how rational is america?

by **chang50** on Fri May 11, 2012 10:38 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... al-america

by **chang50** on Fri May 11, 2012 10:54 am

As an outsider the us appears to be contradictory and paradoxical on so many levels,do the people who live there feel this at all?

by **Frigidus** on Fri May 11, 2012 12:52 pm

chang50 wrote:As an outsider the us appears to be contradictory and paradoxical on so many levels,do the people who live there feel this at all?

Absolutely. Something like forty percent of Americans are creationists. Not just that God created man, but that man was created in the last 10,000 years. I don't even know what to say to that. How can I take someone seriously if they are willing to delude themselves to that extent?

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:32 pm

chang50 wrote:As an outsider the us appears to be contradictory and paradoxical on so many levels,do the people who live there feel this at all?

Here's the Long Answer:

The Guardian is basically a late-night TV show street comedy set-up team in newspaper format. Articles like these are entertaining because they juxtapose extremes. The reader of this series will be left to believe half of the U.S. have Nobel prizes and the other half attend weekly witch burnings.

The Guardian write what sells papers, what their readers want to hear. In the case of Guardian readers, it's a need to be pandered to with a different type of nationalism than the raving right-wing kind presented by the Telegraph. Guardian readers (Symmetry's a good example) are still nutter nationalists, they just need it presented to them in terms that a social-democrat finds appealing and the Guardian has hit on a great formula - mock-up cartoonish (though usually inaccurate or selectively sourced) portrayals of the U.S., which is (accurately) viewed as the world's #1 enemy to peace. In the case of the Telegraph they do the same but choose the worst extremes from China, Argentina, etc.
The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States, and most Guardian readers could accurately name every U.S. presidential candidate, the five largest states and the minutia of policy discussions in Congress. They could not do the same for Poland, Finland or any other country, though - in many cases even the equivalents in Britain itself.

Overall, this is a good media strategy in nations on the brink - move the attention of the workers off-shore. But it only works if all attention is moved off-shore - just distracting the right-wing doesn't do it. What you will never see the Guardian do is question U.S. policy in any meaningful or substantive way - as it should - as this doesn't play as part of a nationalist/emotional strategy. It will only be carnival articles like this one.

by **Symmetry** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:39 pm

saxitoxin wrote:The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States,

indeed, an entire department and group of journalists with their own website. Is that bad?

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:40 pm

Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States,

indeed, an entire department and group of journalists with their own website. Is that bad?

Do they work closely with the "Portugal" section of the Guardian?

by **Symmetry** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:42 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States,

indeed, an entire department and group of journalists with their own website. Is that bad?

Do they work closely with the "Portugal" section of the Guardian?

Is there a Portugal section?

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States,

indeed, an entire department and group of journalists with their own website. Is that bad?

Do they work closely with the "Portugal" section of the Guardian?

Is there a Portugal section?

No, here's a list of countries of the world to which the Guardian has devoted a daily section or more:

Here's a list of those countries to which they haven't:

by **Symmetry** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:49 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:The Guardian has an entire section devoted to the United States,

indeed, an entire department and group of journalists with their own website. Is that bad?

Do they work closely with the "Portugal" section of the Guardian?

Is there a Portugal section?

No

Don't get pissy simply because I didn't explain how you were wrong in the manner that you would have preferred.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 2:52 pm

Symmetry wrote:
Don't get pissy simply because I didn't explain how you were wrong in the manner that you would have preferred.

Chang - this is actually another mark of Guardian readers - they are heavily enfranchised in the brand and emotionally rush to the brand's defense if they feel it's been challenged, charging out of the gate swinging at the first sign of a slight. This is because the brand is part of their self-identity. It's the same with FOX News viewers. They're different faces of the same coin, really.

It's a fundamentally paranoid, jingoistic, scared and irrational way of living life to which the vast majority of the world, sadly, still subscribes.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 5:15 pm

Chang, here's another example of the Guardian's peculiar brand of left-oriented nationalism.

Fifty-four percent of Icelanders think there could be elves living in Iceland. As reported by Slate, this is an interesting, and cute, slice-of-life story that celebrates some aspect of a folk culture. If it involved an aspect of U.S. folk culture, and were reported by The Guardian, however, it would be toned in the most bellicose rhetoric and framed as another example of the fundamental, underlying idiocy of some segment of the American population.

