Remove ads

The American Experiment (Riot Quest)

Voting is open
Reader mode
Zimmerwald1915 said:
From your own source (which is a book review from 1986. . . ):


Apathy is hardly reverence, reverence is affirmative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And Apathy in that context isn't there as an. 'Of course the events celebrating the Constitution is evidence no-one cares about the constitution.'
Rather the details of the Constitution.
This disparity between reverence and knowledge goes back a long way. Even Thomas Jefferson, who proclaimed in his first inaugural address in 1801 that the Constitution should be ''the text of civil instruction,'' conspicuously failed to include the Constitution in a proposed syllabus he devised in 1824 for the law faculty at the University of Virginia.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mr. Kammen insists, was the deeply imbedded cultural belief, as James Russell Lowell put it in 1888, that the Constitution has been ''a machine that would go of itself,'' a perpetual-motion device so perfectly crafted that it needed no further attention - despite the fact that it has been amended 26 times and that thousands of other amendments have been proposed over the years in Congress.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This doesn't seem to carry the idea people are uncaring of the constitution. Just of truely delving deep and understanding what exactly the Constitution actually is.
 
Themarineguy said:
And Apathy in that context isn't there as an. 'Of course the events celebrating the Constitution is evidence no-one cares about the constitution.'
Rather the details of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Failure of the public to engage on an emotional level with the state's autocelebrations would seem to indicate a lack of popular reverence as much as or more than a lack of popular knowledge, yes. And to be more germane to your argument that popular sentiment would react negatively and massively to an attempt to replace the Constitution. Rather, it would seem to indicate a lack of popular emotional attachment to the Constitution as such and to there being no substantial barrier on that score (as opposed to, say, elite sentiment, which was very invested in the Constitution as such, on both sides of the debate over its perfection versus perfectibility) to a campaign for its replacement.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Failure of the public to engage on an emotional level with the state's autocelebrations would seem to indicate a lack of popular reverence as much as or more than a lack of popular knowledge, yes. And to be more germane to your argument that popular sentiment would react negatively and massively to an attempt to replace the Constitution. Rather, it would seem to indicate a lack of popular emotional attachment to the Constitution as such and to there being no substantial barrier on that score (as opposed to, say, elite sentiment, which was very invested in the Constitution as such, on both sides of the debate over its perfection versus perfectibility) to a campaign for its replacement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...So....
In other words, the fact people don't understand the constitution is proof people don't hold reverence to it?
Odds are, the same lack of knowledge even applies today, which would then, logically mean that people simply shouldn't care about the Constitution. Because if they hold reverence for it, then they must understand it. 😅


Edit: The Constitution is in some ways, part of the founding mythos of the US.
 
Themarineguy said:
...So....
In other words, the fact people don't understand the constitution is proof people don't hold reverence to it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, failure to celebrate the thing when given the opportunity is evidence of a lack of the kind of religious reverence that you would ascribe to it. People celebrate the things they revere, whether or not they understand them.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
No, failure to celebrate the thing when given the opportunity is evidence of a lack of the kind of religious reverence that you would ascribe to it. People celebrate the things they revere, whether or not they understand them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So it comes down to what exactly the apathy is referring to. One one side it could mean everyone ignores the holiday because they don't care. On the other hand, it could be referring to the apathy towards understanding what exactly the constitution is.

Edit: Honestly, the biggest problem is context. I mean, midevil Europe is known for abysmal literacy rates, overflowing with illiterate peasants even as they pass written messages to each other. Because to the statistics writers back them, only the Latin language mattered. And in this article, it's easy to take one snippet and declare reverence of the Constitution didn't exist in the time period. And yet, in context, it could possibly be referring to things other than the popularity and activity in the events.
 
Last edited:
Themarineguy said:
So it comes down to what exactly the apathy is referring to. One one side it could mean everyone ignores the holiday because they don't care. On the other hand, it could be referring to the apathy towards understanding what exactly the constitution is.

Edit: Honestly, the biggest problem is context. I mean, midevil Europe is known for abysmal literacy rates, overflowing with illiterate peasants even as they pass written messages to each other. Because to the statistics writers back them, only the Latin language mattered. And in this article, it's easy to take one snippet and declare reverence of the Constitution didn't exist in the time period. And yet, in context, it could possibly be referring to things other than the popularity and activity in the events.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Frankly you are coming off as deliberately obtuse. If you want to keep claiming that the American civic religion was a thing in the 1800s, perhaps you could try finding a source that actually supports your position instead of tying yourself up into knots to misread ones that don't.
 
Last edited:
spiritualatheist said:
Frankly you are coming off as deliberately obtuse. If you want to keep claiming that the American civic religion was a thing in the 1800s, perhaps you could try finding a source that actually supports your position instead of tying yourself up into knots to misread the plain meaning of texts that don't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
😅 😅 definitely not my intention at all, for as little my word matters.
I mean, isn't the article kinda focusing on that very idea?
Any evidence that the plain meaning pulled by taking one sentance in a void holds up?

Edit: To clarify, I am no historian. I don't have deep institutional knowledge of American history. Just an American armed with google search engine.
 
Last edited:
So, is the radicalization stat starting to affect the thread too?

Cause, well...

I kinda hope this thread doesnt end up burning down because of politics and partisanship.
 
Remove ads
Internal Memo
  • Sidestory
    • Internal Memo
    w.r.t the new equipment

    From: Representative Peng
    To: Deputy Director Noriaki
    CC: Director Malte

    As the one who is organizing the creation of the new militia, I thought you would be the best person to take my concerns to. Far be it that I presume to do your job, but you should probably know of the opinion among the ranks which my gossip office has gathered. There's been some rumblings about the new militia equipment which we've been obtaining, with some conflict between them as well as accusations of sexual bias in both directions due to the different issued kits for each sex. The bulletproof vests for one, and the standard weapon.
    Polling among prospective recruits shows that while women are largely receptive of the bulletproof vests, there's been accusations of bias that we lack faith in female members and thus unfoundedly coddle them by making them wear bulletproof vests. The menfolk are simultaneously approving that we are taking steps to protect women, but feel left out as their kit does not have the steel plates which would protect against bullets.

    Additionally, there is grumbling about the fact that we're obtaining different weapons. The carbines appear to be the sticking point, the ones that we imported from Germany. Abigail summed it up for me, and it's mostly latin to my ears, but gist seems to be that many of the women feel that we lack faith in their abilities, issuing them a weaker weapon while men are given full sized rifles while men who have done side by side shooting comparisons are accusing us of unwarranted favoritism but giving the women more advanced weapons.

    I'm unable to comment on any specifics, as I'm sure that your own testing committee will provide you more detailed reports than I ever could, however, the idea of giving different kits to different sexes will likely not be one of your best decisions. I would advise finding some way to alter the situation.

    Also, I love the new pistol you got me. The C96 is an absolute joy, and my secretaries love it, even if Joey is grumping about that old blackpowder revolver of his. A gastly thing I say. If you could put in an order for more on the next import shipment, I would be a happy woman.

    Rep. Naomi Peng
     
  • Sidestory
    • I'm just going to write omakes for whoever asks.

    And that's pretty much all I've done here anyway :V
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Voting is open
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top