What do you think nationalism is, and do you support or reject it? If you think there's good and bad nationalism, what do you think makes some nationalism good and some bad?
Printable View
What do you think nationalism is, and do you support or reject it? If you think there's good and bad nationalism, what do you think makes some nationalism good and some bad?
Wearing a shirt color you happen to like is genuinely important because it will help your football team win. Supporting a law you happen to like will help your country win. Justification. If it precipitates actions that promote the overall well-being of others, I don't see a problem, even if it strikes me as about as "real" as typology. If its used as an excuse to be cruel to people who happen to be excluded from the group, I think there's gotta be bullshit to fall back on that's more logical at face value to support the assholery than "Go Vikings." (I'm American and I think that probably influences my answer, so I identify with my country in that sense. I also think that things that are good for Americans in general will probably affect me, which I think is nationalistic in a literal sense, even if I don't use it to bolster specific ideas, so it's not nationalistic in the sense it usually means.)
We need to do something about rampant Chinese nationalism. :DDDDDDD
I try to reject it, because it is chauvinistic even in weaker forms. But I still have nationalistic sentiments.
Well I believe a country is not a nation, even if it has laws and a government. Nation means an ethnic group and country means a piece of land, for starters. I think even if you're an anarchist opposed to states you have to at least begin to understand nations can exist without states and vice versa. Of course, I think states are good things without nationalism and nationalism is horrible whether it's in state form or not. People just confuse patriotism and nationalism to the point using the terms gets confusing.
As a side note for people who like stranger ideas, nationalism, Nazism, and "paganism"/"Satanism" appear to be the same. I put the last two words in quotes since religious identity labels are almost never meaningful, but for example ancient gods are always referred to in nationalistic terms as Greek gods, Roman gods, Norse gods, Egyptian gods, etc. Ancient religions are a whole other can of worms and I don't think they all fit under the nationalist label, however, it's interesting how closely nationalism and religion are tied up even today, for example, God supposedly fighting useless wars with America, or far-right "pagan tradition" revivals, or Fichte's national mysticism which seems to somehow appeal to even "rational" people who "aren't nationalistic" when they encounter another culture and language/dialect and feel intimidated.
Why do people think the best country in the world, the best sports team in the world, the best religion in the world, etc. is the one they just happened to have been born into? Just because I happened to have slid out my mother's belly in this particular part of the planet, doesn't give me any more of an inclination/desire for this particular piece of landmass, to research it, to belong to it, etc. than any other piece of landmass on the planet. But that's just me.
Someday there won't be any more countries. Our travel habits will be even more global than they are now. Maybe we'll have teleportation options. So I can live in Finland and work in Japan. The David Dukes of the world will have to accept that. Maybe we'll all be brown, all will be mixed. No more whites, no more blacks, no more asians. We'll all be mixed. And we'll look back at all this silliness, the religious dogmatism, the sports, the patriotism, the racism, etc. And think how silly the human species was.
It's no different from loving your own family, or those close to you. Every country should be nationalist. Love for one thing does not mean hate for another.
That's called patriotism. I know the dictionary says nationalism means patriotism for one definition, but it also says literally means figuratively for one definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Armalite
Seeing American flags everywhere makes my eyes soar.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/fa...5c30e3fa93.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
Identification with or desire to create an independent nation-state. Tribal impulses are generally suspect, but they can sometimes cause good effects; Indian nationalism for instance won independence from a generally oppressive state.
Generally the effects are worse when the nationalism is for a state already extant. German nationalism led to the Nazis, arguably Turkish nationalism caused the Armenian Genocide, the Ba’ath party was fueled by Arab nationalism, and so on.
Not sure about nationalism. Most likely a 6w5, 641.
Hong Kong is definitely a gamma introvert, while China is most likely a rational logician, my guess is maksimka.
How do you recognize a patriotic (or nationalistic) person? Does it manifest in a way other than professed love for one's nation/country? Can someone of any political stripe love their people?
