4 ms·

> other provinces disrespect their culture and right to be different Hmm... that's a pretty backwards thinking. Insisting on "the right to be different" is kin

by nnq 9y ago

> other provinces disrespect their culture and right to be different Hmm... that's a pretty backwards thinking. Insisting on "the right to be different" is kind of what's disrespectful to the other cultures! So it's same shit again. I'd never thought we'd miss the good ol' "global village" thing, and "English for all", and "one European government" movements. That sounded horrible but was actually working well for average people that wanted a homogeneous culture that allowed the right and possibility to easily move freely from one country/place to another instead of having to "grow roots" like a fking tree. There's a whole bunch o people and businesses that want a more homogeneous worldwide culture and the whole freedoms and possibility for a more nomadic lifestyle that this allows. And of companies that can easily expand across borders instead of always having to hire useless locals to "oil the gears" of cross-cultural integration or whatever...

smsm42 9y ago
How right to move implies homogeneous culture? These are completely different things. If you can move form Spain to Poland without being detained on the border, that does not imply Spain and Poland now has to have the same culture. > There's a whole bunch o people and businesses that want a more homogeneous worldwide culture I'm sure some do. It's very convenient to not have to learn languages, customs, cultures, etc. but just fly whereever you want and not have to work even a bit on trying to learn how the local people live. It is not happening though, people are not going to throw their cultures away just because some travellers are too lazy to learn something they don't yet know. > always having to hire useless locals Nice one.
- nnq 9y ago
  ...I know it sounded like a "pro faceless international corporations" rant, but in most less developed countries aggresive globalization helps the young lower/middle-class working individuals most, who, believe it or not, actually want to "get the f out" of their mostly toxic cultures that is only stiffling innovation and keeping people in poverty. The whole "union in diversity" and "reviving local culture" movement only helps countries and regions that are rich in relation to others to stay rich in relation to others. Hopefully in Europe the whole war incited movement of people around helped with some shaking and mixing and setting the middle east on fire a lil' bit to move people in and out enough to "wash the culture from them" helped both sides (because some will return to their countries, and with a more "westernalized" mentality). It's kind of sad to see regions of countries like Spain that pull in the "retrograde" direction when we finally had a breath of fresh air, violent as it was... bigger countries, with less cultural identity, offer more freedom to the individuals simply because they free them from the oppression of local cultures and a true-EU sounded like a move in the right direction. That's what people never get: in a small country, a local tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you (think NK), while in an empire-ish bureaucracy you can be free as hell, especially if you're not the kind of person that "fits in" or "embraces the culture" (take countries like China where you can have an utterly tyranical government, but regions with lots of local identity and lots of freedom like Shenzen). When something is too big to control without bankrupting it, like an oversized country, or an overgrown "international faceless corporation", you get tons of freedom (as an individual) as a byproduct... and it's the best kind of freedom because it's also free (like in... "you don't pay for it" :P).
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > who, believe it or not, actually want to "get the f out" It would be more noble to try and fix the culture, instead, since if all people that don't like backwards culture get the f out, by definition the ones who left are those that like backwards culture, thus ensuring it stays backwards forever. But I understand that people have right to take care of themselves first and don't owe anybody heroic effort on fixing a broken culture. Sometimes getting out it the best you can do. Still, that does not mean somebody needs to change their culture so it would be comfortable for somebody else to move around. > bigger countries What's good in that, except more expensive and out of touch bureaucracy? Everything nice you can do in big country - like unifying standards, removing customs borders, etc. - you can also do as an agreement between small countries. But if (or, rather, when) bigger government wants to do something stupid - it would be nice for the stupidity to be contained. It is a basic evolutionary principle - monocultures are extremely fragile and one big mistake or one big adversarial change can kill the whole culture. Union of many diverse cultures is much more robust to both mistakes (culture that made a mistake goes down, and the rest take up the space) and change (again, cultures that can adapt poorly to a particular change, wither and get replaced by ones that can adapt well, but at least they not die out as a whole). > in a small country, a local tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you And in a big country, a global tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you, 100 million other people and 50 countries around you. See USSR. > while in an empire-ish bureaucracy you can be free as hell You obviously never lived in a tyrannical empire. I did (even though I had the luck of it being on its last leg by then). Not recommended at all. > you get tons of freedom (as an individual) as a byproduct No, you don't. Of course, in USSR in the 80s one was relatively more free than in NK, but it's just a peculiarity of specific time - in late 30s in USSR it was probably much worse than in NK now.

