| |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Despite all the online rhetoric, and the popularity of mis-naming political movements, sometimes I think the people who hate America the most and want it to fail are Americans themselves. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nah; last but one job I had an Iranian coworker, and I asked if the way the regime calls Israel and the US the "Great Satan and Little Satan" was serious or a quirk of translation. Apparently the regime is quite serious about the US being the actual devil. | | |
| ▲ | cestith an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Specifically, the US federal government. Just like most Americans don’t hate the people of Russia or Iran any more than the folks the next town over, I’ve never met someone from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, or pretty much anywhere else who hates all Americans. I’m sure they exist, but probably as a small minority. There’s plenty of reason to hate our government though, especially if it has threatened to destroy your entire civilization. | |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you aware of what the US regime has done to Iran? There's a reason they say that. | |
| ▲ | drowsspa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the issue is about our not believing what religious people themselves tell us about their reasoning | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | God's angels typically don't bomb your little girl's school. All I'm saying is, I could see how someone who believes Satan influences the world would come to that idea. |
| |
| ▲ | elzbardico 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is not a matter of hate or love. But the fact that people in charge doesn't give a fuck at any other thing beyond their personal interests.
But this problem is not exclusive to America. | |
| ▲ | senderista 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think that's broadly true: both sides want America to fail when the other side is in power in order to prove they're right. | | |
| ▲ | drfloyd51 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Strong disagree. One side is clearly interested in helping others simply because they need help. The other is clearly interested in help others that they can relate to (look like themselves) and have earned the right to help (such as believing in the right god.) or only helping people that can help them back. | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | NoMoreNicksLeft an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Quite a few on one side seem to want to "help others" so they can demonstrate publicly how awesome and righteous they are. And we can even falsify this hypothesis a bit... such people would, I speculate, be more interested in the appearance of helping than in the substance of helping. They'll tend to arrange the help in such a way as to garner the most publicity. And, most of all, they'll allocate their efforts such that they're vocal about how they're the good guys doing all the helping more than they're actively helping. Just to make sure everyone notices. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Quite a few on one side seem to want to "help others" so they can demonstrate publicly how awesome and righteous they are Being awesome because you help those in need? How horrible! > more interested in the appearance of helping than in the substance of helping This is a common and tired talking point: "virtue signalling". It often comes from people who are less helpful than others, and resent how more helpful people receive accolades. Their own personal judgement about whether something actually helps isn't authoritative, and is usually motivated reasoning anyways. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gcanyon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't want "the other side" to fail, and I absolutely don't wan the U.S. to fail when they are in power. I want the U.S. to succeed, and for "the other side" to be competent and fair. | |
| ▲ | krsw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Classic enlightened centrist take. One side yells when the other dismantles the institutions that let the country work, so both sides are equally bad. | | |
| ▲ | californical 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Both bad, and one is more bad than the other. They’re not equally bad but they are both very bad | | |
| ▲ | disillusioned 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a bit like saying a hangnail and a gangrenous amputation are "not equally bad but they are both very bad". One is literally chopping things off to permanently alter them. The other is, at times, uncomfortable and frustrating. The false equivalence of doing the "both bad!" song and dance serves to so radically under-emphasize the absolute wanton, orders-of-magnitude-worse levels of corruption and evisceration of norms of one side by reducing it to "more bad than the other but they're both very bad." It allows the window to shift to normalize the sort of destruction of systems we're seeing by hand waving away how "the other guys aren't great, either!" It's borderline discourse malpractice at this point, and should be called out as such. | |
| ▲ | chipsrafferty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes the US is more bad, agreed |
| |
| ▲ | rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The enlightened centrist take is not entirely wrong, though. The left definitely has some blind spots, among them their purist dedication to perfect morals and a willingness to tell anyone who does not perfectly agree to piss off. While the right is comfortable holding their nose when white supremacists hang around because it gets them a bigger coalition, the left will excommunicate someone for saying out loud that they think trans women are not exactly equivalent to biological women. This shrinking of the coalition is how we ended up enduring another Trump presidency. Not to mention the complete fiasco that was the 2024 presidential race. We should have thrown out the entirety of DNC leadership several levels deep for letting that happen. | | |
| ▲ | cestith an hour ago | parent [-] | | There’s a bit of a duality about perfect agreement within the voters for the party’s candidates and somewhat within the party membership itself. Yeah, there’s a lot of telling each other to piss off. There’s a lot of jockeying for the platform and the primaries. But come the general, it’s a minority of the voters who will sit it out or vote for a minor party. Sometimes it’s a large enough minority to hand things to the Republicans, though. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > sometimes I think the people who hate America the most and want it to fail are Americans themselves. That's because the US (and the UK) are about the only countries in this world that haven't had the entirety of their legal, economical and political system completely revamped at least once in the last 100 years - most countries average more than that. At the same time, such a revamp is desperately needed - the issues with the status quo are reeking - and everyone knows that it is highly, highly unlikely to get that done by ordinary democratic means due to the sheer inertia of hundreds of years of fossilized bureaucracy and individual/party interests. And that is why so many people tend to vote for whoever shouts "destroy the country" the loudest - and not just in the US (MAGA) or UK ("Reform"), but also in Germany (AfD), Spain (Vox) or Italy (Salvini/Meloni), where economic inequality and perspectivelessness has hit absurd levels. Let it all burn to ashes, burn everything, even if one goes down with the fire, eat the rich, and try to build something more sane this time. | | |
| ▲ | spookie an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Would like to add Vox is nowhere near the other's popularity, and has received substantial donations from... Hungary. A total of 6.5 million euros during the 2023 elections. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > That's because the US (and the UK) are about the only countries in this world that haven't had the entirety of their legal, economical and political system completely revamped at least once in the last 100 years - most countries average more than that. I usually get downvoted when I make an observation along these lines, but I will go for it again -- IMO some of the reason Europe has pulled ahead in infrastructure and policy is because a couple world wars last century reduced much of it to rubble, including the systems of governance. The UK mostly escaped that, and the US escaped nearly all of it. Which is one reason we can still have a lot of old electrical infrastructure, for example, that is pushing 100 years old, and a Constitutional system 250 years old. I think a major problem with the system in the US is the difficulty changing it. There is a balance, and a lot of room for differing opinions on how flexible it really ought to be, but I suspect there is broad agreement that it is too inflexible. We rely too much on changing interpretations rather than changing the fundamentals. Perhaps we really do need to risk a second Constitutional Convention. Or we will end up with a worse alternative. | | |
| ▲ | nradov an hour ago | parent [-] | | If Europe has "pulled ahead in infrastructure and policy" then why do they have nothing to show for it? They can't even protect their own sea lines of communication. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dave78 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | About half of the strategic petroleum reserve was sold off in 2022. |
|