Another issue is how far you feel you have to defend your head of state/country against foreign criticism. Laura said:

quote:

---

I didn't say, "well, Britain doesn't give a crap about it's poor people" whom I saw begging in the streets.

---

quote:

---

where the hell you people come off with MY having to prove something because of a man I did not vote for is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

[O]n the Bush thread you were arguing with pugnacious thoroughness against Kyoto which sort of lobbed you in with Dubya for the purposes of that thread.

---

You know, it would be ever so nice if you stuck to the facts. I did NOT argue "with pugnacious thoroughness" against Kyoto. I argued "with pugnacious thoroughness" against the unbearably ignorant assertion that Bush singlehandedly killed it in the US. It was dead long before he ever made it to office, a fact that for whatever reason a good majority of the non-American contributors to that thread and others are completely incapable of grasping.

Not what we are taught in schools but what we are not taught - good communication.

Now before I go on I am not saying that is always the case. There are certain instances when someone is deliberately bang out of order - they are there to upset, cause a fight, annoy, hurt or whatever. The intent is malicious.

There are, however, a good many people who are just careless with what they say. It is a throw away remark that is not thought out - or even if it is the person hasn't twigged onto the fact that a gross generalisation might be being made that will be really hurtful to someone.

I have just done a communication's course at work - it was a day's course and we spent 3 hours talking about how easy it is to generalise, assume just becuase you know what you mean the whole world will know what you mean and so on. Examples were given of typical things we might say - for example someone in one team would be rude on the phone and then in the next conversation we might have we would say "all the people in that team are rude on the phone" and the result could be desperate. We also learnt "negotiating skills" in order to "fluff bust" the generalisations - well very briefly - a few choice words to get the person making a stupid sweeping statement to be more specific.

This is what we were talking about on the course. I was amazed when talking about the course by the number of people who have not heard of the concept of generalisations. In fact I was scared by it.

And they are pretty freaked when they realise what it is about, how far reaching and damaging the implications are.

That is why I think education is crucial. It seems to me that a lot of people are simply unaware.

I am not saying it doesn't make it less hurtful. I am definitely not excusing it.

I just remember that years ago when I was in my teens I was used to do something - and for the life of me I can't remember what - that really bugged the hell out of another girl. This went on for ages - until she had the sense to tell me that whatever it was that I was doing hurt her. Once I realised it I stopped and I just wished she had told me sooner. She could have let me go on on that line for months more getting more annoyed and more hurt and I would have been none the wiser... and how on earth is anyone to know what they are doing wrong if it is not pointed out ot them?

Am I making sense. I hope so ... the Christian response should surely deal with teaching others so they don't make the same mistake - if indeed it is a geniune mistake and not malicious intent. As Jesus said to the woman at the well - go now and leave your life of sin - or something like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Charlotte: what part of "we have a board policy which allows for us to close threads at the request of the OP most of the time" are you having trouble understanding?

---

Addendum: I am NOT acting as an administrator on this thread. As the OP it is within my rights to have the thread closed, and would be regardless of my status as an administrator. So, to avoid any further misinterpretations here: Simon is moderating this thread.

Are we clear on this now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Ok. But in the US the verb agrees with the subject, not the object, in this kind of a sentence ...

This administration is a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
For instance, according to Gallup, the majority of U.S. citizens support the I.R.A..

---

I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is. I wonder how the Gallup question was phrased and where it was asked. I think a majority of people in the Boston area might support the I.R.A.

This comes back to the point I raised in my earlier post. Media reports about foreign countries are frequently incorrect and should not be taken at face value.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Ok. But in the US the verb agrees with the subject, not the object, in this kind of a sentence ...

This administration is a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell.

---

Ruth, in America and every other English speaking country "administration" is a plural
noun (like "family" or "parliament") and may quite properly take a plural verb.

The familyr are in a right state over the crap the administration are planning.

In actual matter of fact, in American English all nouns are generally treated as singular. In English English the appropriate distinction is made.

Erin -- laughing like a hyena does not become you.