This kind of near-obsessive fault-searching by The Guardian (almost unique, among non-US western media) speaks to the very frightened state in which the British people live - a culture that believes it is under siege from all sides (with armed militias roving through English towns it may - in fact - be a legitimate fear) and in which even the Left - the standard-bearers of internationalism - have wrapped themselves inside a peculiar type of nationalist hysteria.

by / on Fri May 11, 2012 7:09 pm

The majority of the people in the world are ignorant about certain subjects, after all it is only practical to learn what we can use. Will knowing about the creation of the universe ever be used by you personally, in a practical manner in your lifetime? If you aren't a biologist, historian or theoretical physicist, the answer is most likely no.
In that respect it is not irrational to be ignorant as long as it doesn't bring harm. On the other hand, harmful beliefs, such as the ignorance of climate change, insistence of some sort of conspiracy of medicine and science, or South African "treatments" involving rape, all need to be stopped by every means.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri May 11, 2012 10:13 pm

So the Guardian is what is responsible for the irrational obsessions some Brits have with America?

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 10:27 pm

Phatscotty wrote:So the Guardian is what is responsible for these Brits obsessions with America?

It seems to be a jump to say Britons, generally, are obsessed with the U.S., or that the Guardian is fueling the obsession of a small minority. The Guardian prints what sells, and, a segment of their readership fit a psychographic profile of left-nationalists, which is an intellectually debased worldview (as leftism is typically an internationalist ideology).

The entire media complex in Britain is disciplined toward the almost singular goal of supporting the British class structure. Even a paper like the Guardian - with its unique, cooperative ownership structure - isn't immune as Julian Assange found out when they hung him out to dry. With Britain teetering on the brink right now the hysteria and flag-rallying has reached a fever pitch. For the right-wing it manifests as anti-EU hysteria, for the left-wing as anti-US hysteria.

by **saxitoxin** on Fri May 11, 2012 10:34 pm

Left-Nationalism evolves, ultimately, into Fascism. Leftism can only be a progressive and enlightened experience if geared toward the internationalist mindset, such as the people's democracies of Eastern Europe pre-1989.

Edmondo Rossini, a member of the Grand Council of Fascism, was editor of Italian-American Socialist Federation newspaper "The Proletarian" in 1910 and he described his change from socialism to fascism to the Columbia University professor Schneider -

In 1912 when I was organizing Italian workers in North America, far from my country, I felt that it is absolutely necessary to spread class nationalism, for we must defend not merely workers, but Italians. We have seen our workers exploited and held in contempt not only by capitalists but even by their revolutionary comrades of other countries.

This is what people like Symmetry are experiencing. They have leftist social values but they feel under some kind of externalized threat. It may be situational or esoteric in nature. Symmetry's recent hysteria over Argentina's internationally-recognized legal claim to the Malvinas Islands, for instance, shows some kind of psychological pressure - nostalgia at reading the last chapter of empire, perhaps. This inspires the leap to Left-Nationalism, or Fascism.

by **Frigidus** on Fri May 11, 2012 11:14 pm

/ wrote:The majority of the people in the world are ignorant about certain subjects, after all it is only practical to learn what we can use. Will knowing about the creation of the universe ever be used by you personally, in a practical manner in your lifetime? If you aren't a biologist, historian or theoretical physicist, the answer is most likely no.
In that respect it is not irrational to be ignorant as long as it doesn't bring harm. On the other hand, harmful beliefs, such as the ignorance of climate change, insistence of some sort of conspiracy of medicine and science, or South African "treatments" involving rape, all need to be stopped by every means.

While being deluded about certain things might not directly harm anyone, believing something with mountains of evidence against it is a sign that you don't think about things critically. A lack of critical thinking is the major reason that most harmful beliefs exist.

by **chang50** on Sat May 12, 2012 12:29 am

As I said I'm an outsider so I wanted to know what people who live in the us think.When I see this ecomomic powerhouse which sent men to the moon and contrast it with the enormous numbers who are creationists,or claim to be abducted by UFO's for example,I'm left scratching my head in astonishment.Even if the numbers were grossly exaggerated it would be alarming.SInce I'm never gonna live there it will probably always be a mystery.

by **chang50** on Sat May 12, 2012 12:50 am

saxitoxin wrote:Chang, here's another example of the Guardian's peculiar brand of left-oriented nationalism.

Fifty-four percent of Icelanders think there could be elves living in Iceland. As reported by Slate, this is an interesting, and cute, slice-of-life story that celebrates some aspect of a folk culture. If it involved an aspect of U.S. folk culture, and were reported by The Guardian, however, it would be toned in the most bellicose rhetoric and framed as another example of the fundamental, underlying idiocy of some segment of the American population.

This kind of near-obsessive fault-searching by The Guardian (almost unique, among non-US western media) speaks to the very frightened state in which the British people live - a culture that believes it is under siege from all sides (with armed militias roving through English towns it may - in fact - be a legitimate fear) and in which even the Left - the standard-bearers of internationalism - have wrapped themselves inside a peculiar type of nationalist hysteria.

