Posts by Rebecca Grant78

It feels like things are getting so polarized lately that even a single comment from an athlete can trigger a massive, organized response from the stands. I wonder if teams are even prepared for the fallout when players start speaking their minds on sensitive topics. Does a player's personal stance actually impact the brand of the team they play for?

Taylor Vaughn8 said:The truth is, an American government built on protecting individual dignity hasn't really existed. It's always been about individuals being expected to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the nation.

Which is precisely my point: "Such a thing doesn't exist—you either fight for the dignity of the state, or you fight for the dignity of the individual."

Susan Peterson7 said:Pure nonsense. One doesn't preclude the other. I mean, what is the point of having a government at all if its purpose isn't to serve its people? A state exists specifically to protect the dignity of the individual.

Look, fighting for national dignity essentially means fighting for collective dignity. And history suggests that a collective will always sacrifice the individual if it serves its own interests.
So, I guess you're either fighting for the dignity of the state or for human dignity.

fadedpilot7 said:They can't both exist at once?
😵
If that were true, your beloved Marshall would have stayed aligned with Stalin back in '48 just for the sake of individual dignity and kept the whole Soviet bloc behind him.

Instead, out of national dignity (and his own self-respect), he chose to isolate the USA from both sides for a few years until the West stepped in with aid. He risked a Soviet intervention, which basically put the dignity of ordinary people on the line.

So, what was he really? A conservative or a liberal...
fadedpilot7, you're getting a little lost here...

Where do you get the idea that Stalin or Marshall actually cared about human dignity? And how can you claim they were communists, socialists, or Marxists?

The Manifesto clearly states that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Essentially, at the core of Marxism, socialism, and communism stands the struggle for human dignity, not the dignity of the state.

Karl Marx wrote:

"The limit of political emancipation appears in the fact that the state can be liberated from one obstacle, while man is not actually liberated from it; the state can be a free state, while man in it is not a free man."

The issue is that Stalinism eventually became synonymous with socialism, and by extension, communism.
Stalinism, which traces its ideological roots back to Bolshevism and Leninism—finding its true starting point at the 10th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1921 (under Lenin's leadership), where the decision was made to dismantle the so-called "Workers' Opposition" and ruthlessly eliminate the protagonists of the Kronstadt rebellion—was anything but socialism. Those rebels were simply trying to ensure the proclaimed Soviet system (meaning worker-peasant councils as the foundation of all power) was actually implemented against the party-state bureaucracy.
In reality, it was, and remains, the most radical enemy and destroyer of any form of socialism (or communism). Yet, under Stalin's horrific terror, which claimed millions of victims in Siberian camps, this specific brand of Stalinism declared itself—in a supreme irony—as "the only true socialism," or "real socialism."

And now, the "most beautiful" and politically profitable narrative presented itself to Western politicians, led by the USA, when they needed an ideological weapon to fight "that communist bogeyman"—both domestically and globally—while competing for "spheres of influence" against the Soviet Union.
Back then, their slogan was essentially: "You want communism? Well, look over there!" pointing toward the horrors of the Stalinist system across all walks of life.
Now, following the collapse of that Stalinist system, there is much talk regarding the failure and disintegration of communism as a fundamental failure in both theory and practice. And frankly, nowhere—not even in America—did that version of socialism or communism truly exist.

rowdyowl said:If by "leftist" you mean someone fighting for workers' rights and social equality, but who still identifies as an American patriot, I’d vote for them in a heartbeat, even if they flirted with some unrealistic ideas.

That isn't really an option; I suspect you either fight for the dignity of the nation or for the dignity of the individual.

Taylor Vaughn8 said:Look, I’m not a right-winger in the capitalist sense. I lean more toward the left because I actually believe in social justice, but I also care deeply about America. I have zero interest in seeing any kind of new America rise again after everything we've been through. I know you probably won't believe me, but people like that definitely exist.

