Euro Bashers now Euro Lovers

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
49,650
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
All this Euro loving has me wondering what is going on. Many of the flag wavers have not been critical of Europe before, but many have been. Where I would regularly see references to 'old and new Europe' and other attacks, now it is all about defending Denmark, which is most definitely a part of Europe, and a country that has not changed in any way in the past few months or years.

Why the sudden backing for an area of the world that was previously regularly attacked? It hasn't changed at all, it is the same now as it was the past decade or so.
 
Why the sudden backing for an area of the world that was previously regularly attacked? It hasn't changed at all, it is the same now as it was the past decade or so.
Speaking as one who is almost certainly perceived as a Euro-basher, all I can say is, I always admire a display of spine against totalitarianism. And, no, it's not the same now as it has been in the past decade or so.
 
They haven't all changed.

Look at rizkilla's conspiracy theory, where he makes this affair an excuse and occasion to indulge in bizarre, grotesque fantasies about those evil, evil Europeans --- and some people seem to be joining him in his fantasy world, to judge by their comments.
 
I have nothing to add; I just had to post in a thread about European lovers.
 
I've been aware of Euro-bashing too.

From bashing Germany for not being stupid enough to follow us into Iraq to making (even more) fun of the French and even changing the name of French Fries on Capital Hill to Freedom Fries; it seems as though it's been open-season on Europeans in general.

I'm sure after the Danish debacle is replaced with the next "controversy of the month" we'll be back to poking fun at how Europeans smell, how they haven't thanked us sufficiently for WWII, how chicken they are for not joining the coalition of the easily compelled and for just being so gol' durn foreign.

Funny how fickle Americans can be, isn't it?
 
A demonstration of the existance of balls?

crumb102.gif


Hope this shows those goddamned vegetarians who's boss.
 
All this Euro loving has me wondering what is going on. Many of the flag wavers have not been critical of Europe before, but many have been. Where I would regularly see references to 'old and new Europe' and other attacks, now it is all about defending Denmark, which is most definitely a part of Europe, and a country that has not changed in any way in the past few months or years.

Why the sudden backing for an area of the world that was previously regularly attacked? It hasn't changed at all, it is the same now as it was the past decade or so.

It's simple. I make my judgements based on current events and particulars. I can dislike what one country in Europe is doing and like what another is doing or identify with in some way. Sometimes, I can like some of what a country is doing and dislike another thing they're doing. For example, I can like how England is responding to the current events, but I'm pissed off at how the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest is still three weeks away. On the other hand, if they do a good job, in March my opinion might be totally reversed. Right now, Denmark is going through a rough time, and I think they can use some support. I thought that Chavez was a waste of flesh until he actually started delivering on his promises, and now I think he's a hoopy frood.

It's not important for me to define myself politically as a "Euro Basher" or a "Euro Lover." Nor do I have a particular need to view Europe as a monolith. For some things, it can be considered more monolithic than others. But it doesn't puzzle me at all that people who sometimes bash European countries will also sometimes praise them; it seems quite natural.

You have to ask the question "why?" because you don't think that way. You indicate so yourself when you say that Denmark hasn't changed at all. What's important to you is the identity of countries and peoples (e.g. Denmark) and the identity of people (e.g. "Euro Bashers," "Euro Lovers," "Flag Wavers"). As long as someone has the basic worldview, even if it's on "the other side," you can understand that. So you can groove with Dr. Adequate and Mephisto and The Fool. But you can also groove with Skeptic, even though you may vehemently disagree with him, because the basic framework of thought is the same.

On the other hand, you can't groove with me or Mycroft or Mark or BPSCG or Luke T., to name a few, because the framework of thought is different. It's possible that you don't even see that there is a difference in the framework of thought or will at least vehemently deny it.
 
You have to ask the question "why?" because you don't think that way. You indicate so yourself when you say that Denmark hasn't changed at all. What's important to you is the identity of countries and peoples (e.g. Denmark) and the identity of people (e.g. "Euro Bashers," "Euro Lovers," "Flag Wavers"). As long as someone has the basic worldview, even if it's on "the other side," you can understand that. So you can groove with Dr. Adequate and Mephisto and The Fool. But you can also groove with Skeptic, even though you may vehemently disagree with him, because the basic framework of thought is the same.

