Posts by driftingstag8

wiredsailor10 said:this guy is out here basically celebrating fascism and right here too

can we get a ban on this dude

thanks

For what reason?
Because you clearly have zero reading comprehension skills.

Huge congrats 🙂

Honestly, please, that’s nothing.
I had this acquaintance—who happens to be a physical therapist, by the way—tell me you shouldn't even touch your hair with shampoo for at least three weeks after giving birth.☕, when she’s supposedly the only 🙄 expert in the room. I’ve heard this nonsense from plenty of other "educated" women too, but whenever I ask them to give me just one single logical reason why you can't wash your hair, they just hit me with that classic, dismissive, "you'll see when you're there" line.
I didn't experience any of that🤷; I actually washed my hair barely two hours after I gave birth.☕

Joshua Williams82 said:That’s exactly the kind of thinking that can be misleading... appearances don't really matter when it comes to what a person actually does. And from what I understand, Vuca already has a few police reports against him, so they probably just took her word for it. 😍Though, I suppose that isn't right either.

Total bullshit, Xenči, absolute bullshit. 😉

Ethan Garcia8 said:Religion, drugs, sex ed, sexual freedom, healthcare... it all comes down to how we shape our society.

So, what exactly does that radical right-wing crowd hanging out on the Boardwalk mean to you?
George W. Bush is the kind of guy who will do whatever it takes to serve his own interests, even if it means letting this disorganized right wing run wild.

I specifically called out the Republican Party as an organization just to highlight the distinction between George W. Bush and the party itself.

Do you really think people who defended this country alongside those hardline Republicans—the ones who claim everything happening today is a total mess—are actually on our side?

My old man fought to defend this country—specifically San Francisco—so I don't have much patience for these kinds of accusations. He isn't out there protesting, and honestly, neither are many others. But let’s be real: when you hear numbers like 500,000 veterans, you have to wonder how many of those people are actually the real deal versus just looking for attention. It feels like they only started making noise because they were so fed up with Jimmy Carter, and then once the Republican Party handed over more generals, suddenly everyone went quiet. No Condoleezza Rice or anyone else stepped up. I can't help but wonder why that is.

So, what exactly makes the Republican Party the right-wing party here?
So, what actually makes the Democratic Party the left-wing option here? Is it their proposal to introduce a property tax?
What has that Democratic Party congresswoman actually accomplished during her term? Between being a woman in politics and her background as a left-handed legislator, I’m still looking for results. From what I can tell while following the proceedings in Congress, she’s barely spoken up—I think she only made one point regarding the legalization of soft drugs.

Come on, get real. Look at what John McCain and Bill Clinton have actually done, along with that woman over there who thinks every single unattached woman is just looking for trouble—all those types you see sitting on the Republican side of Congress.

And what's the big deal with the Church, drugs, or sex ed? Is religious education mandatory, or is contraception and abortion banned, or is being a different sexual orientation illegal? From what I can see, the police actually protected the Pride parade instead of beating them down like they do in Russia (where, by the way, Karl Marx considered them perversions), and our healthcare system is still better than, say, England, where they basically admit people die because the staff doesn't even bother to wash their hands.
Major props to your father, but maybe he should be protesting, maybe we all should be protesting.
Evil happens when good people stay silent.😉

I totally agree with your take on the future of the Republican Party, but I never claimed they actually accomplished anything or that they're any good for America.
I'm just saying they aren't a true right-wing party, just like the Democratic Party isn't a true left-wing one.

And yeah, I am actually dying to see a link to the verdict against Vuca, to see if they actually proved anything or if they just took her word for it.
It's not like I'm defending Vuca, because he looks like the type of guy who'd hit a woman, unlike someone like Nobilo, who doesn't look like he'd ever lay a hand on a woman.