I have a question about perception. Does the onus still lie with the "perceiver" if the perception is unrealistically pleasant instead of negative? If I think Anglo-Catholics are warm, gooey, cuddly people, is it up to me to find out they're gin-sodden, judgmental prigs or is it up to them to throw said gin in my face and hit me on the head with a thurible to disabuse me?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
[QB]Ruth, in America and every other English speaking country "administration" is a plural
noun (like "family" or "parliament") and may quite properly take a plural verb.

The familyr are in a right state over the crap the administration are planning.

In actual matter of fact, in American English all nouns are generally treated as singular. In English English the appropriate distinction is made.

---

HT, I'm well aware of the difference between American and British usage in this regard, which is why I specified American English in the first place.

Whether it is "appropriate" to treat the words "family," "parliament" and "administration" as plural is simply a matter of usage. While British English rationally observes that the government is made up of more than one person, American English quite logically observes that if the word "administrations" is plural, then the word "administration" is singular and speaks of the administration as one entity.

So the Bush administration is still a bunch of assholes. Except for Colin Powell. Her majesty's government are ... well, that's for others to say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is. I wonder how the Gallup question was phrased and where it was asked. I think a majority of people in the Boston area might support the I.R.A.

This comes back to the point I raised in my earlier post. Media reports about foreign countries are frequently incorrect and should not be taken at face value.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have a strong suspicion that the majority of U.S. citizens don't know what the I.R.A. is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
At this point, because it's happened so many times with so many people, am I justified in saying to each UK contributor: the perception I have is that you are illogically anti-American, and you have to prove to me that you're not?

---

I think that it would be totally fair to say

quote:

---

the perception I have is that you are illogically anti-American, and you have to prove to me that you're not?

---

But with the provisio that the "you" is in the plural, rather than the singular form.

I would say that it is very obvious from my time on the ship that a great many British people are anti-American to some degree. We have instilled into us the "under-dog mentality", and so America as the "over-dog" can be seen as a fit subject for riduclue or derision.

Please don't under-estimate what you, Laura, Ruth have done on the ship. You have managed to make quite a number of British people re-examine their attitude towards the States, and its people. And look back, and you will see that when this debate re-surfaces there are normally a few more Brits weighing in on the American side.

It is going to be a long hard battle to change the outlook of a changing group of people. We are struggling against our culture and our media. But please don't give up on us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
...well Moo, the study was paid for by RTE, the Republic of Ireland's national broadcaster, took a same of 50,000 people selected in a scientific method from across the U.S. - statistics aren't "misreported" in this case - you just don't agree with them. When you've done your own equivalent study, come back, if you're just relying on your own hearsay, take a flying jump... that's just media misreporting like I can get from any tabloid.

---

I'm not saying that it's just the tabloids that are inaccurate. The most-respected newspapers in the country are equally likely to be wrong.

As far as "scientific" polls are concerned, they are all biassed because no one can be required to answer the questions. The people who are willing to respond are a self-selected group.

When I was in graduate school, a man working on a Gallup poll came to the place where I was living with about twenty-five other students. He wanted to interview someone. I turned him down and so did at least ten other students. Finally one student agreed.

The student who agreed was in political science. The rest of us were in chemistry, physics, linguistics, and French. The questions asked dealt with politics, and I know that the political science student did not hold the same views as many of the rest of us.

One of my daughters once worked for a polling organization. It was not Gallup, but it was widely-respected. It did polling both for political groups and businesses. She told me that they used to "piggyback" polls. Once they had someone who was willing to answer questions, they would ask questions for more than one poll.

There was one incident which startled me. A researcher wanted to get responses from men in their forties who were alcolholic, but insisted they weren't. The pollsters were given a script. "You know, it's really silly the way people say that two six-packs a day is heavy drinking. Most people can handle that without any problem," etc.

After the men had agreed with this, she would find out their age and how much they drank. If they fit the profile, she would ask the questions the researchers had provided.

Then she piggybacked another poll which had nothing to do with alcohol. The people who paid for that second poll wanted the opinions of a cross-section of the population, not male alcoholics in their forties.

