[LinearPhilosopher]

 Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Haha, ok friend, I like the cut of your jib and I can detect that you were almost certainly inebriated when you posted here which explains the complete disconnect from reality, which I also enjoy. However, if you continue in this vein I will do my best to eviscerate you in the friendliest way possible. May I inquire as to the extent of your scholastic training?

Please i haven't had a good intellectual challenge in a while (exams don't really count imo)go for it.

As to the extent of my scholastic training, spent 4.5 years in academia, walked out with a bachelor in accounting with a minor in philosophy followed up with doing my CPA atm. Though i try and keep up the philosophy with readings on the side.

 worry, on 30 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ink on a page has a physical existence though. A contract with signatures on it doesn't require minds agreeing upon its existence. Does it have more in common with a skyscraper or a nod and handshake?

On the contrary is does require in two ways (by definition a contract requires two parties to agree to something)


ahh the ink yes, but does ink=country? does ink= agreement to do x or y. No it doesn't were just so used to doing the mental acrobatics to get from ink to markings>to language>promise or agreement>tangible object or effect.(gross oversimplification of the actual process) that the real tangible thing has been supplanted with mental constructs.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 30 August 2016 - 02:21 AM

[worry]

So it's the # of steps that matter to get from fiction to non-fiction? Seems kinda lazy.

[Malaclypse]

 LinearPhilosopher, on 30 August 2016 - 02:20 AM, said:

 Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Haha, ok friend, I like the cut of your jib and I can detect that you were almost certainly inebriated when you posted here which explains the complete disconnect from reality, which I also enjoy. However, if you continue in this vein I will do my best to eviscerate you in the friendliest way possible. May I inquire as to the extent of your scholastic training?

Please i haven't had a good intellectual challenge in a while (exams don't really count imo)go for it.

As to the extent of my scholastic training, spent 4.5 years in academia, walked out with a bachelor in accounting with a minor in philosophy followed up with doing my CPA atm. Though i try and keep up the philosophy with readings on the side.

 worry, on 30 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ink on a page has a physical existence though. A contract with signatures on it doesn't require minds agreeing upon its existence. Does it have more in common with a skyscraper or a nod and handshake?

On the contrary is does require in two ways (by definition a contract requires two parties to agree to something)


ahh the ink yes, but does ink=country? does ink= agreement to do x or y. No it doesn't were just so used to doing the mental acrobatics to get from ink to markings>to language>promise or agreement>tangible object or effect.(gross oversimplification of the actual process) that the real tangible thing has been supplanted with mental constructs.

Ahhh man, I dunno if I can be mean here. An accountant with a wannabe in philosophy? I'm sympathetic, if I'm honest. You're in for a rough ride kid. All I can say is Know When to Get Out and that applies to jobs, marriages, friendships and frankly any commitment of any kind. Serve yourself first. Don't reproduce by accident! If you do, know that all your aspirations in life are as ash on the wind and nobody who has not reproduced has any sympathy for you whatsoever. Also try to pay attention to grammar and spelling, though I suspect that's a losing battle which is fair enough. In closing, you should never answer a question like the one I posed you at all, let alone in an honest fashion. It's obviously a hostile question - the more information you give me the more material I have to hang you with. I'm taking note of you LinearPhilosopher and Imma try not to hurt your feelings but you do need some seasoning and you mustn't lose your outrage.

[LinearPhilosopher]

 Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 04:48 AM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 30 August 2016 - 02:20 AM, said:

 Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

 Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

 LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Haha, ok friend, I like the cut of your jib and I can detect that you were almost certainly inebriated when you posted here which explains the complete disconnect from reality, which I also enjoy. However, if you continue in this vein I will do my best to eviscerate you in the friendliest way possible. May I inquire as to the extent of your scholastic training?

Please i haven't had a good intellectual challenge in a while (exams don't really count imo)go for it.

As to the extent of my scholastic training, spent 4.5 years in academia, walked out with a bachelor in accounting with a minor in philosophy followed up with doing my CPA atm. Though i try and keep up the philosophy with readings on the side.

 worry, on 30 August 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Ink on a page has a physical existence though. A contract with signatures on it doesn't require minds agreeing upon its existence. Does it have more in common with a skyscraper or a nod and handshake?

On the contrary is does require in two ways (by definition a contract requires two parties to agree to something)


ahh the ink yes, but does ink=country? does ink= agreement to do x or y. No it doesn't were just so used to doing the mental acrobatics to get from ink to markings>to language>promise or agreement>tangible object or effect.(gross oversimplification of the actual process) that the real tangible thing has been supplanted with mental constructs.