I see it as pride in your country, associate it with people who think their country is the best. I don’t think just because I was born in America, that it’s the best. I don’t even think America is the best. It kind of annoys me when people go on about their country’s superiority. I guess you could say I’m not really into. However whenever I’ve been on vacation and I come back to Indiana, it feels nice. Comfortable. I feel like one of these people. Down south they feel too nice, loud, and intrusive. Go towards New York and they feel rude. Hoosiers are friendly but they give you your space too. I’m not saying Indiana is the best, but I feel at home here. It’s a relief being back here after I’ve been gone for a while. But I don’t think that’s nationilistic. I would honestly profess this place is extremely boring and barren, and other states are more exciting. The people in other states may be more interesting. But it’s home and my people are home. lol I’ve never been out of the country, except for a day in Canada (lol) but I’m sure I’d feel the same way if I left the country and came back.
If a person had an EU flag outside their house, it need not mean they are less patriotic than a person who had a British flag outside their house.Quote:
Originally Posted by ashlesha
Only 15% of Dutch people would fight for their country - I don't think that means Dutch people are less proud of being Dutch than other people in their respective nations.
It is clear that those who are especially concerned with public displays of nationalistic pride tend to be noticeable however.
When you are the State, nationalism is unimportant.
Er, I mean...nationalism is contrary to the spirit of peaceful co-existence and universal co-operation.
I hate nationalism. It’s all about feeling pride and belonging. I am human...I belong to the human race. I was born in Armenia and I married the man I love, my husband had a European heritage and he was born in America and we would move to a more peaceful and relaxed country if we could. We don’t care about pride...we want to live a peaceful life
Its just a form of tribalism. It can help foster cooperation and team spirit by uniting people under a flag, sacrificing the individual for the greater good (in this case your country).
Its mostly a Fe valuing thing.
And more beta than alpha.
Opposite of it would be delta who like to go their own way more and generally dont care about the greater whole of society and groupthink
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
It's a basic in-group preference. I support it insofar as we're never going to get rid of it so we might as well embrace it and work from there. It is also the the basis of K-selection, and we humans are, at the end of the day, K-selected. We prefer to live among those who both look like us and sound like us in a linguistic sense. For example, you may not "like" people who have a harsh southern drawl, but if you're an American you'll probably start to feel nostalgic for that accent if you were suddenly teleported to China sans any knowledge of Mandarin or how to speak Chinese at all. At least you could, in some form, innately understand the words coming out of the mouth of that southern hick. Good Luck learning a Tonal language without the concept of what those are previously!Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
I mean, skin color be damned, if someone speaks your language in your "local" accent you're gonna be more open to the concept of them being "one of us" as opposed to an "other". Again, basic human nature. We must all learn and adapt if we are all to ever truly hold hands and sing Kumbayah or something. Hell, the very fact they're speaking your language in a way you can even pick up on is a major bridge between "other" and "one of us".
I could go on, but I'll just leave this as "food for thought" and get some sleep. Imagine a different "race" speaking to you flawlessly in your own language and accent. You really gonna hate on that individual all things being equal? I know I wouldn't.
you can pretend all u want but ur still Fe lead sistahQuote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
I’m not pretendingQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Ok just stupid then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
You are the stupid one for not reading and comprehending what I wrote and thus in turn calling me names for your lack of comprehendQuote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
wow so most conservatives are Fe, ur brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
It makes no fucking difference whether you call it Fe or Delta, you might as well say that nationalists are made out of mostly carbon and water. It's a meaningless categorization.
What difference does it make, whether you call nationalism Fe or conservativism or tribalism or an idea born out of atoms?
The real question is, how does nationalism work? Or what it even "is"? And in what context?
Nationalism is not related to any functions whatsoever.
It's just another way to show people "I"m better than you" in short because of something you had absolutely no choice or control over.
