4 ms·

> we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so. No. You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder wh

> we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so. No. You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. I don't know if that movement is just a based on feeling 'left behind', maybe as a symptom. I mean, there are serious issues connected to all of this. For example, there are companies in Europe which systematically conquer specific African industries (e.g., milk products), which is one of the reasons why the Africans migrate (no job -> no food -> certain death). The worst about it is that the same industries receive EU subsidies. So the European people pay money which causes the Africans to come to Europe (great job). After all, stopping the European companies from doing that wouldn't solve the problem as the US or the Chinese would just see the opportunity, but I doubt that shutting down the own country is a proper solution to that problem either (and nationalists don't stop there).

maxxxxx 8y ago
"You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. " Just study the rise of the Nazi party or the Russian revolution or even the Iranian revolution. Ordinary citizens started to feel that the country is not working for them anymore and looked for somebody to change that. Maybe they picked the wrong leaders to make those changes but the trigger was dissatisfaction with the current state. So if our current elite focuses on helping other countries while enjoying tax cuts for themselves but decaying infrastructure and wage stagnation at home there will at some point be a movement to change peacefully or forcefully.
- arendtio 8y ago
  That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?
    - arendtio 8y ago
      No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.
        arendtio 8y ago
        You don't seem dumb, but your argument is flawed. You are taking 'true' situations out of context and rearrange them so that they serve your purpose. For example, yes, what happened in East Germany before the wall fell was unlawful, but the context is, that East Germany was an occupied country which changes the whole situation and is not applicable to the modern US. Instead, the criminal deeds of that Nazis were what lead to the situation in East Germany in the first place. Similarly, India wasn't a free country either at Gandhi's time, and France wasn't a democracy at the time. So even if you might find a few situations where unlawful behavior changes the world for the better, it doesn't mean that it is an appropriate tool to solve conflicts in general. I doubt that I will change your mind, but you should seriously consider looking to the world from multiple perspectives.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. " Just study the rise of the Nazi party or the Russian revolution or even the Iranian revolution. Ordinary citizens started to feel that the country is not working for them anymore and looked for somebody to change that. Maybe they picked the wrong leaders to make those changes but the trigger was dissatisfaction with the current state. So if our current elite focuses on helping other countries while enjoying tax cuts for themselves but decaying infrastructure and wage stagnation at home there will at some point be a movement to change peacefully or forcefully.

arendtio 8y ago
That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?
  - arendtio 8y ago
    No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.
      - arendtio 8y ago
        You don't seem dumb, but your argument is flawed. You are taking 'true' situations out of context and rearrange them so that they serve your purpose. For example, yes, what happened in East Germany before the wall fell was unlawful, but the context is, that East Germany was an occupied country which changes the whole situation and is not applicable to the modern US. Instead, the criminal deeds of that Nazis were what lead to the situation in East Germany in the first place. Similarly, India wasn't a free country either at Gandhi's time, and France wasn't a democracy at the time. So even if you might find a few situations where unlawful behavior changes the world for the better, it doesn't mean that it is an appropriate tool to solve conflicts in general. I doubt that I will change your mind, but you should seriously consider looking to the world from multiple perspectives.