I am still flabbergasted that the polling group saw nothing wrong with this.

Polling organizations say that they are scientific, but they can't be as long as people are free to refuse or give silly answers.

As far as the Gallup poll about the I.R.A. is concerned, many people who do not want to admit ignorance will give a positive answer.

I have no problem with anyone's criticising a government's foreign policy, whether officially stated or implicit in actions. If media coverage seemed to make that policy appear other than what it was, the government certainly should try to circulate information which presents the true view, and, in that sense, some sort of defence against misconceptions (especially on wide-ranging or critical matters) may be necessary. But individual nationals should not be assumed to universally agree with any nation's official or apparent stance, nor should they be expected to defend the same.

quote:

---

But it is a fact that the general perception over this side of the Atlantic that America doesn't have too much time for environmental concerns.

---

quote:

---

. I argued "with pugnacious thoroughness" against the unbearably ignorant assertion that Bush singlehandedly killed it in the US. It was dead long before he ever made it to office

---

quote:

---

The problem with the post with which Erin (rightly) took issue is that it slipped from one perspective to another. It began with a government's position on Kyoto, then seemed to imply that "Americans" (not their government) were obligated to correct a misconception.

---

That doesn't mean we're a bunch of anti-environmental corporate shills.

quote:

---

This plus your comments about the anti-Kyoto consensus in congress would seem to prove Groucho's point, in that American opinion en masse, at least with regard to Kyoto, doesn't too fussed about environmental issues(or at least THIS issue) unless you're sugesting congress is utterly unrepresentative of the electorate.

---

It doesn't for those of us who have been paying attention to the discussion, instead of waiting to fire off another shot against Americans.

Once more, with feeling (and let's all pay attention this time, shall we?): the US Senate (only one house of Congress for those of you keeping score at home) voted 95-0 against ratifying any environmental reform treaty that excluded developing nations from compliance. Which Kyoto does. Personally, I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.

However, what you have repeatedly failed to understand -- and I suppose that's my fault, since I didn't realize I would have to explicitly state this -- is that a rejection of this pact does NOT mean that the US Senate (or the states it represents) gives free rein to drive SUVs 24/7 and cut down every tree in sight. That's not really a difficult conclusion to draw, if you put a little effort into it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
<-snippety-snip->
would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?

---

Vast difference between judging, and prejudging. I can judge, with the facts (however erroneously intepreted) in front of me, or I can prejudge, with no facts. Which do you want?

Leaping forward in a flash of light, i shall attempt to pre-empt another post :E

Prejudging is a bad idea, because it appears to have no relation to the facts. Thus i will create a picture of you in my head that is not based on anything apart from my grumpiness at being woken up by mendicant salesmen. I would consider this to be bad form.

Judging with the facts is a different kettle of fish, as it assumes that you have an idea of what the issues are.

If a burden of proof had to be laid (cheep) then it would be with the 'judging with facts' section. Course, the whole problem is who is not only right, but has the 'God's-eye' view of the situation. Can you claim objectivity over an argument bla bla bla...

The other problem is that even if you are faced with someone irrationally prejudging them, if they were aware of being irrational/prejudging, would they change their behaviour? And even if you made them aware, would they care?

Christian Response: Walk on the other side of the street. Tbh, most people aren't going to change their minds because of an argument :| and i've wasted countless hours of my life arguing with people who just won't see it MY WAY DAMNIT.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean we're a bunch of anti-environmental corporate shills.

---

quote:

---

given the crap spouted here, would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfstan:
You could do that if you wanted. Whether I felt obliged to respond to you would depend on whether I felt it was worth trying to disabuse you of your prejudice.

---

But why would it not be worth trying to disabuse someone of prejudice?

Surely, proving that prejudice is unjustified is always worth it.

quote:

---

Erin said:
To get back to the original point, which Wood and babybear addressed (thank you, Wood and babybear): given the crap spouted here, would it be reasonable for me to prejudge you as illogically anti-American and put the burden of proving otherwise on you?