Having 54% of Icelanders believe nonesense ain't good but they don't have a nuclear arsenal capable of ending life on our planet.So,yes,I'm less concerned by what they believe.The us as the pre-eminent economic and military force on the planet should be held to a higher standard.Please don't misconstrue this as us bashing,I agree Europeans can be smug and superior in their assessments of Americans.

by **saxitoxin** on Sat May 12, 2012 1:13 am

chang50 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Chang, here's another example of the Guardian's peculiar brand of left-oriented nationalism.

Fifty-four percent of Icelanders think there could be elves living in Iceland. As reported by Slate, this is an interesting, and cute, slice-of-life story that celebrates some aspect of a folk culture. If it involved an aspect of U.S. folk culture, and were reported by The Guardian, however, it would be toned in the most bellicose rhetoric and framed as another example of the fundamental, underlying idiocy of some segment of the American population.

This kind of near-obsessive fault-searching by The Guardian (almost unique, among non-US western media) speaks to the very frightened state in which the British people live - a culture that believes it is under siege from all sides (with armed militias roving through English towns it may - in fact - be a legitimate fear) and in which even the Left - the standard-bearers of internationalism - have wrapped themselves inside a peculiar type of nationalist hysteria.

Having 54% of Icelanders believe nonesense ain't good but they don't have a nuclear arsenal capable of ending life on our planet.So,yes,I'm less concerned by what they believe.The us as the pre-eminent economic and military force on the planet should be held to a higher standard.Please don't misconstrue this as us bashing,I agree Europeans can be smug and superior in their assessments of Americans.

Quite the contrary, I construe it as Iceland-bashing, which may be a first ...

In any case obviously I could care less whether people bash the U.S. or not. I just think it's more constructive to bash U.S. political and economic policy which might serve a purpose, instead of the ridiculous sideshows that rags like The Guardian put on for society's Lowest Common Denominator, designed only to whip the local yokel readership into a jingoistic fervor.

by **jonesthecurl** on Sat May 12, 2012 2:03 pm

If you visit Iceland, you will be frequently told how many of the locals believe in elves (or was it trolls?). To reiterate that isn't Iceland-bashing.
Incidentally I used to have a very fine badge which read "Well-meaning Guardian readers against the bomb".

by **vodean** on Sat May 12, 2012 4:28 pm

/ wrote:The majority of the people in the world are ignorant about certain subjects, after all it is only practical to learn what we can use. Will knowing about the creation of the universe ever be used by you personally, in a practical manner in your lifetime? If you aren't a biologist, historian or theoretical physicist, the answer is most likely no.
In that respect it is not irrational to be ignorant as long as it doesn't bring harm. On the other hand, harmful beliefs, such as the ignorance of climate change, insistence of some sort of conspiracy of medicine and science, or South African "treatments" involving rape, all need to be stopped by every means.

whoa, whoa, whoa!!! hold on!
lots of people use creation theories in a practically manner... they use them to bash atheists, or to bash christians, or muslims, or whatever else. You would also be surprised about how many biologists, historians, and physicists there are.

Also, anthropogenic climate change is hardly science fact. The CLOUD theory suggests (with very good evidence, rather than graphs showing rise in temperature and a rise in CO2 emissions over the past 150 years... they have graphs showing cosmic ray concentration and temperature overlayed over the past 3-400,000 years (perhaps more) with very, very good correlation being apparent) that it is in fact the cyclic variations in strength of the sun which allows cyclic variations in the concentration of penetrating cosmic rays. That is why there was much greater climate change in the distant past than the present. That is why the ice age ended thousands of years before the dawn of human civilization (although the earth is still warming from THAT event), and explains the mini-ice age in england during the 17th (as i recall) century.

You could, however say that ignorance on topics such as political leaders during elections, ignorance of the long-term costs and consequences of socialized medicine, and on the issue of electing charisma over tact.

by / on Sat May 12, 2012 6:17 pm

vodean wrote:whoa, whoa, whoa!!! hold on!
lots of people use creation theories in a practically manner... they use them to bash atheists, or to bash christians, or muslims, or whatever else. You would also be surprised about how many biologists, historians, and physicists there are.

People are like that, many others live and let live, I blame their rampant personality disorders more than whatever they think is "right" or "wrong". They will do the exact same thing even if everyone knew all the facts, just because someone has a different opinion to something completely irrelevant with no factual answer. (see sports riots)

vodean wrote:Also, anthropogenic climate change is hardly science fact. The CLOUD theory suggests (with very good evidence, rather than graphs showing rise in temperature and a rise in CO2 emissions over the past 150 years... they have graphs showing cosmic ray concentration and temperature overlayed over the past 3-400,000 years (perhaps more) with very, very good correlation being apparent) that it is in fact the cyclic variations in strength of the sun which allows cyclic variations in the concentration of penetrating cosmic rays. That is why there was much greater climate change in the distant past than the present. That is why the ice age ended thousands of years before the dawn of human civilization (although the earth is still warming from THAT event), and explains the mini-ice age in england during the 17th (as i recall) century.

