Patriotism

dg1979us wrote:

I dont care about his controversial words or that others are getting riled by him, that has nothing to do with my point. You cant keep claim the flag is irrelevant to you, and then keep tossing out the idea of pissing on it. If it is irrelevant then you dont care about pissing on it because it is more or less meaningless to you. If he feels the need to symbollically piss on the flag then it obviously has some type of meaning to him. It sounds to me like he has something against the flag, which is fine. But if that is the case, then the flag certainly isnt irrelevant to him.

In your post before this one, you said about Byrnzie: "I think its more you are..." . I accept your point and your point of view. It may or may not be objectively accurate. It may or may not be logically accurate. I can see different scenarios that it seems you don't agree with, so to me, there are different possibilites. I may be wrong.

hendrix78 wrote:

And I'm saying that, because of the point you made earlier about value judgements being meaningless to those who don't share the same values, Byrnzie's intent will fail to all those who don't share his vlaues and is therefore pointless. Rabble Rousing for it's own sake is a pretty pointless activity. To actually make someone consider the worth of their own beliefs, you have to give those beliefs respect. Accusing someon'es beliefs of being ignorant will only foster an angry response and will not lead to change. If you question someone's beliefs respectfully, you might actually get them to think about why they hold those beliefs. Only then will any "higher purpose" be achieved. Saying "i'll piss on the flag" won't do it.

The truth is, I have a very different mode of operation than Byrnzie, and I have it for very clear reasons. I personally focus on clarity and reasoned debate. At the same time, I can see that while Byrnzie seemingly alientates people, these same people are emotionally open and engaged in this discussion. When one is engaged and discussing, there is no denying the seeds that are planted and that WILL take root, if the issue is based on truth. It's like advertizing. On an intellectual level, one thinks they have discerned they do not want a specific product, but advertizers well know that what is going on beneath the surface is a very different story. It's actually all the more effective when people are adamant that Byrnzie is "wrong" because in the meantime, they are distracted from any truths the unconscious self might grab hold of, that assist evolutionary dynamics. This only works if the "seeds" that are planted resonate with us deeply. In this case, Byrnzie's issue is one that we are evolutionarily moving towards so if people are engaging and reading his words, seeds are being planted within, unbeknowst to many. Considering this is my opinion, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that his approach is pointless. The difference between advertisers and Byrnzie is that advertisers do this in order to remove us from our money. Byrnzie is doing this because he believes in what he's saying in my best estimation. The bottom line is I applaud people for being true to who they are and expressing their points of view. That's all he can do.

I understood full well that his intent was likely to provoke a reaction. I'm just questioning the purpose of such an action when the method used will likely garner an angry response that will preclude intelligent debate. Extreme examples may seem like a good idea at the time, but they will only bring out extreme reactions.

On the surface, maybe.

Frankly, I think that describing his agenda as having a "higher purpose" while accusing me of imposing my view and agenda on his actions contradicts your whole point.

Did you notice that when I said that, I put the word "higher" in quotations marks? Did you notice I used the word "maybe" which connotes it's questionable nature? I specifically did that because I am well aware that such a concept is debatable--one could look at it either way depending on where they are coming from. I merely presented an alternative analysis from your own. Therefore your assertion about my contradiction is void because your underlying premise appears to be based on the misunderstanding if you felt I weighed his purpose as being above your own. Or if you assumed I weighed it as being anything other than what it actually is (which in essence I cannot truly know).

I understand your point to be that imposing your own world view on the words and actions of another means you won't get what their trying to say. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm not imposing my agenda on Byrnzie. I get that he sees symbols such as the flag as harmful and divisive and, to an extent, I agree with him. I see that in saying he'd piss on the flag, he's trying to demonstrate that it's just a piece of cloth. My point is, his method is hurting his message. Not because my world view is too limited to see a "higher purpose," but because he has chosen make his point in a way that he knows (or should know if he has any world experience)will provoke anger, not thought.

