6 ms·

> in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems (I realize this forum will be almost overwhelmingly in favor of the above statement, bu

> in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems (I realize this forum will be almost overwhelmingly in favor of the above statement, but thought I would respond anyway to give an alternative viewpoint from outside). What problems? Is it really causing problems, or is it just that you are politically opposed to it? The lack of nationalism I would say has caused far more problems over the last few decades (Mass clashing of cultures, rise of terrorism, global multi-nationals exploiting workers, not paying taxes etc, moving democracy and accountability further and further away from people). If a family member achieved something you would naturally feel more "proud" than if it was a person in the world picked at random. For some people, their nationality is important to them - an extended family of shared identity, culture, experiences and values. I would much much rather use a local taxi company, which will benefit my local community, friends, family, than use some faceless global thing like Uber, which will benefit some rich people in another country. Further, competition is good. It's the way we achieve things. If a team of scientists in [other_country] see this news, they will likely be spurred on. This is why things like the space race worked so well.

chillydawg 10y ago
Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".
- fooballs99 10y ago
  > Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control". So you're just politically opposed to it. It's not a disaster if you're very much opposed to an EU superstate.
  - ppod 10y ago
    This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  Not by this measure... https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2017/03/24/deutsche-bank-empfiehlt-verkauf-deutscher-aktien/&usg=ALkJrhjuo1klKXusyvsLDA3ncf9Hps8T5g https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Sorry, but that site is garbage. See, for example, https://netzpolitik.org/2014/medienkompetenz-fuer-einsteiger-deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten/ https://netzpolitik.org/2014/medienkompetenz-fuer-einsteiger...
    - threepipeproblm 10y ago
      I'm aware DWN is disliked by many. But an ad hominem criticism doesn't itself refute the facts reported by the article. And in fact, Deutsche Banke actually made the reported announcements, as reported by Bloomberg. Are the claims false when they're on a "bad" site, but simultaneously true when they're on a "good" site? Put differently, do you have a refutation of the DB recommendations that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy?
      - lorenzhs 10y ago
        That's not what "ad hominem" means. They frame things in misleading ways, which disqualifies them from serious discussion. Not to note that the article reports opinions, not facts. The Bloomberg article upon which this is based, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-bank-says-sell-german-stocks-europe-s-most-expensive https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-..., would have been the much better choice to link anyway since it's in English. What it says is that some DB analysts thinks German stocks are overvalued, and that British stocks could profit from the decline of the Pound's value. How does that imply that the UK is doing well? You just linked an article, claiming that it proves your point, but didn't say how.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  It's far from clear that UK leaving EU is any kind of disaster. I'm not from the UK but am in the EU, and I was hoping the Remain side would win the referendum. But I don't see UK leaving as a disaster, either, and after the referendum, the overblown hysteria related to Brexit has led me to see that in fact it maybe is a very wise thing to do for Brits and maybe we should follow. EU leaders and pundits seem so disconnected from reality: if this is an ultimate disaster, they are too deep gazing their own navels.
larsnystrom 10y ago
When I went to compulsory school I was taught that competition between nations is what caused the arms race that preluded World War I. I was also told that it was the feeling (in Germany) of being humiliated by the Versaille treaty, as a nation, that laid the ground for World War II. I fail to see how nationalism is going to help solve terrorism, bad working conditions, tax evasion and dysfunctional democratic institutions. I am afraid that nationalism will lead to decreased understanding of and less acceptance towards cultural differences.
- fooballs99 10y ago
  Terrorism has been fueled by two things: * Intervention in other countries affairs. * Mass immigration You can't see how nationalism would ease those? You can't see how nationalism would reduce exploitation of workers, multinationals not paying taxes etc? Nationalism isn't about exerting your dominance on other nations, it's about being self sufficient, about NOT interfering in other countries affairs. It's about not importing millions of cheap laborers, but instead training and employing people who already live here. > I am afraid that nationalism will lead to decreased understanding of and less acceptance towards cultural differences. You have two populations - one which considers gay people to be inherently evil, and advocates for them to be killed or at the very least locked up. And a second population which contains a reasonable number of gay people. In this scenario, which is the better solution? To let these two ideologically opposed cultures live separately, in mostly happiness, or to push these cultures together to create massive conflict? Nationalism has nothing to do with "acceptance" of other cultures and differences. The opposite - It's about celebrating and cherishing those cultural differences while they still exist. Unfortunately, globalization and mass migration is stomping out culture at an alarming pace, making sure all countries tend towards the same. edit: replied here because account is throttled due to dissenting opinion... ;) I'm not sure you need scientifically peer reviewed papers to see that bombing other countries, and then letting all the people you just bombed come live in your country, is going to fuel terrorism. If you need peer reviewed scientific evidence for the above, then I'm sorry.
  - larsnystrom 10y ago
    I really shouldn't be discussing these sort of things on the internet, because I know we're never going to reach any kind of consensus. But... Can you please provide some references to peer-reviewed research that show terrorism is fueled by immigration? Also, what kind of interventions are you talking about? Please be more specific, and remember to cite your sources. Your answer to people being oppressed and persecuted seems to be that it's not a problem, as long as it's not happening in your country. Or maybe just that it's not a problem to you, as long as it's not happening in your country. Is that correct? If I'm not correct, then please explain again how nationalism is going to solve these issues?