Ahhh man, I dunno if I can be mean here. An accountant with a wannabe in philosophy? I'm sympathetic, if I'm honest. You're in for a rough ride kid. All I can say is Know When to Get Out and that applies to jobs, marriages, friendships and frankly any commitment of any kind. Serve yourself first. Don't reproduce by accident! If you do, know that all your aspirations in life are as ash on the wind and nobody who has not reproduced has any sympathy for you whatsoever. Also try to pay attention to grammar and spelling, though I suspect that's a losing battle which is fair enough. In closing, you should never answer a question like the one I posed you at all, let alone in an honest fashion. It's obviously a hostile question - the more information you give me the more material I have to hang you with. I'm taking note of you LinearPhilosopher and Imma try not to hurt your feelings but you do need some seasoning and you mustn't lose your outrage.

cool story bro

you done yet?

[amphibian]

 LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Animals pee all over the limits of "their territory" to delineate it and reduce conflict. Insects buzz around specific regions bc that's where they'll find their food. Bacterium too.

Territory claiming is a basic part of life and carefully negotiating the claiming and crossings of territories has been built into the fabric of life on this planet since life it self began. The only artificiality is the degree of permanent claiming and transformation of the territories due to groups enduring far longer than an individual.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 amphibian, on 29 August 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

I think the people of the USA really do have a higher level of nationalism that's unusual in that so many have families who specifically moved to be there. There's a certain level of "I bought in and now I gotta rep the brand" multi level marketing going on plus willful and accidental ignorance about the impact and perception of "America".

The concept of America also has these imperialism/colonial overtones in a similar way that the British and Spanish concepts do, in that America also includes what it takes or once had because America is great. I do not think that we need to say USA'ans instead of a broader American/distinguishing between North and South America because very, very few people do this and the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

I need to be clear that very, very nationalist people exist in kind of scary numbers almost anywhere and everywhere across the globe. I don't particularly like this, but it is part of reality and I will do my part to ensure that xenophobia and hostility are less present around me.

There was a time when most people in USoA used the n-word, or referred to various groups or concepts using words which had negative or inaccurate and bigoted baggage attached to them. In USoA, we stopped using "Oriental" to mean "Asian" after Said's book Orientalism. Changing from "American" to "USoAn" helps remind us that there's more to America than USoA, and USoA doesn't own or control what happens in America---we renounce the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and the illegal and unethical interventions in Latin American politics that USoAn leaders engaged in over the 20th century.

USoA (you-ess-OH-uh) and USoAns sound better (and are more accurate) than USAns.

Quote

the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

But a condensed, single-word means of referring to someone from the United States, or something USoAn, would still be extremely useful. Sometimes that is exactly the level of specificity we need to communicate.

[amphibian]

Most people from the countries on South America refer to themselves by their specific country's name. Brazilian, Ecuadorian etc. They don't say American. It's very, very rare someone will actually say "American" and not mean USA. It's the only country on either continent with America in it's name.

I think everyone beyond children that I've ever encountered says "North America" and "South America" when referring to the continents and "America" or "USA" when referring to the country.

I flat out don't understand why people would extend "America" without the modifiers of "North" or "South" to include anything other than the USA. It's downright dumb and I've never heard anyone do that until LinearPhilosopher and Azath Vitr above.

[Vengeance]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

 amphibian, on 29 August 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

I think the people of the USA really do have a higher level of nationalism that's unusual in that so many have families who specifically moved to be there. There's a certain level of "I bought in and now I gotta rep the brand" multi level marketing going on plus willful and accidental ignorance about the impact and perception of "America".

The concept of America also has these imperialism/colonial overtones in a similar way that the British and Spanish concepts do, in that America also includes what it takes or once had because America is great. I do not think that we need to say USA'ans instead of a broader American/distinguishing between North and South America because very, very few people do this and the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

I need to be clear that very, very nationalist people exist in kind of scary numbers almost anywhere and everywhere across the globe. I don't particularly like this, but it is part of reality and I will do my part to ensure that xenophobia and hostility are less present around me.

There was a time when most people in USoA used the n-word, or referred to various groups or concepts using words which had negative or inaccurate and bigoted baggage attached to them. In USoA, we stopped using "Oriental" to mean "Asian" after Said's book Orientalism. Changing from "American" to "USoAn" helps remind us that there's more to America than USoA, and USoA doesn't own or control what happens in America---we renounce the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and the illegal and unethical interventions in Latin American politics that USoAn leaders engaged in over the 20th century.

USoA (you-ess-OH-uh) and USoAns sound better (and are more accurate) than USAns.

Quote

the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

But a condensed, single-word means of referring to someone from the United States, or something USoAn, would still be extremely useful. Sometimes that is exactly the level of specificity we need to communicate.