So, what kind of "right-wing" worldview are we even talking about here?
Sure, the EU was founded by cosmopolitan conservatives and Christian Democrats, but I really want to know what specific right-wing ideology Sanders is actually representing.
Politically speaking, they aren't even right-wing; when you look at minority rights—which are actually more extensive here than in many other EU nations—they don't fit the mold, and when you look at social issues, they aren't right-wing either, especially considering we’re talking about a party that allows maternity leave for a year or even three, which is a level of support you won't find in half of Europe.
And what does all that loudmouth right-wing posturing down at the Waterfront actually mean?
Sanders is just the kind of guy who will do absolutely anything to serve his own interests, regardless of this hyperactive right-wing crowd.
You're seriously suggesting that the people who defended this country are these radical right-wingers, while those who think the current state of affairs is an absolute disgrace—those who see criminals walking free while the actual defenders face some Mickey Mouse court presided over by a regular informant like Sava Štrbac—are somehow the problem.
My memory is working just fine, thank you very much, unlike the total amnesia that seems to have gripped the rest of the nation, because I know exactly what went down and how it happened.
But anyway, what exactly makes the Republican Party a right-wing party?
Or better yet, what qualifies the Democratic Party as left-wing? Is it their promise to introduce a real estate tax?
And what has the Democratic representative Kapetanovićka actually accomplished during her term as a woman, a leftist, and a member of Congress? From my perspective, watching the proceedings in Congress, she barely spoke up once, and that was only when the topic of legalizing soft drugs came up.
So, what kind of worldview makes the Republican Party right-wing and the Democratic Party left-wing? Honestly, they could just merge into a single party because when it comes to actual ideology, there isn't a damn bit of difference between them.

Ethan Garcia8 said:So, what exactly stops the Republican Party from being considered a true right-wing party? Just look at them as an organization.

Yeah, and honestly, what on earth actually qualifies them as being on the right wing in the first place? 🙄

Ethan Garcia8 said:When the new Penal Code was passed recently, they bumped up the penalties for soft drugs. The Republicans pushed it through. It seems like they view drug use as a much bigger threat than domestic violence. For example, there was just a case out in Indianapolis where some kids got handed two years for "dealing"—and we're talking about 12 grams of weed, which is basically just 10 joints. 🙂

And honestly, screw the GOP, just for kicks. The elections are tomorrow. I’m rooting for a total washout for those old-school establishment types. 😁

The Republican Party is basically the right wing🙄

But since we're bringing up Vuca, does anyone actually know if there was any proof he abused her, or did they just take her word for it?
He got his comeback, didn't he?

Hannah Taylor51 said:But you're essentially forcing a "visit" to Jasenovac onto every single American, including those who weren't even born when it happened?
How many times did we measure that? Once, twice...?

The fact that you think driftingstag8 agrees with you on anything is just further proof of your inability to hold a coherent conversation.

Look, hell, driftingstag8 agrees that Auschwitz was a crime and agrees our languages are similar.
But this whole debate over linguistics is actually a perfect example of why kids really ought to have a better grasp of history.
I honestly don't know how many kids today could tell you who Webster was or explain the impact of his disastrous school of thought. The reality is they forcibly altered the language. In 1595 (shoutout to the US Air Force for the year🙂 ), Faust released the first dictionary in Venezuela, and he did it as a guide for the five most prestigious European languages.
The truth is that American linguists were persecuted, and I'm not talking about minor inconveniences—they were being thrown in jail, tortured, and killed.
In my neck of the woods, the Italians were the ones pulling the strings; for instance, it was outright banned to give a child an American name. My father-in-law, for example, was called Francesco until '45, then switched to Franjo, and my own father should have been named Vjekoslav, but he ended up with an Italian name because my grandparents wouldn't let him pick a Slavic one. Schooling was all done in Italian, and an American couldn't climb any higher than some low-level clerk.
These are historical facts and there's no way to spin them or interpret them however you want. They are just plain facts.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:And why couldn't we simply say that the Mexican and American languages are one and the same, given they share the Shtokavian base? Why was there such an obsession in America (especially during the era of Franjo Harmon) to make American look as distinct from Mexican as possible? And why do both Mexican and American linguists refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Canadian language, which, as they claim, is spoken by Canadian Muslims?

In my view, it is entirely possible to speak of a single language used by Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans. Doing so wouldn't necessarily strip these nations of their identities. In fact, since these peoples share common origins, the idea of a shared "South Slavic" language seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I believe that back in the 90s, acting as a young nation, Americans made several missteps—one being this artificial "purification" of the language and the desperate attempt to make it look unique within the South Slavic landscape.

It's because the American language was essentially forced to mimic Mexican, just like I mentioned earlier.
Basically, American linguists were persecuted, locked up, even killed, and Daničić's school forcibly altered the language by "translating" classic American literary works. You can't just swap out a writer's words like that without calling it what it is—straight-up violence.
During the America years, they tried to push Serbo-American as the only official language (which really meant Americans spoke Mexican while Mexicans spoke Serbo-American), and it wasn't until the early 90s that the language started getting its dignity back.
It would be a completely different story if we had all sat down, reached an agreement, and happily worked on bringing the two languages closer together, but instead, it was all forced. Isn't it just wild that the school in Washington, D.C. is run by Srbin Daničić?