It's like the good looking person who looks down and mocks those less attractive. Like yeah, your nation might be stronger but you're acting like a piece of shit about it, not like you chose to be from there, or what you look like or like you yourself contributed anything to the overall greatness of Italy when you lived your life in America. Otherwise we would all pick the best one right? Something like nationalism is just a small way to think. In case it wasn't obvious enough already, nationalism has lead to 2 world wars.
I actually think that most people are nationalist or at least patriotic in some ways. There are simply degrees of differences in its expression of it.
The definition of nationalism/patriotism is "loving your own country". And my theory of "love" is putting someone on the top of the list, and giving them preferential treatments, such as being kinder to them. And "hate" is putting someone on the bottom of the list, and treating them worse.
So loving your own country would mean giving it a preferential treatment over other countries. But this does not necessarily mean treating other countries worse or boasting about your own country. It simply means that you want to better or improve your own country in some ways. Which would in turn, improve other countries.
But if you lacked kindness, then you go with the more jingoistic route, and start treating other countries worse. But that's not love, or at least it's not love WITH kindness.
So my theory is that jingoistic people simply lack kindness. It's simply a "My dad can beat up your dad" kind of thing. Patriotic people do not tend to have this kind of narcissistic self-love.
I mean it's true, you may neither love nor hate your own country, and stay indifferent to it, and that's fine.
I was thinking this was my thread when I liked @kingslayers post out of courtesy lol which goes to show how a "kindness/responsibility to my own" streak is kinda intrinsic :crispy:
Which isn't to say I disagree with them per se, cuz I think in practice it tends to manifest that way in most people. But my thoughts are closer to those of @Singu, whose post I liked for that reason, lol
It is related to Fe because Fe is the function that extroverts societal ethics. Your post about makes you very DeltaQuote:
Originally Posted by kingslayer
Nationalism is wrong and Delta is the best quadra.
Delta sucks and Nazis suck too. You lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
the approach with the accent on common interests of a group (in this case its kind as a nation)
generally, being about interests of a majority mb said as a variant of humanism
often is represented as alternative to individualism, known as liberalism and to internationalism, known as globalism
My post on Fe/ Fi
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...l=1#post984304
And interesting thread to read
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ook-like/page2
Which quadra do you think is better than Delta? I for one can't think of a more wholesome quadra.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
All and none of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
A non-answer! You're just afraid to admit I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
1. Within the socionics context, every quadra seems better than delta. ("All of them.")Quote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
2. I have no evidence that quadra actually means anything in the real world, even if you assume a Jungian type theory. ("None of them.")
Nobody cares about ur anti socionics stance. Just gtfo the forum if u dont believe in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Lack of comprehend? U mean lack of comprehension?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
Nationalism is a virtue that all healthy nations must have in order to work in the benefit of their own survival. Our western societies have less nationalism than ever and coincidentally are on a rapid path towards self destruction with demographic decline, low birth rates, uncontrollable immigration, lack of care for own culture or the integration of those coming to our lands to our culture, etc. List goes on. When you don't care for nationalism, you don't care for the future and survival of your own.
That last part is BS. Nationalism didn't cause the first (and by extension the second) World War. Globalism/Imperialism (but I repeat myself) did. Entangling alliances my dude, look up who was "allied" to whom at the time and that dumpster fire exploding into an epic world consuming firestorm becomes a tragically foregone conclusion once one bad thing (that sociopathic asshat rulers think they can use to to further their ends) happens. Bismark saw it coming, and the Kaiser was stupid enough to ignore his rather rational warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingslayer
Here's a video that explains it in about the same tone as I feel I'd explain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_ggEKWB8-E
Damnit, how do I embed a youtube video into a post such that it appears in the post as a vid you can click on and just watch from here? Very frustrated as I'm sure I knew how to do that in the past :(.
Update: Figured it out, feel like an idiot for not seeing it sooner. Watch that vid, I still back it.
"Love it or leave it!" Well ironically this is the exact kind of tribalism that you were talking about. You're typing yourself Fe-valuing, so at least you're consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
I mean you're right though, this forum sucks and is full of idiots like you who have abandoned any kind of rational thinking.
