4 ms·

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 w

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?
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Please don't ask for things that can't reasonably exist. I can't come up with any experiment that could produce and reproduce peer-reviewed research on the causes of terrorism. It would either be horribly unethical, or it would be horribly impractical. We cannot ask dead terrorists to fill out survey questionnaires on why they decided to commit terrorist attacks. It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain a blinded, representative sample of live terrorists, and nearly impossible to get valid mailing addresses for sending out their questionnaires. Even then, the response rate would be abysmally low. You might be able to interview captured terrorist suspects, but their responses might be biased by the conditions of their captivity. And all that presumes that a terrorist actually knows why they do what they do. We can't take a group of non-terrorists, apply experimental treatments and the control treatment, and release them into the wild to see if any would then go on to commit a terrorist act. That would be unethical to begin with, and the method of observation would almost certainly influence the results. So it should be reasonably well established that everyone advancing a potential contributing cause for terrorism is stating yet another hypothesis, none of which can be reasonably tested in the real world. As such, it would be acceptable to employ simulation models, Monte Carlo methods, behavior studies on lesser mammals, and any of several other means, none quite as good as a real-life scientific study using live humans. So what you should probably be asking for is the computer simulation model that was used to show that immigration fuels terrorism. Then we could productively argue over how flawed and simplistic the model was, and how it should have been written in a different language, or using a different software paradigm. And then someone, inevitably, would ask: What does any of this have to do with desalinization membranes?!

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?
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Please don't ask for things that can't reasonably exist. I can't come up with any experiment that could produce and reproduce peer-reviewed research on the causes of terrorism. It would either be horribly unethical, or it would be horribly impractical. We cannot ask dead terrorists to fill out survey questionnaires on why they decided to commit terrorist attacks. It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain a blinded, representative sample of live terrorists, and nearly impossible to get valid mailing addresses for sending out their questionnaires. Even then, the response rate would be abysmally low. You might be able to interview captured terrorist suspects, but their responses might be biased by the conditions of their captivity. And all that presumes that a terrorist actually knows why they do what they do. We can't take a group of non-terrorists, apply experimental treatments and the control treatment, and release them into the wild to see if any would then go on to commit a terrorist act. That would be unethical to begin with, and the method of observation would almost certainly influence the results. So it should be reasonably well established that everyone advancing a potential contributing cause for terrorism is stating yet another hypothesis, none of which can be reasonably tested in the real world. As such, it would be acceptable to employ simulation models, Monte Carlo methods, behavior studies on lesser mammals, and any of several other means, none quite as good as a real-life scientific study using live humans. So what you should probably be asking for is the computer simulation model that was used to show that immigration fuels terrorism. Then we could productively argue over how flawed and simplistic the model was, and how it should have been written in a different language, or using a different software paradigm. And then someone, inevitably, would ask: What does any of this have to do with desalinization membranes?!