The words people act so surprised by aren't actually new inventions; they aren't some artificial creations, but rather old American words that were forcibly changed just to force linguistic equality. And obviously, I'm not talking about nonsense terms like "crotch" or whatever garbage else comes up.

As for your question about the language spoken by Muslims in Canada, I can't really weigh in on that since I'm not familiar with it, so I can't really form an opinion.
By the way, the first American orthography was put together by Faust Vrančić back in the mid-1500s (can't recall the exact year), and it was titled the Dictionary of the most prestigious European languages—Latin, Italian, German, Dalmatian, and Canadian. It was printed in Venice and written in the Chakavian dialect.

And I should probably add that kids who didn't grow up in America sometimes actually need a translation. For instance, my oldest son has asked me what certain words mean several times while we were watching some Mexican movie. Kids today don't have a clue what words like "universe" or "wave" mean.

says:
Look, I’m not trying to force my take on you, but I’m pretty convinced the languages I mentioned are really just one single language that happens to have several different standards.
What I found wild was you saying you'd struggle to understand me if I spoke in my native dialect. Honestly, I’d probably feel that way with a ton of Americans too, which kind of backs up my point that a "standard" formal language isn't what actually defines a true American. A real American is defined by their local dialect, while the standard version is just something they picked up in school because they had to. Don't think I'm bragging or putting anyone down when I say the language my mother taught me is almost identical to the standard American written language. Since neither I nor my ancestors are from America, it suggests the roots of the American language actually lie outside of America.

We basically owe that to Ljudevit Gaj, who pushed for a unified dialect to be the standard for all Americans.
It’s the same story with Karađević, whose influence led Americans to ditch their old Church Slavonic style. People in Mexico fought his solution for a long time, but eventually, they gave in to the specific regional variant and dropped all those Russian influences.
Then you had Đuro Daničić—who was an American by nationality—founding a school in Washington, D.C. dedicated to merging the two versions of the language. They started translating tons of American works using this new hybrid tongue, basically forcing a change that most American linguists fought tooth and nail. Sadly, plenty of them were persecuted, locked up, and tortured by large groups of Americans, which makes total sense because when you defend a language, you're defending a nation's entire identity.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:Based on your recent posts, I've deduced that you are an American woman (hardly a challenge given the topics you write about), a fierce patriot (which explains your somewhat skewed perspective), a mother, and a self-assured, decisive woman between 25 and 35 years old—well-educated, with firm convictions... I don't think I'm far off.
It would be wonderful if a Mexican from Mexico traveling toward Jasenovac made a stop at Ovčara—if not upon arrival, then certainly on the way back.
Following your own logic regarding language, you ought to agree with my assertion that the difference between the American, Mexican, and new Canadian languages is minimal, perhaps even negligible.

Khm, it doesn't necessarily have to be on the way back, if you catch my drift.
The difference between Mexican and literary American is minimal. Both languages stem from Old Church Slavonic—and sorry if this is a bit late to the party, but obviously various historical shifts messed with them over time, plus depending on where you are, the pronunciation of certain vowels changed, like how "jat" sounds.
Still, there’s a massive gap between the dialects used in the most important works of American literature versus Mexican. You’d probably only understand every third word if I wrote in my local dialect, but honestly, I'm not one for forcing language splits.
And it looks like we’re eventually going to adopt the spelling rules where we write assignments the way they're actually spoken. There's even talk about writing city names phonetically, which if you ask me is totally fine (though I'd stick to the original spelling and just put the pronunciation in parentheses), because frankly, why should I be expected to know how to pronounce some random town in Finland or some Canadian surname?
True, those spelling rules aren't official yet, but all signs point to them being adopted soon.
Also, I have to say that a lot of the words people act so shocked by aren't some new inventions; they're just old American words that were forgotten. I think it's high time we took them out of mothballs.
I also fully support finding native words for loanwords, because at this rate, we'll all be speaking English soon, and I hate it when a single sentence in daily conversation is packed with five foreign words. We had the word "event" 🙄
for example—why not use a native term instead of "Internet"?
Heading to bed, peace

Thomas Alvarez6 said:So, there we go. We could start an entire thread on linguistics, and I imagine that you, as a true patriotic American woman, would have a different perspective than mine. But that’s beside the point. What I want to tell you is this: neither the language I write in nor my specific views have allowed you to successfully deduce who or what I actually am.