It's just a testament to how irrational thoughts and blind beliefs in whatever fads can manifest. It has been a trainwreck of amusement, but tragic.
Nobody outside of this forum will ever take Socionics seriously, noob.
my SLI cousin has a lot of pride for her "homeland" maybe because she is xenophobic. clearly SLI are not humanist lol
I was about to ask if anti-immigration or concern over adequate integration is relevant to patriotism because of @LemurianLos post and then realized a difference that might not be being clearly articulated here in the ways people are perceiving the concept of patriotism itself. There is (more or less, everyone's different), "my country literally has a superior culture, infrastructure, people, etc" and (more or less) "I want the best possible things to happen to/with my country, which is the same as any other in goodness." Both of these strains were being talked about in this thread, but I feel like this is an important distinction that should be brought attention to. The former strain was being mentioned primarily in a negative way, and I'm not a fan of it, but I'm not (at this particular moment) feeling predisposed to argue. So not calling out the tagged person.
I always hated it. If it was just a feeling of pride, I wouldn't mind it. But in its essence it reinforces herd mentality. You can't criticise any decision an official makes without someone painting you as a traitor. I had to do compulsory military service and a lot of lectures would focus on the importance of following your superiors/leaders and not questioning them. Mostly propaganda and brainwashing. You never feel like you have a voice. It destroyed any respect I had for the military. I'm actually less disciplined than I was before I finished my service. Professionalism is not celebrated. If anything it made me more likely to exploit nationalist sentiments for my own interests.
slavery today and in pre-industrial times
medieval feudalism & corporate feudalism
the role of non-duality in self-liberation
greek philosophy and the west
are indian gurus delta
the NWO, your NWO
Yea the forum is full of people u think are stupid, so u cling around here because? Just gtfo already and save everybodys time. ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Singu
You're not debating "is socionics real?" You're just yelling "socionics can't possibly be real!" all over a socionics forum like a dog peeing all over a fire hydrant to show this is your territory with your superior Popper books, which you don't even discuss with us. I don't believe in The Gospel of Socionics, but it might be true or might not until more empirical testing is done and this is a place to post that's not horrible except for the near-complete lack of moderation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Your framing of your "socionics cult" as an alternative-hypothesis that has no value, and which people only believe because of herd-mentality, also implicitly casts whatever your own idea of "The Truth" or "The Pursuit Of Truth" is as if it is the null hypothesis, and that it has inherent value by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
But truths are just phrases. Ideas. Scaffolds for one's thoughts. You only need truths for the act of thinking and speaking. So they're just human institutions. They may be useful to your wants, but they're still alien to you. There's no inherent reason they should be your wants, rather than a mere means to an end.
You can think as reason as much as you want for your own wants, but no one is making you do it. If you've lost the pleasure in contemplating something before you've gotten to the bottom of it then there's no compulsion for you to keep digging unless you have some other personal purpose in doing so. If you no longer believe in something, as a cause-in-itself, you don't need to waste any more energy on it either.
No "highest cause" is worth you serving it for its sake. Thoughts tend to form a hierarchical structure as they go along, so if you serve the highest cause of Truth in itself, you're as servile as a theologian would be to his religious convictions.
Truth is just another thing to possess you.
I think there are objective truths, but I also think The Pursuit of Truth is pretty stupid. Sometimes 2 + 2 does equal 5, so 2 + 2 = 4 is not something worth dying on. However, I can't go claim 5 of something because someone offered me 2 of something once and 2 of it again, because that's not how math will ever work. There are too many truths to pursue them all. It's better not to pursue any and let them all come to you.
I'm not of the former strain so there's no basis for argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ashlesha
Thing is I don't see most of the people I happen to live around as being "my own". Whether these opioid-addicted neckbeards and chewing tobacco obsessed country fuckers survive or not makes absolutely no difference to me. If the nation collapses so be it, I'll willingly adapt and assimilate to whatever comes next.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemurianLo
From what I observe, the self-typed EII is most likely to be nationalistic about their type.
