3 ms·

For the first part, that mean we can make up a better thing. Also, many people have trouble seeing that's a decision we make, and thus many types of extremism/

by gkya 9y ago

For the first part, that mean we can make up a better thing. Also, many people have trouble seeing that's a decision we make, and thus many types of extremism/fundamentalism come around. For the second part, I don't have an alternative, and I believe I don't have to have one before discussing the flaws of what we have at hand.

ThomPete 9y ago
Then you are proving my point. It's politics disguised as some big aha moment. A much more useful and precise way of looking at national identity is that it has emerged as a consequence of more complex social structures. It's not something you get to decide it's made up because there is an infrastructure and a reality that supports it. You can discuss the flaws till the cows come home for all I care, just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it.
- danans 9y ago
  > just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it Oppose oppressive policies whose basis (whether stated or not) is nationalism.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    What policies are you talking about specifically?
    - danans 9y ago
      Here are a few proposed new laws in the US (introduced by the most openly ethno-nationalist member of the House of Representatives): H.R.997: English Language Unity Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 H.R.3600: Census Accuracy Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Those hardly make it up for national identity as that's a much broader spectrum. I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity, not fringe cases.
        danans 9y ago
        > I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity Actually, you asked for examples of nationalist policies to be opposed, which I provided. What in the content of those pieces of legislation is "fringe"? If anything, the fact that they are even on the legislative agenda indicates a normalization of nationalist policy proposals.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        I was trying to understand what you meant. Those a fringe cases and have nothing to do with what most of people think when they talk about national identity. Again its politics disguised as something else, national identity has its good and bad sides, to good are far outweighing any bad ones.
        gkya 9y ago
        Nobody's talking about your national identity. The topic of discussion is national identity as a concept.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Yes as a concept. It's like saying personal identity or team idenity is made up which it is but we don't call for the deconstruction of that just because some people are mass murderers or some teams have hooligans. Individual examples aren't arguments in them selves. You cannot not have a national identity as a concept whether you want it or not the second you introduce other nations or other personal identities or team identities. You have to show as a concept that it's worse than it's good, saying that it's made up (which is all the video really do) is not an argument. All identities are made up to some extent.

by gkya 9y ago

ThomPete 9y ago

Then you are proving my point. It's politics disguised as some big aha moment. A much more useful and precise way of looking at national identity is that it has emerged as a consequence of more complex social structures. It's not something you get to decide it's made up because there is an infrastructure and a reality that supports it. You can discuss the flaws till the cows come home for all I care, just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it.

danans 9y ago
> just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do about it Oppose oppressive policies whose basis (whether stated or not) is nationalism.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  What policies are you talking about specifically?
  - danans 9y ago
    Here are a few proposed new laws in the US (introduced by the most openly ethno-nationalist member of the House of Representatives): H.R.997: English Language Unity Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997 H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140 H.R.3600: Census Accuracy Act of 2017 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Those hardly make it up for national identity as that's a much broader spectrum. I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity, not fringe cases.
      - danans 9y ago
        > I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity Actually, you asked for examples of nationalist policies to be opposed, which I provided. What in the content of those pieces of legislation is "fringe"? If anything, the fact that they are even on the legislative agenda indicates a normalization of nationalist policy proposals.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        I was trying to understand what you meant. Those a fringe cases and have nothing to do with what most of people think when they talk about national identity. Again its politics disguised as something else, national identity has its good and bad sides, to good are far outweighing any bad ones.
      - gkya 9y ago
        Nobody's talking about your national identity. The topic of discussion is national identity as a concept.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        Yes as a concept. It's like saying personal identity or team idenity is made up which it is but we don't call for the deconstruction of that just because some people are mass murderers or some teams have hooligans. Individual examples aren't arguments in them selves. You cannot not have a national identity as a concept whether you want it or not the second you introduce other nations or other personal identities or team identities. You have to show as a concept that it's worse than it's good, saying that it's made up (which is all the video really do) is not an argument. All identities are made up to some extent.