break your assumed association by stating "women owning credit-cards is anti-American". It (probably) doesn't fit your mental model of what being "anti-American" means, but women were in fact not allowed to own credit cards in US until 1974. So my definition might be more in-line with the era of the constitution than yours. That's a blunt example. Now imagine I use "anti-American" in a context of "law and order" and then keep talking. People instinctively glance over it because they create the meaning by taking their personal association of being "American" and invert it. You may feel like agreeing but I might actually say the complete opposite of what you think. That's why IMO the phrase should be rejected from people in a public role.
bryanrasmussen 11d ago
If you will not say what something is against, then it is by definition for nothing. on edit: fixed grammatical error, based on bad keyboard gesture moving stuff around.

While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.

pc86 11d ago

I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.

rickdeckard 11d ago
It could e.g. be "anti-democratic" by a universal definition of democracy and civil liberties which no single country then gets to fork and redefine...
- smallmancontrov 11d ago
  Let's suppose you had your way and the cultural concept of America as a set of ideas and values related to democracy was erased. Would the universal non-national concepts of democracy and civil liberties have been able to inspire Mike Pence to stand up to Donald Trump on January 6th?
  - rickdeckard 11d ago
    Sorry, I don't know what this conversation is about. This is not about a "concept", it is about the label itself. When the term "anti-American" is used, it is a placeholder for "against my values". Noone is ever anti-American himself, it is only a label applied upon others. That's why IMO it should be rejected when used by people in a public role, see original comment. You are free to think otherwise, which I may then label as "anti-American" in passing, while quickly moving on to you mentioning Mike Pence and some random conspiracy I have /s Again, /s/s/s/s
    - smallmancontrov 11d ago
      "Trump is misusing a term, better roll over and let him do it!" Gross.
      - rickdeckard 11d ago
        Which is not what I'm saying, I'm saying to NOT let him use this term. How can you miss this fundamental aspect of what I'm repeatedly stating? "Sad."
- 8note 11d ago
  its encoded in the US constitution, so its anti-american. it can be anti-other things too, but its certainly anti-american
Joker_vD 11d ago
Ah, I see, it's the same as "un-American", only without being a word too onerous to use (yet) due to obvious historical implications.
- lioeters 11d ago
  > The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives created in 1938. Their goal was to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. It was abolished in 1975. I'd heard of this but didn't realize it went on for decades. Turning it around, I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do. At least according to the values for which the nation stands (or supposed to stand).
  - Joker_vD 11d ago
    > I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do Dude. Dude. You've said yourself: this Congress committee went on for almost four decades. And before it, it was Yellow Peril, or anti-Irish sentiments, or manifest destiny with its "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". So, no, it's a very American thing to do, has been since the foundation of the US and arguably from even before than that.
- pc86 10d ago
  I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?

parineum 11d ago

Not really. America stands for something, they wrote a whole document about it. There is a big difference between being "American" and being something like "German" because Germany has existed for so long as different governments and the thing that ties it together is not an ethos, but an ethnicity. Being American is different, there's no ethnicity that makes one American, there is only it's ethos. The ideals written in the declaration of independence are American values.

rickdeckard 11d ago
And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country: The group elected to lead and represent this location also represent ideals and values, so THEIR ideals and values become inseparable of the location they were elected to represent. For a certain period in the mid-1900s, "German values" meant something different than it did before and after, because Germany was represented by a different leader...
- parineum 11d ago
  > And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country My entire post is about exactly how this is not the case, American values are defined in a document[1]. [1]https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
  - rickdeckard 11d ago
    And what I'm trying to explain is, that this paper doesn't matter if it is represented by someone who doesn't uphold its content. Germany had the Paulskirche-, the Bismarck- and the Weymar-Constitution, all of them before that certain Leader elected into power. He got to define who is worthy/unworthy, decide how to read the document his party represents and change the definition of "un-German"
    - parineum 11d ago

deleted 11d ago

[deleted]

georgeecollins 11d ago

It's just the idea that vague terms get misused so much I demand the specific. "Anti" anything can just mean you aren't "pro" it enough, or not pro a particular version. So for restricting speech, you could say not honoring the first amendment or something like that. I think about this because sometimes people or ideas are described as "problematic". Sometimes for very good reason, but sometimes you find out the speaker has trouble being specific. I like to hear the specific reason when I can to understand the facts or logic. Sometimes these classifications come third hand.

rpdillon 11d ago

I mean, there are American values. The country was built around the idea of limiting the federal government's power, and adherence not a person, but to a set of values (like freedom of speech). We're explictly founded on the concept of rule of law. Through that lens, it is very clear what anti-American means: adherence and loyalty to a person instead of a set of values, expansive government overreach, erosion of individual liberties, including the ability to express dissent.

iamnothere 11d ago
It was also built around a process by which those values can be codified and changed to reflect changing times, i.e. the amendment process. Which we have forgotten about entirely.
cestith 11d ago
What Trump and his followers mean by it, though, is that any disagreement with Trump on policy, strategy, tactics, procedure, or belief is anti-American. The way they use the term "anti-American" is anti-American. Therefore the term outside of context is meaningless. It's been coopted, twisted, and perverted.

flir 11d ago

Is it exists, something must be antithetical to it. (Truth is its just rhetoric and it doesn't mean much of anything. That's why its main use is as a cudgel).

saltcured 11d ago
Clearly, the southern Indian Ocean and a tiny slice of the Antarctic coast are the most anti-(US of) American. It only involves a swathe of South-East Asia and China once you are inclusive of South America... ;-)

RobRivera 11d ago

I disagree. I would define confidently that Anti-American is aligned with Anti-Constitutional. By definition, it is this nation's founding document and treatise. An the Supreme Court's ultimate role is to affirm or deny nebulous case law as aligned with the Constitution.

rickdeckard 11d ago
For you that might be a confident definition, for others it might not mean "anti-constitutional" but "against the declaration of independence", for even others it might not create any clear association at all. That's because something being "American"/"anti-American" is not sufficiently defined in this context. It triggers a highly subjective assumption of what it means, allowing people to evoke "us vs. them" solidarity without actually taking a position. Example: I can (probably) break your assumed association by stating "women owning credit-cards is anti-American". It (probably) doesn't fit your mental model of what being "anti-American" means, but women were in fact not allowed to own credit cards in US until 1974. So my definition might be more in-line with the era of the constitution than yours. That's a blunt example. Now imagine I use "anti-American" in a context of "law and order" and then keep talking. People instinctively glance over it because they create the meaning by taking their personal association of being "American" and invert it. You may feel like agreeing but I might actually say the complete opposite of what you think. That's why IMO the phrase should be rejected from people in a public role.

bryanrasmussen 11d ago

If you will not say what something is against, then it is by definition for nothing. on edit: fixed grammatical error, based on bad keyboard gesture moving stuff around.