chillydawg 10y ago

Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".

fooballs99 10y ago
> Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control". So you're just politically opposed to it. It's not a disaster if you're very much opposed to an EU superstate.
- ppod 10y ago
  This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.
threepipeproblm 10y ago
Not by this measure... https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2017/03/24/deutsche-bank-empfiehlt-verkauf-deutscher-aktien/&usg=ALkJrhjuo1klKXusyvsLDA3ncf9Hps8T5g https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Sorry, but that site is garbage. See, for example, https://netzpolitik.org/2014/medienkompetenz-fuer-einsteiger-deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten/ https://netzpolitik.org/2014/medienkompetenz-fuer-einsteiger...
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    I'm aware DWN is disliked by many. But an ad hominem criticism doesn't itself refute the facts reported by the article. And in fact, Deutsche Banke actually made the reported announcements, as reported by Bloomberg. Are the claims false when they're on a "bad" site, but simultaneously true when they're on a "good" site? Put differently, do you have a refutation of the DB recommendations that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy?
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      That's not what "ad hominem" means. They frame things in misleading ways, which disqualifies them from serious discussion. Not to note that the article reports opinions, not facts. The Bloomberg article upon which this is based, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-bank-says-sell-german-stocks-europe-s-most-expensive https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-..., would have been the much better choice to link anyway since it's in English. What it says is that some DB analysts thinks German stocks are overvalued, and that British stocks could profit from the decline of the Pound's value. How does that imply that the UK is doing well? You just linked an article, claiming that it proves your point, but didn't say how.
ptaipale 10y ago
It's far from clear that UK leaving EU is any kind of disaster. I'm not from the UK but am in the EU, and I was hoping the Remain side would win the referendum. But I don't see UK leaving as a disaster, either, and after the referendum, the overblown hysteria related to Brexit has led me to see that in fact it maybe is a very wise thing to do for Brits and maybe we should follow. EU leaders and pundits seem so disconnected from reality: if this is an ultimate disaster, they are too deep gazing their own navels.

larsnystrom 10y ago

When I went to compulsory school I was taught that competition between nations is what caused the arms race that preluded World War I. I was also told that it was the feeling (in Germany) of being humiliated by the Versaille treaty, as a nation, that laid the ground for World War II. I fail to see how nationalism is going to help solve terrorism, bad working conditions, tax evasion and dysfunctional democratic institutions. I am afraid that nationalism will lead to decreased understanding of and less acceptance towards cultural differences.

fooballs99 10y ago
Terrorism has been fueled by two things: * Intervention in other countries affairs. * Mass immigration You can't see how nationalism would ease those? You can't see how nationalism would reduce exploitation of workers, multinationals not paying taxes etc? Nationalism isn't about exerting your dominance on other nations, it's about being self sufficient, about NOT interfering in other countries affairs. It's about not importing millions of cheap laborers, but instead training and employing people who already live here. > I am afraid that nationalism will lead to decreased understanding of and less acceptance towards cultural differences. You have two populations - one which considers gay people to be inherently evil, and advocates for them to be killed or at the very least locked up. And a second population which contains a reasonable number of gay people. In this scenario, which is the better solution? To let these two ideologically opposed cultures live separately, in mostly happiness, or to push these cultures together to create massive conflict? Nationalism has nothing to do with "acceptance" of other cultures and differences. The opposite - It's about celebrating and cherishing those cultural differences while they still exist. Unfortunately, globalization and mass migration is stomping out culture at an alarming pace, making sure all countries tend towards the same. edit: replied here because account is throttled due to dissenting opinion... ;) I'm not sure you need scientifically peer reviewed papers to see that bombing other countries, and then letting all the people you just bombed come live in your country, is going to fuel terrorism. If you need peer reviewed scientific evidence for the above, then I'm sorry.
- larsnystrom 10y ago
  I really shouldn't be discussing these sort of things on the internet, because I know we're never going to reach any kind of consensus. But... Can you please provide some references to peer-reviewed research that show terrorism is fueled by immigration? Also, what kind of interventions are you talking about? Please be more specific, and remember to cite your sources. Your answer to people being oppressed and persecuted seems to be that it's not a problem, as long as it's not happening in your country. Or maybe just that it's not a problem to you, as long as it's not happening in your country. Is that correct? If I'm not correct, then please explain again how nationalism is going to solve these issues?