I don't either, but I can tell you that when I go to mass on Sunday I sure as hell feel like I am among "my people" shall we say. Sadly, I don't see many of my "neighbors" showing up. A few do, and I'm thankful for that, but most all of them don't. I'd subject them to a witch test before I went full "fuck em'" mode but if they failed that than yeah, fuck em'!Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
Are you religious in any way? A "congregation" can, in my eyes, be a microcosm of a "nation" (hell, us Catholics regularly reference "a holy nation" in our liturgy and the mass itself). Common cultural touchstones, common language (especially if we're talking the "Latin rite" in this instance), common beliefs, etc. Ethnicity is a common and even natural basis for a nation IMO, but one's religion, if fervently/honestly held, trumps ethnicity quite handily. Most would, if they were forced to pick/admit it to themselves in their heart of hearts, rather be a white/black/whatever dot in an ocean of "other" if said others were also fervent believers in their religion. As, in that case, they aren't truly an "other" in the eyes of that ocean of believers all things being equal.
A curiosity perhaps, but not someone you'd immediately distrust or think was trying to screw you over. They're still someone you wouldn't mind dating/marrying your offspring all things being equal. They pray to your god flawlessly and with an earnesty that may make you question how pure/honest your own faith is given that example true piety before you, they try their best to be worthy in the eyes of said god, they treat you with the respect you are due as their parents, they try their very best to make him/her happy given what they have to work with, etc.
Now that I think about it, what's more important for a "nationalist" to value? Is it Ethnicity or is it Religion? I of course firmly believe that Religion is most important (i.e. It is better if we focus on our "nation" being "Christian" vs. White/Black/Latino/Xir/etc.) but I am open to any counter-arguments telling me that my focus is misguided somehow. I do relish a good argument :).
No not at all. My parents made me go to jehovah's witnesses congregations when I was young and I hated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
could be but enfj seems more likely at this point i thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by HERO
Jesus, get over your vendetta with Maritsa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
I have an issue with behaviour I see as destructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
I like Maritsa and I like you too, why can't you just be friendsQuote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
I'm open to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Armalite
I like it from an economical perspective because it provokes competition. Zero-sum games are usually the cause of the biggest bursts in productivity. From the social perspective, certain types of nationalism are the proverbial gravity that hinders maximal social unification ("complete" social unification is of course impossible, hence the reason why I used the word "maximal" instead). Globalization has been a tax on nationalism, and sure technology is still advancing, but I would argue it is not growing at a good rate. It is the complacency granted to us by globalization that makes us "unmotivated" to go out there and accomplish because there is no enemy to triumph over.
My Solution:
I think if the economic superpower (we currently don't have one as the global economy slows down) of the next decade takes initiative with threatening sanctions to denuclearize the world (including themselves) we will go back fighting one another provoking nations all over to "pick up the pace." What happens to social unification? Nations will begin to realize to beat their competitors they need "diversified staff." As much stick as America gets for being nationalistic, the country's core principles I think are rather pragmatic. For them nationalism in principle was not primarily based on geographical convenience of someone's birthplace, but rather the unified effort of equals with individual talents, but sympathy for the same ideology. What does this mean? It means it doesn't matter whether you were born in a America, it matters whether you are willing the accept the American ideology. This does not diminish social unification; instead it promotes because they don't care about your background, but rather, what you have to offer as an individual. When there is a culture that promotes intensive realization of one's potential it directly contributes to the country's power. The problem is many nationalists go against the intentions of these founding principles that made America so great in the first place. Anyways, to conclude, major countries in this ideal world of mine would trend towards their own version of America, upping global productivity while lowering local discrimination. Of course it would produce more conflict, but all great successes are built upon the blood, sweat, tears of the competitors and the indefinite misery of the losers. I believe this is the world we live in, and the further we accept it, the further we will go.
Disclaimer#1: I am not American.
Disclaimer#2: My ideal world setting is extremely unlikely to happen. I don't think we will be getting rid of nukes any time soon.
