- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,877
- Reaction score
- 22,202
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Anything taken to an extreme is generally bad.
Except sex. :mrgreen:
Anything taken to an extreme is generally bad.
Are you reading? Please tell me that you aren't. Because if you were you'd realize that it's not the tax that made his nationalism extreme. It was the fact that he started murdering en masse to achieve it. And no one died when Mussolini went overboard with nationalism. Serioulsy. Pick up a history book?
I've never even heard of this. Source? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass? What relevance does this even have? Don't people who are married with children receive more tax breaks than people who are not?
Ah yes, obviously shooting the Roma is comparable to fingerprinting the Roma. Only, it's not. There is general attitude of distrust towards the Roma in Europe. However it was only through nationalism that they became actual victims of facism.
Blatantly ****ing false. Mussolini's creation of concentration camps in Ethiopia along with Nazi Germany's war with the Herrero people during the early 20th century served as the blueprint for concentration camps in most of Europe. There is an immense library of literature that shows the involvement that officials from the OVRA and PAI had in concentration camps. Your revisionism is made even more ridiculous by the fact that there are lists of concentration camps for Jews in Italy. Seriously, do you ever get tired of making **** up?
... Ah okay, it just so happens that every fascist government to date has committed a mass killing of some sort. Oooooooookay.
I've never even heard of this. Source? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass? What relevance does this even have? Don't people who are married with children receive more tax breaks than people who are not?
Obviously, I would argue that it is a good thing. Nationalism is merely the love of one's own people-- the people to whom one's moral obligations are strongest.
I'm a nationalist, I don't think it's a bad thing, and as long as you don't tie anything else into nationalism, like race or religion, it's not a bad thing at all.
The general population believes that they are better than non-Americans and how America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. And nothing bad has happened because of this. So do you think that extreme nationalism is a bad thing? I didn't post this in the basement, because I'm hoping we can be civil when discussing this.
Nationalism is a substitute for race and religion. See Nazism as a substitute for religion, Zionism as a substitute for race, etc.
Nationalism, like race and religion, often defines itself exactly by what it is not. Therefore, nationalism is inherently exclusive and notoriously xenophobic. We, as a human civilization, must get past these vague group identities. Let us embrace a more individualistic approach to mankind. One that cherishes the merit and worth of each individual life, regardless of race/sex/religion/etc.
As a liberal, I believe in equality, so I'm inclined to a world that takes each individual as they are, but until we reach that perfect world, nationalism, specifically liberal nationalism, is the most harmless of all the identifiers that people use, it is less divisive than race or religion, as it is almost entirely a legal identity, and a cultural one at worst. As long as notions of what constitute a nationality stay as a legal concept, then there's really no harm in nationalism at all, until is used an excuse for less salubrious activities, but the same can be said of any identifier.
The greatness of a nation can be empirically measured. By some metrics the United States is at the top or near the top (e.g. civil liberties, economic vibrancy, GDP per capita, military power). By other metrics the United States lags far behind our peers (e.g. education, health care, criminal justice, poverty). Waving the flag and proclaiming America to be better than everyone else is ****ing stupid. Most of the people who do that haven't done a damn thing themselves to make America great; they could have just as easily been born in Nigeria.
As a liberal, I believe in equality, so I'm inclined to a world that takes each individual as they are, but until we reach that perfect world, nationalism, specifically liberal nationalism, is the most harmless of all the identifiers that people use, it is less divisive than race or religion, as it is almost entirely a legal identity, and a cultural one at worst. As long as notions of what constitute a nationality stay as a legal concept, then there's really no harm in nationalism at all, until is used an excuse for less salubrious activities, but the same can be said of any identifier.
The way I see it. Nationalism is great and fine, but the moment people start believing their nation is superior to others without objective, empirical, and quantitative evidence to back it up, there's a problem. It means that there is a loyalty when none is warranted by evidence or logic.
Nations are no more superior to each other than you are to me.
I certainly see the US as superior to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia based on certain indicators that I believe are important, such as GDP, Education, Political Freedoms, Health, and Rule of Law. However, we can point to numerical indicators that let us know objectively why the US is better and letting me know why I should be proud to be a US citizen and giving me something to point to if I am ever asked to explain why. It also lets us know what we need to work on. If some other nation has achieved some level of competence in some areas, it means it can be done with today's technology and advancement. This gives us a roadmap for the future.
I'm not sure how to swallow that statement. Liberalism is strongly related to individual freedom, while nationalism is strongly rooted in collectivism and limited consideration of individual spirit. I'm sure you won't hesitate to explain how you merge the two together. But in my mind, it's an oxymoron.
I'm not arguing that we must end all nations at once, for I also believe we're not ready for such a revolution (which, at that immediate speed, would mean violent revolution). I do believe that we should empower individuals rather than groups, and not be beholden to some self-sacrificing nationalistic idea.
Then perhaps you also believe that Americans are superior to Venezuelans and Saudi Arabs.
Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond regarding this topic.
Nationalism is a substitute for race and religion. See Nazism as a substitute for religion, Zionism as a substitute for race, etc.
Nationalism, like race and religion, often defines itself exactly by what it is not. Therefore, nationalism is inherently exclusive and notoriously xenophobic. We, as a human civilization, must get past these vague group identities. Let us embrace a more individualistic approach to mankind. One that cherishes the merit and worth of each individual life, regardless of race/sex/religion/etc.
He said extreme nationalism – nationalism itself is all well and good to a point - but it can be taken too far, IMO.
The way I see it, nationalism is a flexible belief, take me and my country for example, I'm proud of being Australian, and, for example, so is the person of Sudanese descent who lives next door, while my family's been here for 100+ years, and he only became a citizen a few years ago, in my idea of nationalism, we'd still both be equally Australian, even if our ideas of what makes us Australian differ, it's the shared idea, rather than the way that people go about it, is what's important, thus it doesn't infringe on individuality.
It's my belief that while individual freedom is a good thing, a completely anarchist society would cause people to form there own little groups and it would just become fractured, people have a need to belong to something, and the less specific it is, the more personal freedoms it would allow as it is less restricting.
I agree with this for the most part, though I am not in favor of strict individualism. Strongly identifying with yourself can have many of the same negative consequences and really forms the basis for such things as nationalism.
I have a copy of the book on my bookshelf and I have read it. I agree with much of its reasoning, but I don't agree with its level of determinism.
I don't see how. Could you expand the point?
To put it simply people bring their nationality into their self identity to where a slight against a nation is considered a slight against the individual.
But still, what does strict individualism have to do with extreme nationalism? I don't deny the above statement, but it sounds more like a group think mentality rather than individualistic one.
Is racism and anti-semitism good things? Is ethnic cleansing and genocide good things?