>> ^Lendl:

Again, I must ask (again and again and again)...
WTF IS WRONG WITH YOUR COUNTRY?!?!?!


most residents of the USA are infected with the "SPECIALNESS"

the idea that we are each unique little snowflakes, made in the image of God and of whom God is with at all times, and citizens of the City on the Hill: the shining beacon of light and good amid the darkness of the world and all of those evil things that dwell there. And that we are so authentic, original, and entitled.

I think we could also call it the Puritan Ethos, but it is not specific to england and the US. so in general, I think "the specialness" may suffice.

and it is a fundamental flaw in the psyche of species, mirrored around the world in different cultures in different degrees and by different names. and it is the root cause of almost all stupidity and suffering.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I feel sorry for her. These were grown ass men. Puritanical outlook applied to the law.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^wraith:
A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.
They have relatives living there.
I understand that.
African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?
I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.
And I don't care.
I don't get it.

Your ancestors (probably) weren't torn away from their homeland unwillingly, and you did not grow up somewhere just a hairsbreadth away from deep, institutional racism. Have you ever spent a lot of time somewhere where you were a minority? It's not always terribly comfortable.
That said, someone already mentioned that Chappelle didn't go there for that reason. I don't know if anyone actually does. Is it a thing? But I can absolutely see why someone growing up in America might feel that they need to try to find some connection to where their ancestors came from.
Just guessing. Mostly from Irish/German stock, here. But many generations removed.


You mean like the Puritans, the Protestants, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, or any of the other religious or ethnic groups that were forced out of their countries?

>> ^A10anis:

What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.


Why do you think the most conservative and religiously active states, GOP and church leaders actively trying to push critical thinking out of their schools. Texas openly moving away from teaching 'higher order education and critical thinking in favor of outcome-based education that focuses on behavior modification'. As well the bible belt has by far the highest per capita rate of home schooling. Keep your kids uneducated and you keep them religiously indoctrinated and voting republican.

I've said it before I'll say it again. I blame the puritans!

I made an obscure joke. Tried to fix it with the subject description.

First rule of comedy -- if you have to explain the joke, it ain't funny.

@Bloodscourge, I'm going to leave the title as is, because it amuses me how badly my "joke" worked.

Reminds me of Dick Cavett's memoir from years ago. He tells the story of one of Johnny Carson's writers coming up with the following joke:

"It was really cold in New York City today."

{cue for the audience to shout -- how cold was it?}

"It was so cold, Mayor Lindsay had to wear buckles on his shoes."

Great resounding thud in the writer's room. Huh? "You know, the Puritans wore buckles on their shoes, and the Indians had to come save them from the horrible winter."

If you have to explain it, it ain't funny.

But all this talk of how unfunny my joke is begins to amuse me deeply.

Rated PG. Awesome.

The MPAA can go suck a fossilized Puritan's wiener.

Well that's just the puritans. There were also a whole bunch of other religious factions (quakers, protestants, etc.) really just looking for "space" to practice their own faith in private and America provided the vast amount of space needed (except for some pesky natives...)

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^residue:
Wasn't part of the reason for initial colonization of America (by Europeans) to escape religious prosecution? The thought that America has to be an entirely Christian nation is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom that the country makes its stance upon...

I think that's not true. The puritans went to America to escape persecution of their particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. In today's terms, the English got sick of these bible bashing morons, so they shipped off to become the American Christian far right.
They didn't want freedom from religious persecution; they wanted religious persecution - but crucially, their religious. Exactly what the Christian right want to do now.

>> ^residue:

Wasn't part of the reason for initial colonization of America (by Europeans) to escape religious prosecution? The thought that America has to be an entirely Christian nation is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom that the country makes its stance upon...


I think that's not true. The puritans went to America to escape persecution of their particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. In today's terms, the English got sick of these bible bashing morons, so they shipped off to become the American Christian far right.

They didn't want freedom from religious persecution; they wanted religious persecution - but crucially, their religious. Exactly what the Christian right want to do now.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^direpickle:
@criticalthud: "We're not special! Well, except for me and my friends. We're pretty intelligent. But geez, the rest of the human race is dumb."
Come on.

i would claim to be curious. but certainly not special. and being smarter than your peers doesn't necessarily qualify you as intelligent.
but please, explain how you happen to be special.

I wouldn't say that I am, any more so than anyone else. I was just calling you out on your own hypocrisy and self-conceit, claiming at once that no one is special and that most people are just automatons (presumably excluding yourself from that last distinction).