I have heard people refer to the The United States of America as just the states. Although that is mainly. I agree with Amp that the only time people say America they are referring to the country. I have never heard of anyone getting confused with USA with one of the American continents. I mean other then kindergartners. Usually by call it second grade for the slow kids they realize that hardly anybody gives a shit about continents and just refer to countries.

[Gothos]

Hey where's Central Europe?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

 amphibian, on 29 August 2016 - 08:23 PM, said:

I think the people of the USA really do have a higher level of nationalism that's unusual in that so many have families who specifically moved to be there. There's a certain level of "I bought in and now I gotta rep the brand" multi level marketing going on plus willful and accidental ignorance about the impact and perception of "America".

The concept of America also has these imperialism/colonial overtones in a similar way that the British and Spanish concepts do, in that America also includes what it takes or once had because America is great. I do not think that we need to say USA'ans instead of a broader American/distinguishing between North and South America because very, very few people do this and the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

I need to be clear that very, very nationalist people exist in kind of scary numbers almost anywhere and everywhere across the globe. I don't particularly like this, but it is part of reality and I will do my part to ensure that xenophobia and hostility are less present around me.

There was a time when most people in USoA used the n-word, or referred to various groups or concepts using words which had negative or inaccurate and bigoted baggage attached to them. In USoA, we stopped using "Oriental" to mean "Asian" after Said's book Orientalism. Changing from "American" to "USoAn" helps remind us that there's more to America than USoA, and USoA doesn't own or control what happens in America---we renounce the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and the illegal and unethical interventions in Latin American politics that USoAn leaders engaged in over the 20th century.

USoA (you-ess-OH-uh) and USoAns sound better (and are more accurate) than USAns.

Quote

the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

But a condensed, single-word means of referring to someone from the United States, or something USoAn, would still be extremely useful. Sometimes that is exactly the level of specificity we need to communicate.

I have heard people refer to the The United States of America as just the states. Although that is mainly. I agree with Amp that the only time people say America they are referring to the country. I have never heard of anyone getting confused with USA with one of the American continents. I mean other then kindergartners. Usually by call it second grade for the slow kids they realize that hardly anybody gives a shit about continents and just refer to countries.

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

[amphibian]

That specific linguistic shift has an ok spirit behind it, but it's not a shift to anything helpful/less hurtful or already in use.

It's basically an "incompletely woke" thing.

[Itwæs Nom]

 Gothos, on 30 August 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

Hey where's Central Europe?

I went for which army after 2nd WW freed the country as divider between west/east

[Vengeance]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

[Nevyn]

 Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

This nonsense could have all been avoided if you nitwits had just picked a catchier name to start with. But whatever, make excuses ...

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, there were some good colony names like Massachussetts and Pennsylvania, but then we had to up and rebel and unite and shit so there were a bunch of united, individual states in America.

What's one to do, eh?

[Nevyn]

 HoosierDaddy, on 30 August 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

Well, there were some good colony names like Massachussetts and Pennsylvania, but then we had to up and rebel and unite and shit so there were a bunch of united, individual states in America.

What's one to do, eh?

So you are saying the founding fathers were unoriginal and simply named the country based on a boring description of what it constituted? I agree.

Don't think they could get a job in brand marketing. What's the name of our new midsize car, George Washington? Oh, it is the Ford Medium Sized Internal Combustion Engine Powered Personal Four Wheel Vehicle. We'll call it the Vehicle for short.

VEHICLE!
VEHICLE!

[HoosierDaddy]

Eh, they were pretty good writers, though.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

Suppose Germany had named itself "The United States of Europe". Suppose also that Germany, in addition to being the largest economy and having the most powerful military, had a history of being extremely ignorant of other countries in Europe, considering themselves the only important country, and of believing themselves the rightful de facto rulers of any other countries in Europe. If Germans insisted on using "European" as synonomous with "German"---as if it excluded all other countries in Europe, the way "American" is used to exclude Mexicans and Brazilians---wouldn't that be ridiculous and outrageous? And wouldn't changing that usage help draw attention to the problematic aspects of the popular ignorance, bigotry, and (active or passive) political support for an ongoing history of domination and exploitation?

Depending on which measures you look at, China has already surpassed the USoA as the world's largest economy by single nation. And the EU has the largest economy in the world, as a unified trading bloc.

Nuclear weapons long ago progressed to the point of mutually assured destruction, making the size of the military essentially irrelevant, unless you want to see who'd rule over the ensuing nuclear wastelands (there's a fun Malazan-esque novel there... the USoA as Kallor the Beautiful!).