I don't believe your worldview is too limited to see a "higher purpose" as I explained. And to back my assertion up above, I again point to that my own method is more similar to what you describe and use. I merely felt you were missing an alternative method. They co-exist harmoniously, outside our opinions of them.

angelica wrote:

I personally can hold two differing views at the same time, and see perfect sense in that. For example, I could also state that flags don't have relevence to me, while part of me understands there is relevence to others, that I may milk for dramatic effect effectively giving that flag relevence. What you see as a contradiction, I see as in pure logic terms appearing contradictory. But when we have people, they are beyond just logic, and in that context, for me, I did not see Byrnzie being at odds with himself at all.

But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant. But regardless, this is a conversation that is pretty pointless, as I dont think the flag was the actual purprose of the thread.

dg1979us wrote:

But the relevance of the flag for him, would be that it is a tool used to rile people up. It is still relevant. But regardless, this is a conversation that is pretty pointless, as I dont think the flag was the actual purprose of the thread.

The flag can be irrelevant to him while he still uses it's relevancy to you to get a reaction. It the feelings towards the flag that cause the reaction. The flag, itself, doesn't have to cause any reaction in him to get one out of others.

dg1979us wrote:

Yes, which is why I said it is relevant to him in a different manner than to others. But that still doesnt mean that he see doesnt see its significance and uses it as a tool to get a reaction out of others. Which makes it relevant to him in that manner.

rel·e·vant
–adjective bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.


Are you telling me that if he is using the flag to piss people off, that the flag isnt connected with the matter at hand?

But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But the flag has a much meaning as a bunch of grapes if it's only used to get a reaction out of you. Your feelings is what he uses. The flag has no meaning to him without your feelings being attached to it. It's only an issue because of your feelings towards the flag not his.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that if the goal is to provoke people and make them angry, I'm sure it's quite effective. If the goal is what Byrnzie started this thread with, to get people to take their nationalist/patriotic blinders off (a goal I fully support, by the way), then I think it's counter-productive because you are reinforcing the meaning of the flag to the people you're provoking.

the only thing i feel strongly about is my love for the city of Buffalo, and my family.

I love how people are so dogmatic in their blind patriotism for this country, but will step over a bum on the street rather than help. Or will trash people from other parts of the country. or could give 2 shits about the poor of this country. or deny equal rights to gays in this country. etc etc etc.

patriotism is a joke. its a tool for politicians and marketing purposes.

hendrix78 wrote:

For the most part, I agree with everything in Byrnzie's last post. The problem is, not everyone wants to live under the same ideals, and many won't tolerate living in a society that doesn't uphold their ideals. In order to get beyond notions of nations, flags, and borders, everyone would have to agree on a single system of government that encompasses a very broad range of cultural values. That will not happen any time soon.

For example, American culture and Indian culture are very different. It seems your Indian friend's culture was very important to him, and there's no reason it shouldn't be. That's not to say that you aren;t correct t o value him as a person separate and apart from his culture. My point is, nations exist because people with similar cultures tend to group together and create a system that works for them (I realize as I type this that exceptions can be found, and that an argument can be made that culture is created by nation, not the other way around). It would be very difficult to create a worldwide system that aloowed everyone to embrace their own culture with no detriment to any of the cultures involved.

I'm personally not proposing anything monotone where we all live the same under the same rule at all. For me, moving beyond boundaries and borders is about that at our base we embrace and encourage our uniqueness and our differences, to a degree that we grow to all the more respect them in others. This increase in our realistic understanding, awareness and tolerance for others, is about progress, and done comfortably. In other words it's natural evolution--nothing drastic. By increasing our awareness of one another, and our diversity, we come to see very multi-dimensionally. This means that our awareness of interpersonal systems becomes much more detailed as we discern deeper and deeper lines of understanding. This "advanced" understanding enables us to live and interact in much more complex ways. Not simplified ones. It's evolution, afterall.

angelica wrote:

I'm basically with you on this, although I'm not quite so colourful about it.

i don't know about *pride* in one's country per se...since basically you've nothing to do with it. however, i guess to some extent i understand identifying with and feeling part of a community....which i do think? is a part of patriotism. however, i think the idea of it, like many things, has been taken to extrmes, so skewed...that it no longer even resembles anything good or positive.