I was thinking about the patriotism thing today. (I guess according to the OP author, nationalism is defined differently and if you want the thread straight on that, @coeruleum, I'll back off.)
But if patriotism is like what I've been thinking, wanting the best possible things to happen in your country and endorsing the well-being of the people surrounding you, then yeah, that's everyone, really, lol, so patriotism wouldn't be, like, a distinct feature. So I actually don't understand what it is, other than a right wing buzzword. Is it about viewing your country as literally superior in terms of intrinsic goodness, like I said before? (I was only making an attempt at inference, out of confusion.) And descriptors like "tribalism" are equally vague to me. The comparison of nation and family would need clarification to me because my son, my sister-in-law who deleted my texts when I was in a coma in hopes I'd lose my memory and believe her when she said my boyfriend is a heroin addict, and my cherished aunt that I grew up very close to are in very different categories of "family."
I feel like it's basic as hell to ask for a definition to be placed on basic concepts, but if you're in the mood, it's not a rhetorical question. Im all ears.
Because he's a stalker and I don't want one of those in my life. He hasn't proven worthy to have my friendship. A friend isn't someone who collects data on you and then reposts it like a smear campaign against you. NO THANKS. OBVIOUSLY I have clear boundaries of what a friend isQuote:
Originally Posted by Armalite
I think it's worth pointing out that the police consider me innocent of stalking.
I would add in one final thing about the "American" model you seem to advocate for (and I do as well if we agree on this). Up until recently, it involved Christianity. That is, there was a "common" religion/public set of values assumed. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. are not the same "religion" strictly speaking, but if you asked any of them who Jesus was they'd all give you the same answer more or less. He is the Christ, the redeemer, only son of God, savior of all who will but merely accept his love and mercy and renounce Satan in turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator
Now that it does not? Well, problems. Easily predictable problems.
And as for the nukes. Benjamin Franklin put it best: "Those who pound their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords." I too wish we'd all just turn that immense store of fissile material into fuel rods for power plants and sources of power/propulsion for interstellar spaceships but Ben wasn't wrong. Hence, it'll never happen sadly. If you got a gun but I got a nuke I win, period. Wish it wasn't this way but it is. Our sentiments line up perfectly in this instance. The loser will suffer and there is no way to eliminate that suffering. Accept it and move on for we can't change that no matter how much we may wish to.
Site admins and Google Analytics both have a lot more data on you than one shmoe does. Gotta prioritize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
It creates an interesting thought. How like ultimately, the existence of America, originally united nationalistically, eventually climaxed and then spawned declines in nationalistic thinking in pockets worldwide and within itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
The "Founding Fathers" were deists, and most Americans today are still Christians. America was founded on reason, not Jesus (and also not Satan.) Please leave your paranoia bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
That's some major league Bullshit. America was indeed founded on reason, but as I've pointed out time and again, reason leads to truth, and as "God" is the ultimate truth, true reason leads to God. I'd highly recommend you look into the actual writings of those "founders" as well. Trace the evolution of their beliefs. At one point in time in their lives you'd have been right about them. However, that's not how it usually ends. Most all of them would pass for believers in the end even if they had some "hot takes" in their earlier years you may well love to repeat to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
Many saints were once prolific sinners, a fact I hope you come to understand the significance of one day.
I'd also challenge your assertion that most of us Americans are Christian. I mean, fuck, challenge randos (especially those with "danger hair" as I like to put it) to a Witch Test out of the blue. See how many fail it hardcore. It's gonna be a lot lemme tell ya. The "majority" belong to the cult of pop culture, the cult of death, and... a cult I can't name in polite company.
