Trump's part in the New Zealand mass shooting
17 Mar 2019, 1:09 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
17 Mar 2019, 1:34 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
I think one of the hardest things is to question things that we have been brought up to believe are good. We rationalize what gives us a mental comfort. That's probably one of the most odious of human traits.
The see the ugliness of the division of what we're talking about all around me everyday. Seemingly decent folks who believe that the lives of their countryman are more important than anyone else's. It's the "us and them" mentality that I can no longer be apart of, anymore -- even if it brings ridicule and harassment, which it does.
Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you. But I just don't anymore.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
17 Mar 2019, 2:23 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
I think one of the hardest things is to question things that we have been brought up to believe are good. We rationalize what gives us a mental comfort. That's probably one of the most odious of human traits.
The see the ugliness of the division of what we're talking about all around me everyday. Seemingly decent folks who believe that the lives of their countryman are more important than anyone else's. It's the "us and them" mentality that I can no longer be apart of, anymore -- even if it brings ridicule and harassment, which it does.
Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you. But I just don't anymore.
It almost seems like you have a protest of knowledge, one could even go so far as to suggest that it is wrong to distinguish animal from human, human from planet, it seems rather incorrect to insist knowledge is wrong.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,416
Location: Long Island, New York
17 Mar 2019, 2:27 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
It is how you use what you identify with, specifically, do not go to extremes. If you use Autistic identity to understand how your Autistic thinking can be put to good use, to understand how a lot of problems you thought were your character flaws were the result of you thinking differently then most, that is good. If you use your Autistic identity to conclude you are going to be a loser all your life, to believe you are superior as an autistic because all neurotypicals are vapid suck-ups you will likely be a loser the rest of your life.
"White nationalist" while maybe not the best phrase is not completely inaccurate if you believe America is a great country being distracted and harmed by nonwhite people.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
17 Mar 2019, 2:59 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
It is how you use what you identify with, specifically, do not go to extremes. If you use Autistic identity to understand how your Autistic thinking can be put to good use, to understand how a lot of problems you thought were your character flaws were the result of you thinking differently then most, that is good. If you use your Autistic identity to conclude you are going to be a loser all your life, to believe you are superior as an autistic because all neurotypicals are vapid suck-ups you will likely be a loser the rest of your life.
"White nationalist" while maybe not the best phrase is not completely inaccurate if you believe America is a great country being distracted and harmed by nonwhite people.
That fits the definition of a supremacist, not a nationalist. The word nationalist has nothing to do with race, as far as know Trump, within his short lived political life has not even once suggested that America would be great if only white people lived here. As far as I can tell, people are trying to blur the line between nationalism and racism, two words that have nothing in common. Nationalism itself isn't even a suggestion for 'American supremacy', nationalism basically means you put your nation before others as in protect your nation above others, it does not even suggest other nations are bad. It's more like, work to make sure your home is in proper condition before you go to fix someone else's home.
17 Mar 2019, 3:12 pm
From Wikipedia: "Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual identity within a national whole, and gives elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses.[176] Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe."
"In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception."[179]
For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[179] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms
17 Mar 2019, 3:33 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
I think one of the hardest things is to question things that we have been brought up to believe are good. We rationalize what gives us a mental comfort. That's probably one of the most odious of human traits.
The see the ugliness of the division of what we're talking about all around me everyday. Seemingly decent folks who believe that the lives of their countryman are more important than anyone else's. It's the "us and them" mentality that I can no longer be apart of, anymore -- even if it brings ridicule and harassment, which it does.
Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you. But I just don't anymore.
It almost seems like you have a protest of knowledge, one could even go so far as to suggest that it is wrong to distinguish animal from human, human from planet, it seems rather incorrect to insist knowledge is wrong.
Not really, no. Let me attack this another way. You and AsPartOfMe are arguing that some racial and national identity are alright. But when it goes to extremes it's bad. We just have to keep a lid on it. I don't agree with that notion any longer. It's a radical view, I know. And perhaps I'm wrong. Of course there are differences between us, but they are insignificant. We are all pretty much the same, made up of the same thoughts, feelings and impulses.
I just believe that as long as we're divided along racial, natural, religious,and cultural lines, those differences will always be exploited by the ruling class for their own benefit.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
17 Mar 2019, 4:10 pm
I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.
I think one of the hardest things is to question things that we have been brought up to believe are good. We rationalize what gives us a mental comfort. That's probably one of the most odious of human traits.
The see the ugliness of the division of what we're talking about all around me everyday. Seemingly decent folks who believe that the lives of their countryman are more important than anyone else's. It's the "us and them" mentality that I can no longer be apart of, anymore -- even if it brings ridicule and harassment, which it does.
Not too long ago, I would have agreed with you. But I just don't anymore.
It almost seems like you have a protest of knowledge, one could even go so far as to suggest that it is wrong to distinguish animal from human, human from planet, it seems rather incorrect to insist knowledge is wrong.