---

Yes it would, the burden of proof already is on us (and should be), and hopefully we've proved that it isn't true (in many cases).

[Edited UBB code]

quote:

---

You could do that if you wanted. Whether I felt obliged to respond to you would depend on whether I felt it was worth trying to disabuse you of your prejudice.

---

I may be new at this, but it seems that you are all taking EVERYTHING too personally.
Erin, I mean this in the nicest possible way, I thik you should take a chill pill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
1/ generalisations suck
...
Pyx_e in a reflective mood

---

Pyx_e,

on reflection, do you think that all generalisations always suck? Or would you say that perhaps in your experience so far and in general they tend to suck more often than not?

As someone (not sure who) once said:

"It is too much of a generalisation to be true to assert that all generalisations are false".

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Riley, here's the thing. You read Erin's posts and start feeling anti-American. Whereas when I read your posts, instead of feeling anti-Australian, I just feel anti-Riley.

---

Strange, when I read Riley's post I felt pro-Riley, and when I re-read the whole of this thread I felt anti-Hell. (Though, Riley, please remember that Erin is only one of many Americans, and doesn’t speak for the whole USA. If you get anti feelings when reading her posts, maybe its better they should be anti-Erin feelings rather than anti-American.)

------------------------------------------

In reading this and other threads (e.g. George Bush) I don't normally categorise the contributions along nationality lines, but on re-reading I see a variety of viewpoints expressed by Americans and non-Americans.

But I think to any reader of these threads it is quite obvious that some writers more than others have bees in their bonnets and a lot to prove. Some are unnecessarily confrontational or sarcastic, but maybe that is the essence of Hell. Nevertheless we learn a lot about people from the tone of their comments.

---------------------------------------------

On the matter of anti-American sentiment, I have some very good friends who I admire greatly who are American. I had the pleasure recently of spending some time with a man born Welsh who had moved to USA, married a US woman and after some years been given US citizenship. It had meant a lot to him and he loved the country and was proud of it ... but not its politics. He and his wife were deeply ashamed of Bush as were many of the people we met around New England.

This perhaps is at the nub of the issue. I think a lot of users of these boards are, like me, British.

The UK has recently voted by a large majority for a government which is to the left of the US Democratic party on many issues. Many people in the UK, in all major parties, feel deeply committed to issues like the public provision of healthcare free of charge at the point of receipt and provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay. This seems completely off the wall to many US people, even some who pride themselves on their liberal values.

The matter of guns is another in which the culture is completely different. For many US citizens it is an important matter of human rights to be able to have firearms, and it seems to some to provide an important limitation on the powers of the state over the individual. In Britain, many people think it would be better if there were no firearms except perhaps for licensed culling of vermin and military purposes.

Perhaps some of what is perceived as anti-US sentiments is simply anti-right wing politics, especially on the Bush thread.

I might have written vitriolic anti-Thatcher rhetoric some years ago, but it would have been a mistake to infer that I was therefore anti-British.

--------------------------------------------

As regards generalisations (similar to prejudices), I believe they have a positive value when forming policy affecting large populations, but have a negative value when dealing with individuals.

So if you were in charge of oil imports for the US you might need a picture in your mind of the amount of "gas" used by the typical American. If you were opening a chain of Christian bookstores in the US you might need a picture of the churchgoing habits of the “typical” US household. But if you meet an American, best to try not to assume that they are average; try to listen rather than assume.

-----------------------------------------

I have a feeling my contributions here are not particularly Hellish, and the ones I enjoy reading most are also the ones which are least Hellish, so I think I shall spend more time in Purgatory in future. I hope to see some of you there.

I understand the point of the boards in hell, but rather than everyone simply attacking each other, leave all personal feelings and prejudices aside and concentrate on the argument. Ok, so maybe a British person doesn't like Americans. Or vice versa. It doesn't matter, that's not the issue. Personally, I like Americans individually, but en masse, two or more, I don't. However, that's my personal opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with any of the threads in here. So I won't refer to it.

quote:

---

Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference. Please avoid unintelligent remarks such as "Americans irritate me because..." or, "homosexuals are always saying..." Remarks like this always start flame wars and they are treated severely. All the above areas are open for reasoned debate, but extreme or insensitive attacks on the beliefs or lifestyle choices of other shipmates are not tolerated. When discussing a specific people group, please mentally substitute the name of a shipmate for the group in question before you post your message. That is the rule the administrators and hosts will use to determine whether or not your post is a personal attack, so please do the same.