People around the world watch USoAn TV and movies, read USoAn novels, listen to USoAn music; they have a much better grasp of the culture of different regions of USoA than most USoAns have of the world outside it. Most USoAns have never even been outside the country, can't speak any languages other than English, and by first world standards are exceptionally ignorant, even about their own (our) country's history.

And why do USoAns use "motherfucking" but never "fatherfucking"? Yes, you are a fatherfucking USoAn.


(Incidentally, my USoAn ancestors fought in the USoAn Revolutionary War and the Civil War (on the Union side), and engineered weaponry for WWII (and marched in the Civil Rights movement)---against oppression, against tyranny, against empire. I am proud of those (and many other) aspects of my USoAn heritage.)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 30 August 2016 - 08:51 PM

[Vengeance]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

 Vengeance, on 30 August 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

People do use terms like "North America", "South America", "Central America", "Latin America" frequently; but I agree, the issue isn't about the likelihood of people confusing USoA for the Americas. It's the implication that the USoA is the only important country in the Americas; it's how it reflects and reinforces the history of USoAn de facto imperialism and domination in the Americas (which Teddy Roosevelt made explicit in his "Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine).

Many people in the USoA are extremely ignorant about the rest of the world; this change reminds us that there are other important countries in the Americas, and that the USoA is not the only United States in the world.

Many people around the world are extremely ignorant about the different areas of America. I think that you are overlooking one important thing. USA is officially the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are the only country that has America in it's official name. Brazil is not Brazil of America. Mexico is not Mexico of America. So to refer to the USA using a portion of our official name such as either the states or America is not an implication that the USA is the only important county in the America's it is more of a justified reference to our actual name. Furthermore regardless of any other thoughts the USA of the most important country. We have the largest economy and with out doubt the largest military force. You can say that it is imperialism or what not but really it isn't. It is a justifiable reference to being the strongest power. It also brings to mind that we are the longest lasting democracy in the Americas. Now you personally may have a problem with that. Which my response is too fucking bad. We are USA, the States, and motherfucking America. It only references us and nobody else.

Today I am identifying as an motherfucking American!.

Suppose Germany had named itself "The United States of Europe". Suppose also that Germany, in addition to being the largest economy and having the most powerful military, had a history of being extremely ignorant of other countries in Europe, considering themselves the only important country, and of believing themselves the rightful de facto rulers of any other countries in Europe. If Germans insisted on using "European" as synonomous with "German"---as if it excluded all other countries in Europe, the way "American" is used to exclude Mexicans and Brazilians---wouldn't that be ridiculous and outrageous? And wouldn't changing that usage help draw attention to the problematic aspects of the popular ignorance, bigotry, and (active or passive) political support for an ongoing history of domination and exploitation?

Depending on which measures you look at, China has already surpassed the USoA as the world's largest economy by single nation. And the EU has the largest economy in the world, as a unified trading bloc.


Nuclear weapons long ago progressed to the point of mutually assured destruction, making the size of the military essentially irrelevant, unless you want to see who'd rule over the ensuing nuclear wastelands (there's a fun Malazan-esque novel there... the USoA as Kallor the Beautiful!).

People around the world watch USoAn TV and movies, read USoAn novels, listen to USoAn music; they have a much better grasp of the culture of different regions of USoA than most USoAns have of the world outside it. Most USoAns have never even been outside the country, can't speak any languages other than English, and by first world standards are exceptionally ignorant, even about their own (our) country's history.

And why do USoAns use "motherfucking" but never "fatherfucking"? Yes, you are a fatherfucking USoAn.

You live in a dream world if you think that TV and movies are an accurate representation of the varying cultures that make up a country of immigrants. You seem to have a very hostile attitude toward AMERICA. As much as I would continue to enjoy to argue with you. I see that you have very little if any understanding of America other then what you learned at which ever school you went to. Feel free to spout off about how much America is an imperialistic asshole who is completely uneducated and ignorant. Mean while we will continue to be the country that other countries strive to be and want to compete against. All things being equal I would rather be an American.

Sure we have issues but honestly we are bigger then almost every other country in the world with a more diverse population then any other country. You watch us on TV and see some excesses and see on the news that there are shootings in Chicago and riots in New Orleans and think that you know us. You don't know shit. If you want to fuck your father feel free. Personally I would rather fuck your mother. That is why it is mother fucker. But hey if the asshole is where you like it then go for your father.

[Vengeance]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 30 August 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

(Incidentally, my USoAn ancestors fought in the USoAn Revolutionary War and the Civil War (on the Union side), and engineered weaponry for WWII (and marched in the Civil Rights movement)---against oppression, against tyranny, against empire. I am proud of those (and many other) aspects of my USoAn heritage.)

I probably would have liked your American ancestors.