4 ms·

Yeah, that's one of the tropes of such discussion: Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and c

Yeah, that's one of the tropes of such discussion: Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat.

wutbrodo 9y ago
> Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Did you even read my comment? The whole point I was arguing against was the impulse to tar every person who feels positively about nationalism with the same brush. Saying things like "nobody can disagree" and "the definition seems to have shifted" means you clearly haven't understood a word I said. Since you're having such trouble with these pretty basic concepts, I'll lay it out even more clearly. 1) We're talking about a group of people that has more than one person in it. 2) You made a blanket statement about this group of people presumably based entirely on reading the comment section of Daily Kos. 3) I provided a counterexample that I have happened to come across that doesn't fit your criteria: there is a subgroup within the group we're discussing that has principled support for nationalism without touching any of the negative things you're describing (particularly racism). Even though I disagree with these people and in some ways their philosophy on society is diametrically opposed to my own, I'm not simple-minded enough to think "hurr durr any group of people I disagree with hold the same set of beliefs as any other group of people I disagree with" (which in this case, means that it's possible to hold these views _without_ being racist). 4) You failed to actually read my comment, pattern-matched a couple buzzwords and decided to respond by....doing the exact same thing and lumping in every person who might think that a national culture has advantages into a much-larger and more specific set of views. Against my fading hope for your reading comprehension, I'll repeat again: the fact that some people believe in both a national identity and racism doesn't mean that all people who believe in a national identity are racist. I'm not saying this like it's some mathematical proof, I'm thinking of multiple specific people, either whose writings I've read or whom I know personally. > Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat. What on _earth_ are you talking about? I suspect this topic is hopelessly beyond your comprehension. _Nothing about the point I made and the people I'm describing include the views that you're talking about_.

wutbrodo 9y ago

> Nobody can disagree with that definition of "national identity", i. e. "America is altruism, tolerance, and cute puppies". Did you even read my comment? The whole point I was arguing against was the impulse to tar every person who feels positively about nationalism with the same brush. Saying things like "nobody can disagree" and "the definition seems to have shifted" means you clearly haven't understood a word I said. Since you're having such trouble with these pretty basic concepts, I'll lay it out even more clearly. 1) We're talking about a group of people that has more than one person in it. 2) You made a blanket statement about this group of people presumably based entirely on reading the comment section of Daily Kos. 3) I provided a counterexample that I have happened to come across that doesn't fit your criteria: there is a subgroup within the group we're discussing that has principled support for nationalism without touching any of the negative things you're describing (particularly racism). Even though I disagree with these people and in some ways their philosophy on society is diametrically opposed to my own, I'm not simple-minded enough to think "hurr durr any group of people I disagree with hold the same set of beliefs as any other group of people I disagree with" (which in this case, means that it's possible to hold these views _without_ being racist). 4) You failed to actually read my comment, pattern-matched a couple buzzwords and decided to respond by....doing the exact same thing and lumping in every person who might think that a national culture has advantages into a much-larger and more specific set of views. Against my fading hope for your reading comprehension, I'll repeat again: the fact that some people believe in both a national identity and racism doesn't mean that all people who believe in a national identity are racist. I'm not saying this like it's some mathematical proof, I'm thinking of multiple specific people, either whose writings I've read or whom I know personally. > Then, when people demand some women shouldn't be wearing this or that piece of clothing, the definition of "national identity" seems to have shifted somewhat. What on _earth_ are you talking about? I suspect this topic is hopelessly beyond your comprehension. _Nothing about the point I made and the people I'm describing include the views that you're talking about_.