4 ms·

Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? You've just stepped into that intellectual minefield that's called "American Excep

Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? You've just stepped into that intellectual minefield that's called "American Exceptionalism". Enjoy your stay.

pekk 13y ago
"American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be)
- nfg 13y ago
  What does it mean then?
  - keiferski 13y ago
    It refers to the belief that Americans as a people are specially suited for doing things exceptionally.
    - basch 13y ago
      american exceptionalism generally refers to the state and its machine not the people.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > "American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be) The term was first used by Stalin to describe and condemn the position of the prominent voice in the Communist Party of the United States of America about how, precisely, the US was an exception to the rule of inevitability of revolution. While usage has shifted in terms of exactly what rule is at issue, what you reject is exactly what American Exceptionalism has always meant. (The idea of "American Exceptionalism", though not the term itself, is generally tied back to an older quote [EDIT: by de Toqueville -- not sure how I missed including that originally] in which particular traits were identified which made America exceptional as opposed to being an example through which democratic nations in general should be viewed -- or, IOW, that America broke rather than made the rules for democracies. Which, while from a different perspective than Stalin's use of the term, also is an instance of America being an exception to rules.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
No, this does not have to do with "American Exceptionalism." It has to do with the much more basic concept that sovereign nations reserve the right to kill people in other sovereign nations in pursuit of their own security. The U.S. just gets the brunt of the blame for these sorts of accidents because it bankrolls geopolitical stability for the rest of the world.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The U.S. just gets the brunt of the blame for these sorts of accidents because it bankrolls geopolitical stability for the rest of the world. "bankrolling geopolitical stability for the rest of the world" is a nice attempt to recast maintaining a global empire through military power as if it was a selfless, altruistic deed. But its not even remotely accurate.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. Use your head for a second. The US government hands out millions of dollars in foreign aid to it's "enemies" - governments who are quite happy to parade around talking about standing up the US, and then holding out their hand for handouts from them. It's quite clear what they're doing - they're basically doling out money in the hopes that it'll prevent civil unrest and nations imploding - sure, they might not like these people, and they might even be actively trying to destroy them - but the alternative is to have a messy civil war, and then have to come in to clean it all up. The US is very interested in global stability - you can argue that's also in their own interests as well, but you can't argue they don't bankroll geopolitical stability.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. "For the world" is speaking to motives. America isn't bankrolling "stability for the world", its bankrolling stability where it suits the interest of American decision-makers, and instability where stability doesn't those interests. > The US is very interested in global stability Except for those places where its interested in altering the status quo, in which cases it spends lavishly on doing that. > you can argue that's also in their own interests as well "Their own interests" -- that is, those of American decision-makers -- are the only factor, not an incidental "as well" factor, in the decision of where to bankroll stability and where to bankroll instability.

Can you imagine the holy hell if a foreign government did that in a US city? You've just stepped into that intellectual minefield that's called "American Exceptionalism". Enjoy your stay.

pekk 13y ago

"American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be)

nfg 13y ago
What does it mean then?
- keiferski 13y ago
  It refers to the belief that Americans as a people are specially suited for doing things exceptionally.
  - basch 13y ago
    american exceptionalism generally refers to the state and its machine not the people.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> "American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is an exception to rules" (whatever those rules might be) The term was first used by Stalin to describe and condemn the position of the prominent voice in the Communist Party of the United States of America about how, precisely, the US was an exception to the rule of inevitability of revolution. While usage has shifted in terms of exactly what rule is at issue, what you reject is exactly what American Exceptionalism has always meant. (The idea of "American Exceptionalism", though not the term itself, is generally tied back to an older quote [EDIT: by de Toqueville -- not sure how I missed including that originally] in which particular traits were identified which made America exceptional as opposed to being an example through which democratic nations in general should be viewed -- or, IOW, that America broke rather than made the rules for democracies. Which, while from a different perspective than Stalin's use of the term, also is an instance of America being an exception to rules.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

No, this does not have to do with "American Exceptionalism." It has to do with the much more basic concept that sovereign nations reserve the right to kill people in other sovereign nations in pursuit of their own security. The U.S. just gets the brunt of the blame for these sorts of accidents because it bankrolls geopolitical stability for the rest of the world.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The U.S. just gets the brunt of the blame for these sorts of accidents because it bankrolls geopolitical stability for the rest of the world. "bankrolling geopolitical stability for the rest of the world" is a nice attempt to recast maintaining a global empire through military power as if it was a selfless, altruistic deed. But its not even remotely accurate.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. Use your head for a second. The US government hands out millions of dollars in foreign aid to it's "enemies" - governments who are quite happy to parade around talking about standing up the US, and then holding out their hand for handouts from them. It's quite clear what they're doing - they're basically doling out money in the hopes that it'll prevent civil unrest and nations imploding - sure, they might not like these people, and they might even be actively trying to destroy them - but the alternative is to have a messy civil war, and then have to come in to clean it all up. The US is very interested in global stability - you can argue that's also in their own interests as well, but you can't argue they don't bankroll geopolitical stability.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I don't know if we can speak about their motives, but they certainly contribute to overall stability. "For the world" is speaking to motives. America isn't bankrolling "stability for the world", its bankrolling stability where it suits the interest of American decision-makers, and instability where stability doesn't those interests. > The US is very interested in global stability Except for those places where its interested in altering the status quo, in which cases it spends lavishly on doing that. > you can argue that's also in their own interests as well "Their own interests" -- that is, those of American decision-makers -- are the only factor, not an incidental "as well" factor, in the decision of where to bankroll stability and where to bankroll instability.