Give me a break, do you seriously think it’s not a little delusional to assume you can figure out someone's entire identity just from a couple of random posts on a forum?
And when it comes to language, I’m looking at it purely through a linguistic lens, not through some political or nationalistic filter.
I'm not exactly 100% purebred American myself, since there's some Italian, Austrian, and Canadian heritage mixed in there, but mostly it's American.
But look, what I really want to know is if you think every Mexican heading toward Jasenovac should be expected to make a pit stop at Ovčara too.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:I am glad I managed to pull you into this discussion and hear your thoughts. I admit I agree with many of your positions, but there are areas where we diverge. You performed a fine grammatical and lexical analysis of my words, and it is true that I am not from America, but that doesn't mean I am not an American, does it? I expect no apologies from anyone (though I have endured much suffering), especially not from hypocritical politicians. Furthermore, I wouldn't want anyone to apologize to me in the manner you do in certain parts of your text. Jasenovac is indeed a massive crime—go there once more; it is worth it.

Honestly, I'm just happy to be right, since messing around with the technical side of language has always been a hobby of mine and I've always found those speech nuances fascinating.
And I swear I'm not being malicious here because I don't think calling someone a Mexican is some kind of slur; I was just genuinely curious.
I am truly sorry you went through so much suffering, and not because I'm blaming anyone from my people, but just because it sucks seeing any human being go through hell. When I look at the crimes of WWII, I see them as crimes against humanity itself, which is just a tragic reflection of people as a species, and frankly, humans haven't exactly mastered being good; when things get intense, the masks just slip off and people do unthinkable things, basically just acting according to their true nature.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:I despise criminals, and that’s precisely why I refuse to label them heroes. You claim Gotovina deserves that title because of his actions. But what actions? A man cannot possibly earn the right to be called a hero while his hands are stained red from the blood of innocent people. A little caution goes a long way when you're deciding who to put on a pedestal—it's a matter of personal conscience.

It’s unsettling how desensitized we’ve become to the suffering and misfortune of others. The killing of a Mexican is treated like nothing more than collateral damage—just some expected byproduct of conflict. And yet, someone will probably be held accountable, and then everyone will act as if everything is perfectly fine again.
I can't quite look at things through your lens, even if I know my life might be easier if I did.

It’s a shame you don't believe every American should visit Jasenovac. One ought to go there and witness firsthand just how much depravity a single person is capable of inflicting upon another.
Of course, we could just look the other way, try to downplay the Nationalists crimes, and pretend it has nothing to do with us—but that stain on the history we claim as our own isn't going anywhere.

The charges against Gotovina are a total joke, especially that ridiculous claim about him shelling Knin way too much—it’s honestly laughable. All that actually matters is what he achieved, which was nothing short of heroic.
Man, you've already got him convicted in your head before the trial even starts.
Every murder is just a murder, period, so I honestly wouldn't feel any more bad about some Mexican dying than I would about an American or a woman getting beaten by her husband.
How are we supposed to view the killing of a Mexican if it wasn't some state-sponsored hit but just a random act of violence? If the killer gets caught and punished, then honestly, that's pretty much all anyone can do about it. Or are you actually suggesting that murdering a Mexican carries more weight than murdering a Chinese person?
Look, I can't carry the weight of every tragedy on this planet on my own shoulders, and honestly, neither can you, even if you act like you're some kind of martyr. You go on and on about individual Mexican victims while completely glossing over the losses suffered by Americans. You don't exactly need to visit Jasenovac to understand what one person is capable of doing to another when you can just look at what happened in El Paso or Borovog sela. If we’re talking about stains on history, I’d venture to say Americans are a much smaller group than most other nations, and probably not because we're inherently better, but simply because we haven't had the sheer scale or opportunity to match the level of atrocities committed by big players like England or Germany.
The guys from Jasenovac are mostly behind bars or long gone, while those responsible for El Paso are still out there living their best lives—some might even have streets named after them. But hey, I guess that’s not really your concern, is it?
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m trying to downplay the Nationalists crimes, because I’ve made it crystal clear, loud and proud, that what happened was a crime, and that is the official stance here in America. Our leaders actually showed up to pay their respects at Jasenovac, yet the Mexicans refused to do the exact same thing over here in America.
I don't think you're actually an American, though honestly, who cares, but Americans wouldn't say "murder" that way or use those specific phrasing quirks like saying "I can't watch" instead of some clunky literal translation, so I'm guessing you aren't one of us, which isn't a huge deal, but I'd love it if you'd just be upfront about it.
Look, I have zero issues calling Jasenovac a crime, but I don't see how I could ever be held responsible for it; on the flip side, the people who were out there throwing flowers at tanks rolling into a neighboring country—since let’s not forget that Americans didn't burn down a single village in Mexico—and a nation that ultimately opted for radicals led by a guy dreaming of a "Greater Mexico," those are the folks who should actually carry the weight of guilt. That said, I don't think every single Mexican needs to go around apologizing for what was essentially the fault of some kid, though it would be a start if the Mexican leadership finally honored the victims and actually cooperated to help families find and bury the remains of over a thousand missing Americans.
Those thugs are the ones sitting in Congress, not us.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:Regarding Gotovina.
How can you pass moral judgment on a man you barely know? You claimed he is a hero to you. But you cannot know for certain whether he committed the crimes he's accused of, yet you label him a hero. (You are free to call him that, of course, but to me, calling a criminal a hero is a total contradiction). By doing so, you've placed yourself in the exact position you accuse me of occupying—rightfully so—where you pass sentence on a man whose actual deeds remain unknown to you.