by nnq 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

How right to move implies homogeneous culture? These are completely different things. If you can move form Spain to Poland without being detained on the border, that does not imply Spain and Poland now has to have the same culture. > There's a whole bunch o people and businesses that want a more homogeneous worldwide culture I'm sure some do. It's very convenient to not have to learn languages, customs, cultures, etc. but just fly whereever you want and not have to work even a bit on trying to learn how the local people live. It is not happening though, people are not going to throw their cultures away just because some travellers are too lazy to learn something they don't yet know. > always having to hire useless locals Nice one.

nnq 9y ago
...I know it sounded like a "pro faceless international corporations" rant, but in most less developed countries aggresive globalization helps the young lower/middle-class working individuals most, who, believe it or not, actually want to "get the f out" of their mostly toxic cultures that is only stiffling innovation and keeping people in poverty. The whole "union in diversity" and "reviving local culture" movement only helps countries and regions that are rich in relation to others to stay rich in relation to others. Hopefully in Europe the whole war incited movement of people around helped with some shaking and mixing and setting the middle east on fire a lil' bit to move people in and out enough to "wash the culture from them" helped both sides (because some will return to their countries, and with a more "westernalized" mentality). It's kind of sad to see regions of countries like Spain that pull in the "retrograde" direction when we finally had a breath of fresh air, violent as it was... bigger countries, with less cultural identity, offer more freedom to the individuals simply because they free them from the oppression of local cultures and a true-EU sounded like a move in the right direction. That's what people never get: in a small country, a local tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you (think NK), while in an empire-ish bureaucracy you can be free as hell, especially if you're not the kind of person that "fits in" or "embraces the culture" (take countries like China where you can have an utterly tyranical government, but regions with lots of local identity and lots of freedom like Shenzen). When something is too big to control without bankrupting it, like an oversized country, or an overgrown "international faceless corporation", you get tons of freedom (as an individual) as a byproduct... and it's the best kind of freedom because it's also free (like in... "you don't pay for it" :P).
- smsm42 9y ago
  > who, believe it or not, actually want to "get the f out" It would be more noble to try and fix the culture, instead, since if all people that don't like backwards culture get the f out, by definition the ones who left are those that like backwards culture, thus ensuring it stays backwards forever. But I understand that people have right to take care of themselves first and don't owe anybody heroic effort on fixing a broken culture. Sometimes getting out it the best you can do. Still, that does not mean somebody needs to change their culture so it would be comfortable for somebody else to move around. > bigger countries What's good in that, except more expensive and out of touch bureaucracy? Everything nice you can do in big country - like unifying standards, removing customs borders, etc. - you can also do as an agreement between small countries. But if (or, rather, when) bigger government wants to do something stupid - it would be nice for the stupidity to be contained. It is a basic evolutionary principle - monocultures are extremely fragile and one big mistake or one big adversarial change can kill the whole culture. Union of many diverse cultures is much more robust to both mistakes (culture that made a mistake goes down, and the rest take up the space) and change (again, cultures that can adapt poorly to a particular change, wither and get replaced by ones that can adapt well, but at least they not die out as a whole). > in a small country, a local tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you And in a big country, a global tyrant can really tyranize the s out of you, 100 million other people and 50 countries around you. See USSR. > while in an empire-ish bureaucracy you can be free as hell You obviously never lived in a tyrannical empire. I did (even though I had the luck of it being on its last leg by then). Not recommended at all. > you get tons of freedom (as an individual) as a byproduct No, you don't. Of course, in USSR in the 80s one was relatively more free than in NK, but it's just a peculiarity of specific time - in late 30s in USSR it was probably much worse than in NK now.