---

So no, Riley, we're not just going to ignore it. Take your own advice: if you don't like it, don't read it.

Addendum: If you don't like the content of a thread, you really should take it up with that board's hosts. I am sure that David, Tom and 'frin would be most interested to hear from you.

Welcome to the real world, Erin. It ain't nice, but its all we have to live with.

Prejudices, by their very nature are very difficult to remove. Personally, I hate xenophobia because its a foreign word.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sure many people who post against "Americans" when what they should be posting against is (say) the current presidency, or stereo-typical American characteristics, don't realise that such remarks are viewed as insulting by many Americans.
Alan

---

I'd like to say the truth hurts but I feel that would be both being hypocritical and causing more problems.

So I won't.

quote:

---

...I'm sure that our American friends, although being wronged at the moment, are not angels. I hope they remember how they feel if they ever decide to do the same to another country.

---

One did. I banned him myself.

Addendum:

quote:

---

Sometimes. If we just let it go then it dies down real quick.

---

We let it go for the first 12 months of this board's existence. As you can see, it hasn't died down.

It would be REALLY helpful if you would take the time to learn the board's history and culture.

I'm going to put it into easliy digestible points.

1. The board's been here three years last Sunday. Erin's been here the whole time. I've been here since December 1999. And you know how many times there's been a shitfight about anti US sentiment while I've been around?

No? Well, neither do I, cos I've lost count.

You can't make Erin (or Ruth, or any of us) take a 'chill pill' - because it's more serious than an isolated argument. It's part of a history.

2. Look. I probably disagree more with Erin's politics than about anyone else on the board (except maybe Karl, but he's a closet Marxist, anyway ). But you know what? I like Erin.

Erin slogs her guts out to keep this board going.

Allow me to put forward the point you seem to be missing (I'll say it slowly, so you understand): ERIN. IS. A. RATIONAL. HUMAN. BEING.

You can discuss this stuff with her. Rationally. If she's not taking it well, why is that? Could it possibly be that you're being insulting?

3. If Erin is over-reacting, how come there hasn't been a horde of US people backing you up? could it be: that they're scared of Erin? (for your answer, see point 2) Or are they all too obviously a bunch of redneck cryptofascists who just agree with her? Or could it be (no, wait) that maybe she's right, and you're prejudiced?

Look. I've been privileged to have gone to a univerity with an unusually high proportion of US students. Don't know why, it just is that way.

Many of those US students who are Christian go to my church. It's the hardest thing in the world to admit you're prejudiced, but you know what? The vast majority of UK citizens (yes I know you're in Australia, Riley, but this, I feel, probably applies to you too) don't like Americans.

Last week I met a Canadian who's lived in the UK for several years. She told me that people are usually much nicer to her once they realise that she isn't from the US.

I SO utterly believe that.

I started a thread in Heaven where people are supposed to be saying nice things about Americans. It's been getting backhanded insults and "grudgingly"s at the start of sentences.

That says prejudice to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Though, Riley, please remember that Erin is only one of many Americans, and doesn?t speak for the whole USA. If you get anti feelings when reading her posts, maybe its better they should be anti-Erin feelings rather than anti-American.

---

Obviously Erin doesn't speak for the whole USA, but in this case I think she speaks for most, if not all, of the American shipmates.

She certainly speaks for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Riley:
By allowing racism, sexism, or whatever to get to you, you can make it worse for yourself.

---

While that might be good advice for a child in the playground, it is not suitable for here. We are not children, and neither is this a playground. We should be capable of discussing different aspects of our faith and our lives without having to make humourous remarks to deflect the criticisms. Especially when the criticisms are based on prejudice and not on the fact.