▲ 201 ▼ the scare quotes don't make it any less factual, my homie (hexbear.net) submitted 2 years ago* by WhyEssEff@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net 47 comments fedilink hide all child comments digging up a five year old good take to own the tankies
[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 97 points 2 years ago* (5 children) America isn’t a democracy. It’s a Republic. Try again with Europe or other democratic nations. :chefs-kiss: a bonafide classic, the yankee liberal's ultimate retreat-and-defend move permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Frank@hexbear.net 74 points 2 years ago (2 children) Intelligence is knowing the US is not a democracy. Being a complete fucking idiot is thinking that's because it's a republic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] emizeko@hexbear.net 35 points 2 years ago "the great mass of people don't have any power" "ah but we're not supposed to. we're just not a monarchy" not the airtight case they think it is permalink fedilink source parent [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. They wrote a masturbatory declaration of independence about how this will be the land of personal freedom and individual rights. It’s America’s big thing, its source of national pride. The same people who believe that, the people who fetishize Benjamin Franklin and blabber endlessly about the Federalist Papers and watch the Hamilton musical weekly, will then turn around and say America was not even intended to be democratic from the beginning. They hold two wholly incompatible mythologies. Quote from the American Declaration of Independence: … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed This is clearly a call for a democracy. Chuds can squabble about what kind of democracy it was intended to be (no need to bring up the practical absence of genuine democracy) but the intent has always been unambiguous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. It was a myth in the sense that it was what the revolutionaries told themselves. But I don’t think it was a myth in that it was false. The people writing those proclamations were bourgeois and it was a bourgeois revolution they were supporting. If you look at American mythos as only applying to land owning white men, as was intended, it’s a lot easier to see that the founders likely meant what they said, just not seeing anyone outside of their intended ruling class as people deserving of the same considerations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SomeRedDude@hexbear.net 46 points 2 years ago (1 child) Always point out to them that China is republic too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 2 years ago Better yet, point out that China is more democratic and watch them seethe permalink fedilink source parent [–] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 35 points 2 years ago Europe nation someone buy the yank a map permalink fedilink source parent [–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 27 points 2 years ago EU is very democratic, look at Greece. permalink fedilink source parent [–] davel@hexbear.net 26 points 2 years ago The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Frank@hexbear.net 74 points 2 years ago (2 children) Intelligence is knowing the US is not a democracy. Being a complete fucking idiot is thinking that's because it's a republic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] emizeko@hexbear.net 35 points 2 years ago "the great mass of people don't have any power" "ah but we're not supposed to. we're just not a monarchy" not the airtight case they think it is permalink fedilink source parent [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. They wrote a masturbatory declaration of independence about how this will be the land of personal freedom and individual rights. It’s America’s big thing, its source of national pride. The same people who believe that, the people who fetishize Benjamin Franklin and blabber endlessly about the Federalist Papers and watch the Hamilton musical weekly, will then turn around and say America was not even intended to be democratic from the beginning. They hold two wholly incompatible mythologies. Quote from the American Declaration of Independence: … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed This is clearly a call for a democracy. Chuds can squabble about what kind of democracy it was intended to be (no need to bring up the practical absence of genuine democracy) but the intent has always been unambiguous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. It was a myth in the sense that it was what the revolutionaries told themselves. But I don’t think it was a myth in that it was false. The people writing those proclamations were bourgeois and it was a bourgeois revolution they were supporting. If you look at American mythos as only applying to land owning white men, as was intended, it’s a lot easier to see that the founders likely meant what they said, just not seeing anyone outside of their intended ruling class as people deserving of the same considerations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 35 points 2 years ago "the great mass of people don't have any power" "ah but we're not supposed to. we're just not a monarchy" not the airtight case they think it is permalink fedilink source parent
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. They wrote a masturbatory declaration of independence about how this will be the land of personal freedom and individual rights. It’s America’s big thing, its source of national pride. The same people who believe that, the people who fetishize Benjamin Franklin and blabber endlessly about the Federalist Papers and watch the Hamilton musical weekly, will then turn around and say America was not even intended to be democratic from the beginning. They hold two wholly incompatible mythologies. Quote from the American Declaration of Independence: … to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed This is clearly a call for a democracy. Chuds can squabble about what kind of democracy it was intended to be (no need to bring up the practical absence of genuine democracy) but the intent has always been unambiguous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. It was a myth in the sense that it was what the revolutionaries told themselves. But I don’t think it was a myth in that it was false. The people writing those proclamations were bourgeois and it was a bourgeois revolution they were supporting. If you look at American mythos as only applying to land owning white men, as was intended, it’s a lot easier to see that the founders likely meant what they said, just not seeing anyone outside of their intended ruling class as people deserving of the same considerations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ScrewdriverFactoryFactoryProvider@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) The whole myth of the American Revolution was that the Americans were fighting for their individual freedoms from the European colonial powers. It was a myth in the sense that it was what the revolutionaries told themselves. But I don’t think it was a myth in that it was false. The people writing those proclamations were bourgeois and it was a bourgeois revolution they were supporting. If you look at American mythos as only applying to land owning white men, as was intended, it’s a lot easier to see that the founders likely meant what they said, just not seeing anyone outside of their intended ruling class as people deserving of the same considerations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] quarrk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] quarrk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago Totally right. By mythology I meant not necessarily the history, but the collective view of that history which has turned the events and characters into a quasi-religion. Like all myths, there is a kernel of truth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SomeRedDude@hexbear.net 46 points 2 years ago (1 child) Always point out to them that China is republic too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 2 years ago Better yet, point out that China is more democratic and watch them seethe permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 2 years ago Better yet, point out that China is more democratic and watch them seethe permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 35 points 2 years ago Europe nation someone buy the yank a map permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 27 points 2 years ago EU is very democratic, look at Greece. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@hexbear.net 26 points 2 years ago The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). permalink fedilink source parent