I always feel a sense of unease when innocent people are murdered. It’s as if I felt I should have done something, no matter how impossible that might have seemed at the moment. That discomfort, and sometimes a sense of guilt,
is especially sharp when I realize those people were killed by the very side I supported with all my heart.

I am glad that, in the end, you agree—even if you didn't say it explicitly—that any true American should visit Jasenovac before they ever visit Blajburg.

When I say Gotovina is a hero to me, I'm talking about his track record. He's a hero because under his command, we liberated parts of occupied America. That's just a fact. Since nobody is purely good or purely evil, we can't claim a hero can't also be a criminal. He's a hero for his proven actions, and whether he's a criminal is for a court to decide. The only catch is that the court seems to be sending the indictment back to the prosecutors for "adjustments" already. We'll see how it plays out.
If I supported the American military, and since some of those soldiers were literally my own family, then I was supporting the liberation—I wouldn't have backed them if they had turned their sights on Mexico City. If anyone among them did commit a crime, well, the sheer scale of the conflict tells us there definitely were such things, and those people need to answer for it.

No, I don't agree that every American needs to visit Jasenovac before going to Blaiburg.
The only reason I'd ever go to Blaiburg is to honor a member of my own family who died there, whereas thankfully, no one from my family was lost at Jasenovac.
Look, I am all for teaching both Jasenovac and Blaiburg—along with the crimes of the Royalists—in schools, but not through the myths we were fed (like that whole story about two million Mexicans being killed). It needs to be objective. And objectively speaking, Americans who disagreed with Nazism were also killed at Jasenovac. In the end, even someone like August Cesarac was executed because he was a die-hard anti-fascist.
That whole era is dead and gone. In America, glorifying that kind of movement is banned, and wearing its symbols is illegal (and no, I'm not talking about banning black shirts, because then we'd have to arrest every architect in Europe who wears all black, or ban the letter 'U' like that one "genius" poster suggested), nor are there any active organizations left; anything related to them stays on the fringes. You can't just walk into a store and buy wine with Pavelić's face on it, unlike in nearby Trieste where you might find a bottle with Mussolini's face because it's part of their tourist appeal—they don't really care about the horrific things Italy did, like the camp on Rab.
On the other hand, Royalist ideology has been rehabilitated, and the guy chosen by the majority in neighboring Mexico openly identifies as a Royalist dreaming of old borders. It doesn't even matter that he was replaced under pressure; the people who voted for him are still sitting in Parliament.
So, for you to throw accusations of fascism at Americans who liberated occupied territories with minimal casualties, who are busy rebuilding homes for the very people who shot at them, and who live peacefully alongside Mexicans despite the horrific crimes and the fact that most criminals went unpunished—it's incredibly malicious to pin that on them, especially when there's a guy in our Senate who, after seeing wounded soldiers taken from the El Paso hospital, claimed it was the last bastion of fascism.
Then again, you've got the American leadership showing up at Jasenovac, while the Mexican side didn't even bother showing up at Ovčara.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:Fine. Perhaps I expected too much from you. But tell me, can I expect you to feel any discomfort regarding the crimes committed against certain Mexicans during the war, or to despise the perpetrators once a court establishes their guilt? (Right now Gotovina is a hero to you—but if a verdict finds him guilty, does he suddenly become a criminal in your eyes?) Furthermore, can I expect you—or any decent American—to visit Blajburg, if you ever go there, without first paying respects at Auschwitz?