Thank you for sharing this data with me, it's very interesting, my grandfather subscribes to the same theory but doesn't really know about the scientific data further than the actual trends mentioned. I will look it up.

Still even if CO2 caused climate change is just an illogical hype to get us to be more environmentally conscious, it works. People are more apt to respond to "Oh my God, the earth is going to flood and we shall be smote with the eternal fires of the sun if you don't switch to alternative energy! " than a hippie telling the truth "Trees can only absorb so much CO2, it's necessary to preserve them and be environmentally conscious of our energy sources to maintain a balanced ecosystem.".

vodean wrote:You could, however say that ignorance on topics such as political leaders during elections, ignorance of the long-term costs and consequences of socialized medicine, and on the issue of electing charisma over tact.

Indeed, it has become a pure "us versus them" race rather than looking at if the candidate on your "side" is even competent. It is largely the polarizing news media's fault in my opinion, a candidate cannot stand on their own merits because they have to act like a movie star just to get 14 seconds on the TV, otherwise they don't even exist. But on the other hand, even with the internet at our fingertips, there is still not way to get a fool-proof real non-biased look at a politician's merits short of stalking them yourself.
And it doesn't really help that American politics are so confusing that you probably need several dozen hours of research before you even understand what all of the minor local positions we are allowed to vote for even do, much less the individual candidates' actual histories.

by **vodean** on Tue May 15, 2012 3:20 am

/ wrote:
vodean wrote:whoa, whoa, whoa!!! hold on!
lots of people use creation theories in a practical manner... they use them to bash atheists, or to bash christians, or muslims, or whatever else. You would also be surprised about how many biologists, historians, and physicists there are.

People are like that, many others live and let live, I blame their rampant personality disorders more than whatever they think is "right" or "wrong". They will do the exact same thing even if everyone knew all the facts, just because someone has a different opinion to something completely irrelevant with no factual answer. (see sports riots)

vodean wrote:Also, anthropogenic climate change is hardly science fact. The CLOUD theory suggests (with very good evidence, rather than graphs showing rise in temperature and a rise in CO2 emissions over the past 150 years... they have graphs showing cosmic ray concentration and temperature overlayed over the past 3-400,000 years (perhaps more) with very, very good correlation being apparent) that it is in fact the cyclic variations in strength of the sun which allows cyclic variations in the concentration of penetrating cosmic rays. That is why there was much greater climate change in the distant past than the present. That is why the ice age ended thousands of years before the dawn of human civilization (although the earth is still warming from THAT event), and explains the mini-ice age in england during the 17th (as i recall) century.
Thank you for sharing this data with me, it's very interesting, my grandfather subscribes to the same theory but doesn't really know about the scientific data further than the actual trends mentioned. I will look it up.

Still even if CO2 caused climate change is just an illogical hype to get us to be more environmentally conscious, it works. People are more apt to respond to "Oh my God, the earth is going to flood and we shall be smote with the eternal fires of the sun if you don't switch to alternative energy! " than a hippie telling the truth "Trees can only absorb so much CO2, it's necessary to preserve them and be environmentally conscious of our energy sources to maintain a balanced ecosystem.".

vodean wrote:You could, however say that ignorance on topics such as political leaders during elections, ignorance of the long-term costs and consequences of socialized medicine, and on the issue of electing charisma over tact.

Indeed, it has become a pure "us versus them" race rather than looking at if the candidate on your "side" is even competent. It is largely the polarizing news media's fault in my opinion, a candidate cannot stand on their own merits because they have to act like a movie star just to get 14 seconds on the TV, otherwise they don't even exist. But on the other hand, even with the internet at our fingertips, there is still not way to get a fool-proof real non-biased look at a politician's merits short of stalking them yourself.
And it doesn't really help that American politics are so confusing that you probably need several dozen hours of research before you even understand what all of the minor local positions we are allowed to vote for even do, much less the individual candidates' actual histories.

first let me thank you for presenting a well-reasoned and neutral counter-argument, which agrees with my original point and supports your own theory, rather than bashing me and stating how your argument is right (without evidence) followed by saying that that makes my argument wrong. it is much appreciated.

If people truly knew all the facts, do you really think they wouldn't use them? the only thing is, people try generally to avoid facts they do not like.

yes. i agree that it is good to be environmentally-minded, but to say that the world will end if the temperature rises two degrees is outrageous. Then the world would be ending and we could do nothing about it.

as for the third point, i quite agree

how rational is america?

how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Re: how rational is america?

Who is online