Coming from a fairly rabid puritan family, i was quite infected with the specialness for a long time. At some point I started realizing how much of a limiting factor it was psychologically, especially in creative pursuits. I'm pretty sure that I'm not quite free of it yet, but like many things, it's a continual journey.

First link has no mention regarding "24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers."

The second link points out that I was correct that the statement is misleading. You are counting anyone that graduated from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton as having a "seminary degree".

You are aware that all of those schools were founded by the puritans, right? Before they became secular instituions in the mid 1800's, their mandate was to train ministers and missionaries to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. So yes, they were seminary degrees.

Another misleading piece of information...the Old Deluder Satan Act was something the "colony" Massachusetts did in 1647. Over 100 years before we were a country and had a Constitution. No one is making the argument that some of the colony governments weren't "religious". It's a pretty big leap to point at the colonies who shifted educating the public from the church to the government as an example of how this country is founded on religion. Your case would be stronger if it were the other way around...that the government put the churches in charge of educating the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_School_Laws

The Massachusetts School Laws were three legislative acts of 1642, 1647 and 1648 enacted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The most famous by far is the law of 1647, also known as the Old Deluder Satan Law (after the law's first sentence) and The General School Law of 1647. They are commonly regarded as the historical first step toward compulsory government-directed public education in the United States of America. Shortly after the three laws passed, similar laws were enacted in the other New England colonies.[1] Most mid-Atlantic colonies followed suit, though in some Southern colonies it was a further century before publicly funded schools were established there.[2]

>> ^Grimm:
Another misleading piece of information...the Old Deluder Satan Act was something the "colony" Massachusetts did in 1647. Over 100 years before we were a country and had a Constitution. No one is making the argument that some of the colony governments weren't "religious". It's a pretty big leap to point at the colonies who shifted educating the public from the church to the government as an example of how this country is founded on religion. Your case would be stronger if it were the other way around...that the government put the churches in charge of educating the public.>> ^shinyblurry:
For instance, did you know that the act which established the public school system in this country is called "The Old Deluder Satan Act"? The reason it was called that is because they wanted the public to be able to read and understand scripture so they wouldn't be deluded about the truth by Satan. Is it getting clear to you yet?
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/deluder.html

spot on.

psychedelics helped me to remove my puritan ethos.

btw, dmt is incredible. pure art. unreal.

It's amazing the stark contrast between the principles of the first settlers/puritans (the "fundies") and those of the Founding Fathers (the "secular humanists"). In any case, I do believe *history is a large part of the discussion.

I study this stuff. It's strange that Mericans have this romanticised view of their Constitution, Bill o rights, Puritans and the founding fathers, but the humans were just human, and the documents were just documents: Imperfect. Not holy writs and prophets. The USA did not get rich and prosperous on its founding father's ideals, but the backs of slave labour, massive natural resources and comparatively few wars at the beginning.

To think that "As one of Jefferson’s favorite books, Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ so luminously argued, there is no surer sign of a country’s cultural and political decay than obtuse blindness to its unmistakable beginnings" means one should look at the beginnings and say: "Wow everything was awesome then!" is romanticising history. All that stuff I mentioned above which you ironically called 'obtuse blindness' is deeply ingrained not only in the US' history but also the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I have read both documents, unfinished drafts, rewritings, documents about the discussions and much more such tedious stuff: It's all deeply political, partisan even then and not! perfection. I know that it's much easier to think that libertarianism is the goto-solution for everything, but it isn't. Nothing is.

>> ^criticalthud:

@DerHassittot
totally, the puritan ethos is insidious
i like to think the linchpin in the puritan ethos is "specialness" - endow everyone as god's chosen, or god's little lamb and you can start demanding through expectation and guilt. We end up with a bunch of selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed jerks who are out to prove and maintain their own egocentricity, to the exclusion of everyone and everything around them. it's what consumerism sells to. on an individual basis it ain't a big deal, but on a collective basis it's eating the planet.


Hey @DerHasisttot, criticalthud is trying to communicate with you ^

@DerHassittot
totally, the puritan ethos is insidious

i like to think the linchpin in the puritan ethos is "specialness" - endow everyone as god's chosen, or god's little lamb and you can start demanding through expectation and guilt. We end up with a bunch of selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed jerks who are out to prove and maintain their own egocentricity, to the exclusion of everyone and everything around them. it's what consumerism sells to. on an individual basis it ain't a big deal, but on a collective basis it's eating the planet.