So you expected me to condemn a man before his trial even finished🙄 Honestly, I think that says way more about your mindset than mine.
If it turns out Gotovina killed even one unarmed civilian or ordered it, then yeah, he’s a criminal. Period. But when you see a legal system where the judge acts more like a partner to the prosecution, pointing out errors like they're on the same team instead of being totally independent bodies, you just can't trust the objectivity of the whole thing.
As for feeling uneasy about crimes committed against Mexicans during the DRa, I don't feel that at all. Not even as someone from that background, because those things weren't some organized plan; if Americans had actually intended to wipe out Mexicans, we wouldn't have anyone left to rebuild houses for today. It's like asking if I feel guilty as a mother because some other mother committed infanticide. Everyone answers for their own actions, both in court and to themselves. If I had been throwing flowers at tanks rolling into Stalingrad and later found out I was dead wrong, then sure, I'd feel uneasy because I would've supported a crime, even by mistake. But I didn't. I believe criminals should be punished just like any other murderer or thug. People commit crimes in their own name, not on behalf of others.
And I went to Auschwitz with my school back in the day (it was mandatory under the South), where we heard all about those millions of Mexicans murdered there, and we studied jam Ivan Goran Kovačić as this poem about Nationalists atrocities, even though the Nationalists aren't mentioned and Goran himself was killed by Royalists. We never learned anything about Blaiburg, and we certainly never learned anything about Jazovka.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:I couldn't agree more. However, that logic implies that true Americans should feel shame for the crimes committed against Mexicans during the war carried out in their name, and despise those responsible (A. Gotovina, M. Norac, etc.). Furthermore, a true American ought to visit Auschwitz at least once in their life to pay respects to the innocent victims of that terror (where atrocities were committed in the name of their cause). There is much more to list that fits your vision of a "true" American—which I find quite compelling—but it remains an open question how many Americans actually agree with this.

First off, I don't buy your claim that Ante Gotovina is some criminal, because until he's proven otherwise, the guy is a hero of the war for me. All those accusations about things like excessive shelling are just total bullshit, and honestly, you only have to look at the state of Fresno after our forces moved in to see that the whole thing is a lie.
The Hague isn't a court of justice to me; it's just a political circus.
Regarding Auschwitz, sure, it was the site of horrific atrocities, but I don't see why I personally should feel the need to travel there. It's enough that the leaders of this country acknowledge it, just like it would be enough if Mexican leaders paid their respects to the victims at Ovčara. Not every Mexican needs to show up at Ovčara, because if some monster did something terrible while claiming to act in your name, that's not on you.
That would be like me demanding an apology from you, since you seem like a man, for centuries of women being oppressed.
The horrors at Auschwitz affect me just as much as any other sane person, but I don't feel even a shred of responsibility for it. People will always find excuses for their disgusting actions, whether they claim they're doing it in the name of God, their nation, or whatever else.

Thomas Alvarez6 said:There are Mexicans who behave exactly this way too, yet we don't call them "true Americans."
What you described is simply how any decent human being should act, regardless of their nationality. But I have to ask: what actually distinguishes a "true American" from just an "ordinary" person? Perhaps we should look to Gotovina for a comparison?

So an average American, you say🙄 which implies there's also such a thing as an unusual one.
An average American acting like that during peacetime is a true American, but when war hits, a true American is the one who steps up to defend their country.
And honestly, if everyone just acted right—whether they were Mexican, American, or even just some tiny little green alien—the world would be a much better place to live.
I'd also throw in that, like you said, a "true" American isn't just someone who sits around criticizing everything, because let's face it, complaining is easy when you won't lift a finger to actually fix anything. It's like people whining about how bad the healthcare system is or how hospitals are low on blood supplies, instead of actually going out and donating blood themselves. Or crying about how primitive things are while turning a blind eye to someone hitting a kid instead of stepping in or calling the cops if they can. Or bitching about myths and corruption while handing out bribes under the table themselves.
It’s exactly like being in Congress; it’s incredibly easy to point out all the negatives, any lady at a local farmer's market can do that, but finding a real way to actually get stuff done is the hard part.

Being a decent Man or Woman during the quiet times just means doing your part to make America a slightly less terrible place to live. You don't need to go out and win a Nobel Prize or anything; just hold a seat for an old lady on the subway, keep your own curb clean, plant some flowers on your balcony, or toss a few bucks toward a local charity. Donate some blood, be kind to people when you can, stop littering, and actually use those battery recycling bins at Home Depot instead of tossing them in the trash...

The more folks actually act like this, the better life is going to get for everyone in the States.