On the other hand, you can't groove with me or Mycroft or Mark or BPSCG or Luke T., to name a few, because the framework of thought is different. It's possible that you don't even see that there is a difference in the framework of thought or will at least vehemently deny it.
Ooh, good.
 
All this Euro loving has me wondering what is going on. Many of the flag wavers have not been critical of Europe before, but many have been. Where I would regularly see references to 'old and new Europe' and other attacks, now it is all about defending Denmark, which is most definitely a part of Europe, and a country that has not changed in any way in the past few months or years.

Why the sudden backing for an area of the world that was previously regularly attacked? It hasn't changed at all, it is the same now as it was the past decade or so.

They're aching for an "Us" versus "Them" fight. The flag waving is unbelievably primitive (and stupid), even when it comes to a relatively enlightened country like Denmark.

This blog post (discovered via Tom Tomorrow) offers several worthwhile insights. A sampling:

The objects of satire are often - always? - respected authority figures or ideas within the culture of the satirist. WITHIN the culture, not OUTSIDE the culture. Even in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, the object of satire is not really the third world country to which Bill Boot has been booted by an editor who confused two Boots. It's the British press's hopeless, corrupt reporting from such countries. The satire was directed directly at institutions that were part and parcel of Waugh's upper class British Twitworld.

In contrast, as I see it, Islam is not part of mainstream Danish culture. Mohammed has no genuine cultural authority the way, say, the royal family might. To call the cartoons satire, therefore, seems to me inaccurate. It's simply ridicule, and ridicule of a figure from a culture that, from within Denmark - the satirizing culture - is Other. Danes are heeping scorn and humiliation on someone's religion, someone who is not Us. Someone who doesn't look like us, doesn't act like us, doesn't think like us, isn't as rich as us. And just can't be us.

...those who believe the cartoons really are satirical probably don't see it this way, I suspect. To them, it's pretty simple: Muslims should act like everyone else and take their knocks like everyone else. If anyone's excluding them, making them peculiar and Other, it is Muslims themselves, by acting like jerks and failing to understand the importance of free speech. No excuses: Muslims are just like everyone else and if they don't behave decently, we need to be teach them some lessons.

My objection to this argument starts with the firm belief that there is a utopian, mistakenly optimistic premise behind this kind of argument of equality. The playing field for Muslims is not equal in Denmark. Even if they behaved exactly the same way as their non-Muslim neighbors, they'd still be judged non-Danish. Right now, Denmark, like other Scandinavian countries, is grappling with the rapidly changing nature of Danish identity. The children of Muslim immigrants are far from being thought equally "Danish" as the children of those who can trace their ancestry back to some 12th century ancestor. Muslims in Denmark, and in the Western world in general, are not often in positions of authority, the religion is not dominant in the West, nor are Muslim citizens in many positions of power.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_digbysblog_archive.html#113932717451373767
 
It's simple. I make my judgements based on current events and particulars. I can dislike what one country in Europe is doing and like what another is doing or identify with in some way. Sometimes, I can like some of what a country is doing and dislike another thing they're doing. For example, I can like how England is responding to the current events, but I'm pissed off at how the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest is still three weeks away. On the other hand, if they do a good job, in March my opinion might be totally reversed. Right now, Denmark is going through a rough time, and I think they can use some support. I thought that Chavez was a waste of flesh until he actually started delivering on his promises, and now I think he's a hoopy frood.

It's not important for me to define myself politically as a "Euro Basher" or a "Euro Lover." Nor do I have a particular need to view Europe as a monolith. For some things, it can be considered more monolithic than others. But it doesn't puzzle me at all that people who sometimes bash European countries will also sometimes praise them; it seems quite natural.

You have to ask the question "why?" because you don't think that way. You indicate so yourself when you say that Denmark hasn't changed at all. What's important to you is the identity of countries and peoples (e.g. Denmark) and the identity of people (e.g. "Euro Bashers," "Euro Lovers," "Flag Wavers"). As long as someone has the basic worldview, even if it's on "the other side," you can understand that. So you can groove with Dr. Adequate and Mephisto and The Fool. But you can also groove with Skeptic, even though you may vehemently disagree with him, because the basic framework of thought is the same.