My little challenge of administering "witch tests" will depend on your location pretty heavily I'll admit. Urban areas, the coasts, etc. Yeah, you'll scarcely find a soul who'll pass. In fly over country/rural areas? You'll find few failures. I live in the latter, I am quite pleased that I am right about this especially among my own blood relatives (who are not all Catholic BTW). Do it my dude, and please report factual data back to me. My models and theories are always in need of additional data :).
ha gayQuote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Most anyone passes as a better believer in truth than you. I would agree that truth is God, but you can't separate that from moronic identity politics, and now you pick on brightly-dyed hair colors and rock music as being of the Devil in an act of ultimate unoriginality. And you still name-drop tons of second-class Lutheran and evangelical philosophers like that makes you a good Catholic. Excuse me, LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
My dude, whatever would make you think I hate "rock" music or think it is of the devil? On the contrary, you'll find no other religion more in tune with things like "heavy metal" than Christianity (though the Norse faith is a close second). I mean, it may be blasphemous of me to point this out, but it's hard to get more metal than "nailing your God to a stick" as it were. Also, just because a person hates me, my faith, etc. It does not mean they don't have a point to make or that they cannot be correct on a given point or even beat me in an argument. Humility is a virtue after all, one many in this world are sorely in need of learning how to exercise I'd say.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
Ya got me on the "danger hairs" though. That's a big ass red flag for me and the few times I acted to confirm boy howdy did I get my confirmation. The fact that they fitted the other aspects of the "stereotype" just further sold it. Show me a supermodel or body builder with blue hair or the like because I've yet to see one. It was universally sported by ugly women and soyboys/hipsters with SJW beliefs in my experience (bonus: many of them also had problem glasses to boot/complete the stereotype). Other fun fact I recognized, "Victim Mentality" and "Oppression Olympics" are not metal, hence why I've yet to meet or see an SJW metalhead.
As a final point of observation, the first person to resort with conviction to ad hominems like you just did, in a philosophical context, has indirectly admitted defeat. I'll admit I may have gotten carried away here and there but if we were speaking face to face I'd have immediately apologized as I know that fact and can immediately spot/sense it when I'm communicating verbally with others. Weaknesses of text communication, you don't get to hear tone of voice, body language, facial expression, the look in their eyes, etc. To put this another way, you should have just posted quotes from the founders that were undeniably deist to make me look like a fool here. That was the winning play. Instead? You riddle me with insults, derision, and contempt. Come now, you can do better than this I know you can. I have faith in you, if nothing else, as a competent adversary. Please, live up to my expectations. You have no idea how hard it is to find good enemies/opponents in these areas :).
Back on topic though. Can you have a coherent "nation" without a common faith/public set of beliefs agreed upon and thus socially enforced by most all members? I argue not. Care to contest this or do we finally agree on something?
Those are not "ad hominems" but me pointing out you aren't actually debating my points and are seemingly willfully misrepresenting them. Have a wonderfully paranoid and obtuse day! Please read some actual Catholic philosophy instead of terrible Lutheran Kierkegaard, and make Catholics look smart instead of dumb in the future!Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Ever read the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas? Please do try to refute him. Your ilk have been trying for centuries. They've all failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
Please, point out how I've resorted to fallacies in arguing against you by the way. Again, this is a weakness in text communication. Show me where I've unjustly and, quite frankly, stupidly given myself over to my emotions without admitting that I did upon later investigation. I seek to beat you in rational debate so utterly that you relinquish you smug sense of superiority. Morality and Myth trump fact and reason in most every sense. Ought beats Is every time that conflict comes up. You do not seem to accept this fact for some reason. I must ask why.
Thank you for making everything you've been doing wrong glaringly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
And yet you fail to even answer my central question. You who undeniably know what "is" in all forms, tell me what "ought" to be. Can you? Will you?Quote:
Originally Posted by coeruleum
You ought to learn to actually read what people say and address their points if you don't want to look like an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Animals of all types defend their territories.
Man is so much more than an animal now though. So, its a tough question.
As a concept I am neutral towards it. Its implementation is something I tend to evaluate on an individual basis.
Nationalism is just a political tool, whether it is good or bad depends on whether the constitutional ideals and government of the nation in question are necessary/good, or better off being overthrown and replaced. I'm am not nationalistic towards my home country America, but I would be if I agreed with everything it stood for.