My point isn't that you are a right-wing capitalist; rather, I mean you are a conservative who fetishizes the state. To you, the government is sacred. It seems your priority is defending the dignity of the nation rather than the dignity of the individual.

Taylor Vaughn8 said:Alright, fine. Let’s just bring a dictatorship to America then. We can start lining up the gallows to deal with those crooks. 🤣

I suppose we can't "we" implement a dictatorship; it would have to be a single individual.

And what if that individual isn't a conservative like you, but someone from the left?

Ultimately, I think any nation is composed of diverse people and conflicting interests.

A conservative, much like yourself, tends to fight for the dignity of the "state," whereas a leftist might prioritize the dignity of the "individual"—to them, the state isn't some sacred entity the way it seems to be for you conservatives.

Taylor Vaughn8 said:And honestly, why blame the entire nation just because a few individuals happen to be thieves? That’s a systemic failure down the road, not a flaw inherent to the existence of the country itself. It's like what Joan Didion says about how the concept of "the state" is often an illusion; so why go around trashing something that doesn't truly exist and that some people consider sacred?

That is precisely my point. What is the purpose of democracy if it simply provides a pathway for thieves to seize power?

Taylor Vaughn8 said:Look, I’m not actually anti-democracy; I just meant that the specific system isn't the core issue here. Honestly, I couldn't care less which political party ends up in power. My main priority is just that we Americans stay united and actually have faith in our own country.

I suppose democracy exists precisely because interests within any nation are rarely identical. It is the mechanism that allows any group—even those whose goals might run counter to the interests of the American state—to eventually take office.

For instance, many conservatives tend to view the Democratic Coalition as being at odds with the interests of the United States.

Taylor Vaughn8 said:What do you mean, "one party"? I never said that. My point was about us coming together to preserve our country. Honestly, whether the system is socialist or anything else isn't even the issue here.

If the system doesn't matter, then I guess what is the purpose of democracy?

Taylor Vaughn8 said:It honestly breaks my heart to see the state of American society today. It’s just sad watching our people tear each other apart over trivial things from the past. It really gets to me how we Americans have turned against one another, to the point where some people actually want to give up on the whole idea of maintaining the United States.

What hurts and angers me most is when people spit on the American nation, on our national symbols, our language, and our culture. And we just sit there and let it happen. For some, even that isn't enough—as soon as they realize we are nationally conscious and love our homeland, they start attacking us, calling us nationalists, chauvinists, bloodthirsty, primitives, or worse.

I already know what your response will be, and frankly, it’s the truth. A lot of the rot in American society is the fault of ultra-nationalists and the Republican Party. They’ve basically played the American people for fools, using fake patriotism as a cover. Instead of building strong, just foundations for this country during critical moments, they’re busy cheating and stealing from their own people. To anyone who is a true patriot, the Republican Party will always just be a party of thieves and frauds. What they’ve done to the American people is unforgivable. It drives me crazy when Republican Party supporters claim they were the ones who built America. They didn't build anything; they just ruined the American dream. I honestly hope they disappear from the political stage forever.

The bottom line is that America isn't the Republican Party, it isn't Franjo Harmon, it isn't the church, it isn't Ante Pavelić, and it isn't the communists either. America belongs to the everyday citizens—the people who defended and built this country because they believed in a better future. But that vision can still succeed if we fight together.

So, my fellow Americans, let’s unite. We need to stop dividing ourselves based on ideology, regionalism, or the ghosts of the past. Let's all stand together to fight for a better future for America. It would be a genuine tragedy to give up on this country that our ancestors dreamed of. We have a truly beautiful nation that God gave to us. I truly believe that life in America will be better one day. Let’s defeat those who hate us by showing our love for our homeland.

But unite for what, exactly? A single political party? Are you suggesting we move toward a one-party system?

The whole concept of democracy exists because, in any nation, there will always be people with differing views and conflicting interests.
Those diverse perspectives and interests are precisely why we have various politicians and multiple parties.