On the other hand, you can't groove with me or Mycroft or Mark or BPSCG or Luke T., to name a few, because the framework of thought is different. It's possible that you don't even see that there is a difference in the framework of thought or will at least vehemently deny it.
Hey, you left me off your list! That's it. I'm not sending you a Valentine's day card, now! :D

I agree with what you say. The framework of thought is very different. It isn't a matter of liking or disliking a nation. It is a matter of having a certain manner of thinking, and liking people that are similar. It is a pretty natural thing, actually.
 
Hey, you left me off your list! That's it. I'm not sending you a Valentine's day card, now! :D

I'm heartbroken.

I agree with what you say. The framework of thought is very different. It isn't a matter of liking or disliking a nation. It is a matter of having a certain manner of thinking, and liking people that are similar. It is a pretty natural thing, actually.

I would use the term "affinity" rather than "liking."

Nikita Kruschev and Joe McCarthy had an affinity, but there wasn't much liking.
 
I love how everything these days is so polarized. You either hate a thing utterly, or adore it with a passion verging on, nay, surpassing, worship. You can't dislike Bush; you have to hate him, or loooooove him. Same with Europe, and the Iraq war, and every single person, country, thing, issue, or concept. Everything in life now has radio buttons that say "Pro" or "Anti", and everyone's supposed to pick which view they hold. No middle grounds, no neutrals, no abstentions, and no range of other options. And if you are seen to say or do anything that conflicts with your Pro or Anti stance, you're immediately accused of "flip-flopping", treachery, and hypocrisy.
 
'Cause people are fickle and mostly, sadly, kinda sheeplish and they will bend their preferences and ideas whichever way the media tells 'em it oughta bend.

Sad and scary, that.

Me, I like Europe and Europeans. And I'm a dyed in the wool American patriot. Got an old uniform, a VA check, and a handful of shiny ribbony things to prove it, too.

Ain't nothing wrong with Europe. Nothing that's not wrong with the US anyhow.
 
From Cains link and quote.

In contrast, as I see it, Islam is not part of mainstream Danish culture. Mohammed has no genuine cultural authority the way, say, the royal family might. To call the cartoons satire, therefore, seems to me inaccurate. It's simply ridicule, and ridicule of a figure from a culture that, from within Denmark - the satirizing culture - is Other. Danes are heeping scorn and humiliation on someone's religion, someone who is not Us. Someone who doesn't look like us, doesn't act like us, doesn't think like us, isn't as rich as us. And just can't be us.

...those who believe the cartoons really are satirical probably don't see it this way, I suspect. To them, it's pretty simple: Muslims should act like everyone else and take their knocks like everyone else. If anyone's excluding them, making them peculiar and Other, it is Muslims themselves, by acting like jerks and failing to understand the importance of free speech. No excuses: Muslims are just like everyone else and if they don't behave decently, we need to be teach them some lessons.
A religion that seeks to control its adherents to such an extreme as to steal freedom of thought, speech and action to the degree that this religion steals from its adherents, people who did not simply choose to join this mind f*** of an institution but simply by a quirk of circumstance were born into its community and were endoctrinated into its pernicious dogma is very much worthy of scorn and ridicule.

That being said, I will put forward my request one more time. What is so wrong with the cartoons? There is a link in my sig for anyone who would like to offer an explanation. So far the only thing I have gotten is that it can't be explained.
 
Last edited:
well, I've always loved Europe. NOthing like going to France this year and everyone liking me because they knew if I was there I HATED BUSH.

I think this is a deliberate attempt by the Muslim clerics to cause dissention between Europe and the Muslim communities. Driving a wedge, especially in places where the Mulsim population is integrated, is very important.

It's as if the Europeans in some areas were too accepting. Maybe not France! (I've heard this arguement by Muslims about the West seducing Muslims into going "Western". It's better for the purity of their faith to remain outsiders).
 
In other words, no one is happier about the cartoons than the Muslim clerics.
 
I love how everything these days is so polarized. You either hate a thing utterly, or adore it with a passion verging on, nay, surpassing, worship. You can't dislike Bush; you have to hate him, or loooooove him. Same with Europe, and the Iraq war, and every single person, country, thing, issue, or concept. Everything in life now has radio buttons that say "Pro" or "Anti", and everyone's supposed to pick which view they hold. No middle grounds, no neutrals, no abstentions, and no range of other options. And if you are seen to say or do anything that conflicts with your Pro or Anti stance, you're immediately accused of "flip-flopping", treachery, and hypocrisy.
You're wrong plus you're evil.
 

Back
Top Bottom