Do I feel some sentiment towards the land I live on, the people I live with, the culture I live in? Sure I do, but those concepts aren't restricted by territorial boundaries agreed upon by states and enforced by violence. And I definitely don't have positive sentiment towards the US government, the nation state I live under.
There is a recent tendency for voters in advanced countries to vote for isolationism, and to use the idea of Nationalism to defend it. Why might this be?
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad...ic-growth.html
There's a difference between thinking X culture is objectively above all, and protecting/focusing on your own culture as a priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
If we decide to be ignorant and take the definition that the populace and the media give of nationalism, describing it as pride in the state itself and patriotic symbols over those of other states (something that by definition is not nationalism but constitutional patriotism) , and in this case a huge number of western countries could be classified as nationalists. However, if we take nationalism as a desire for permanence and self-sufficiency of the nation itself, as well as a claim for the right of a nationality to the reaffirmation of its own personality and collective identity through political self-determination, then we speak at the same time of the identitarian movements in struggle for the rights of black people and white nationalists and separatist in the United States, or of European fascisms at the same time of modern Latin American socialist movements, and of an endless number of movements and ideologies in contradiction or congruence among themselves that cannot be cataloged with the rapidity with which most of the population catalogs nationalisms, given their absolute ignorance of the depth of the sociopolitical panorama of the world in which they are living.
Nationalism cannot be understood as radical patriotism in the same way that libertarianism cannot be understood as the idea of giving benefits to the wealthy or socialism as the idea of increasing taxes and public benefits.
If someone wants to talk about a topic, the least they should do is find out a minimum information of this topic in particular, with a simple google search it is enough, but everyone prefers to drop the first thing that comes to their mind rather than stop to investigate and elucidate what they say.
This kind of reminds me of F.A. Hayek's opposing a common European currency because he argued it would lead to weakening of competition between currencies and thusly between economies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator
Interestingly, Hayek himself argued in favor of private currencies as an alternative to national currencies for the same reason he argued in favor of national currencies as opposed to a global one. So Hayek was certainly not seeing states (not the same thing as nations, though we often speak of nation-states) as the only vector of competition, possibly he was seeing the fact there are diverging interest groups in an economy as a stimulus to competition. But the economy has to have these groups be inter-connected, possibly through trade or through transfer of capital.
For example, one of the reasons America has a strong economy is because it not only exports, and exports alot, but because Americans often "buy American". Same thing with Germany and China. But these geographic regions are abstract, the only thing binding them internally is a military that protects its currency, especially in the case of America and China. In reality, you could have different US states and Chinese provinces competing against each other (and in reality, this is what happens, for example, take the case of capital being transferred from the "rust belt" to Silicon Valley - an example of inter-regional economic competition within the same country). But you simply don't have a currency to reflect this competition. So we don't always have a very clear picture of who benefits more from globalism and who benefits more from nationalism. We simply have things like GDP, which means little since it reflects the sum total of a country's economic output - not which parts of a country are doing most of the output.
I suppose my point here is that, while I agree that competition between nation-states can be a good thing to stimulate competition, it's only one factor among many others that stimulate competition, and that it is hard to tell how impactful it is as such.
Economists should be forced to live in their utopias.
I am a patriot. But patriotism also means having to accept responsibility for your nation's mistakes and atrocities.
No, I've always opposed "my country right or wrong" people and I was quick to think that most people I was with were like that (especially people who thought it was a good idea to kill Bin Laden especially the ones who thought it was a good idea and refused to give Obama credit for it rather than believing he was responsible and pointing out unjust his choice to do so was). I think "my country right or wrong" is stupid and shows an inability to attend to and understand enough details about concrete reality and an inability to think independently and abstractly and demonstrates emotional impulsivity and tends to favor and lead to excessive force over right and intellect. They were effectively being "my government right or wrong" people.
WEll, I meant I opposed the view of "my country right or wrong". I can be friends with some people who have the view "my country right or wrong".