Not really, no. Let me attack this another way. You and AsPartOfMe are arguing that some racial and national identity are alright. But when it goes to extremes it's bad. We just have to keep a lid on it. I don't agree with that notion any longer. It's a radical view, I know. And perhaps I'm wrong. Of course there are differences between us, but they are insignificant. We are all pretty much the same, made up of the same thoughts, feelings and impulses.
I just believe that as long as we're divided along racial, natural, religious,and cultural lines, those differences will always be exploited by the ruling class for their own benefit.
I understand what you are saying but nearly anything can be taken to an extreme. Like drugs, if one abuses drugs to an extreme that is a bad thing but that does not mean drugs are a bad thing.
17 Mar 2019, 4:15 pm
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]
Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]
There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious or identity group; or that multinationality in a state should mean the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[10][not in citation given] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[11] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[11] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[11] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[12][13][14][15]
In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements, such as the Greek Revolution, the Irish Revolution, and the Zionist movement that created modern Israel. Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany.[16] More recently, nationalism was an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
17 Mar 2019, 4:23 pm
Everything can have a bad side and a good side, we shouldn't condemn things because they have bad sides, doing so condemns the good side also. Take something like love for example, one can have love for another in a healthy way just as one can love another in an obsessive and unhealthy way. yin and yang
17 Mar 2019, 4:28 pm
Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]
There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious or identity group; or that multinationality in a state should mean the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[10][not in citation given] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[11] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[11] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[11] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[12][13][14][15]
In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements, such as the Greek Revolution, the Irish Revolution, and the Zionist movement that created modern Israel. Conversely, radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was also a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany.[16] More recently, nationalism was an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Yes, it's technically possible for nationalism to contribute positively--the problem is that when it contributes negatively things like The Holocaust happen, which sort of outweighs the possible positive contributions. Basically, there are better ideas to espouse that can yield more positivity to the world than nationalism has done in practice.
Being white and calling yourself a nationalist just seems like a bad idea to me in today's social climate, because of what it's associated with.
17 Mar 2019, 4:31 pm
Having "some good" to them does not mean espousing bad ideas makes sense--especially when there are other alternative ideas to have that don't lead to things like genocide.
17 Mar 2019, 4:39 pm
Having "some good" to them does not mean espousing bad ideas makes sense--especially when there are other alternative ideas to have that don't lead to things like genocide.
You are exaggerating things. Yes, not 'all ideas' are good, perhaps you should look more into the 'Nationalist-Socialist regime' known as Nazi-Germany, you are picking one identifier and acting as if it's the only reason the Nazi party formed. Gandhi was a nationalist, are you suggesting the he is no different than Hitler? Also, I don't think Trump labeled himself as a 'white nationalist', the left labeled him as a whit nationalist.
17 Mar 2019, 4:46 pm
Having "some good" to them does not mean espousing bad ideas makes sense--especially when there are other alternative ideas to have that don't lead to things like genocide.
You are exaggerating things. Yes, not 'all ideas' are good, perhaps you should look more into the 'Nationalist-Socialist regime' known as Nazi-Germany, you are picking one identifier and acting as if it's the only reason the Nazi party formed. Gandhi was a nationalist, are you suggesting the he is no different than Hitler? Also, I don't think Trump labeled himself as a 'white nationalist', the left labeled him as a whit nationalist.
You're obviously just going to believe whatever you want to believe because it's the opposite of what people you don't like believe, no matter what evidence or arguments are set before you. I'm going to keep bringing the evidence to support my arguments even though I know it won't make a difference with your mindset, because it might be interesting or informative for others reading these threads.
17 Mar 2019, 4:50 pm
Having "some good" to them does not mean espousing bad ideas makes sense--especially when there are other alternative ideas to have that don't lead to things like genocide.
You are exaggerating things. Yes, not 'all ideas' are good, perhaps you should look more into the 'Nationalist-Socialist regime' known as Nazi-Germany, you are picking one identifier and acting as if it's the only reason the Nazi party formed. Gandhi was a nationalist, are you suggesting the he is no different than Hitler? Also, I don't think Trump labeled himself as a 'white nationalist', the left labeled him as a whit nationalist.
You're obviously just going to believe whatever you want to believe because it's the opposite of what people you don't like believe, no matter what evidence or arguments are set before you. I'm going to keep bringing the evidence to support my arguments even though I know it won't make a difference with your mindset, because it might be interesting or informative for others reading these threads.
What spawned this conversation is identity is a bad thing. Are you going to deflect now since I made a legitimate argument? If Identity is bad, then please explain to me how gender science is good, as it is strongly focused on identity. Contradictions don't work.
also, this conversation started off of a comment that VegetableMan stated, I do not dislike VegetableMan so your assumption is very flawed. Also, I disagree with people because I disagree with people, it has nothing to do with whether I like them or not, same goes for when I agree with people.
Last edited by Crimadella on 17 Mar 2019, 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Moscow Concert Hall Mass Shooting and Fire |
25 Mar 2024, 3:42 pm |
| Post Super Bowl victory parade mass shooting |
20 Feb 2024, 5:38 pm |
| Another Sydney mass stabbing |
15 Apr 2024, 10:47 am |
| Losing a lot of mass in 18 months |
28 Mar 2024, 4:15 pm |
