5 ms·

By that logic at WW II, Germany was also a nation of German people, so am assuming per the above definition Germany was not a hostile nation? A nation is gener

by yumraj 6y ago

By that logic at WW II, Germany was also a nation of German people, so am assuming per the above definition Germany was not a hostile nation? A nation is generally its government, CCP in the example of China and yes it is hostile against every non-China nation. Chinese are people just like every other people.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> A nation is generally its government This is exactly the argument I object to. As per definition, "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or a common culture." Keeping this distinction (between the government and the citizens) is crucial because the discourse influences actions.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  The people of China don't control espionage; the government does. So you'd better think about the government when the topic is espionage, which it is in this discussion.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    Agreed, and that's exactly why I hate it when someone hijacks the discussion about the government and espionage by adding the nation to the equation.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      "The nation" in this context is the government, no matter how much you keep trying to change the definition.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        It's possible you have a custom, non-standard understanding of the term. According to Merriam Webster, it has 5 meanings, and none of them refers to the government. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation
        zepto 6y ago
        False. Definition 1.b. in your link includes the government explicitly. None of them exclude the government, and they can all reasonably include the government.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        Of course the nation as a community of people in 1b also includes the government, but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile. What you can say is that the government is hostile - we have proofs of that. We can also say that some minuscule percentage of the population is hostile - we can see some evidence of that. But to say that a nation is hostile is really crossing a red (no pun intended) line. I'm discussing this apparently insignificant issue ad nauseam only because repeated conflation of government and citizens in discourse, media, and ultimately our minds are not without consequences.
        zepto 6y ago
        > but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile I don’t see how you can make this claim so strongly. The government is not independent of the people even if it is authoritarian. Any hostility enacted by the government will necessarily involve the people. Governments need people in order to do anything. A government without people can speak hostile words, but can’t be hostile, because by definition it can’t do anything if it isn’t governing anyone.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        What you say is of course true of democracy, but has nothing to do with totalitarian systems and dictatorships.

by yumraj 6y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

> A nation is generally its government This is exactly the argument I object to. As per definition, "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or a common culture." Keeping this distinction (between the government and the citizens) is crucial because the discourse influences actions.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The people of China don't control espionage; the government does. So you'd better think about the government when the topic is espionage, which it is in this discussion.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  Agreed, and that's exactly why I hate it when someone hijacks the discussion about the government and espionage by adding the nation to the equation.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    "The nation" in this context is the government, no matter how much you keep trying to change the definition.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      It's possible you have a custom, non-standard understanding of the term. According to Merriam Webster, it has 5 meanings, and none of them refers to the government. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation
      - zepto 6y ago
        False. Definition 1.b. in your link includes the government explicitly. None of them exclude the government, and they can all reasonably include the government.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        Of course the nation as a community of people in 1b also includes the government, but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile. What you can say is that the government is hostile - we have proofs of that. We can also say that some minuscule percentage of the population is hostile - we can see some evidence of that. But to say that a nation is hostile is really crossing a red (no pun intended) line. I'm discussing this apparently insignificant issue ad nauseam only because repeated conflation of government and citizens in discourse, media, and ultimately our minds are not without consequences.
        zepto 6y ago
        > but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile I don’t see how you can make this claim so strongly. The government is not independent of the people even if it is authoritarian. Any hostility enacted by the government will necessarily involve the people. Governments need people in order to do anything. A government without people can speak hostile words, but can’t be hostile, because by definition it can’t do anything if it isn’t governing anyone.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        What you say is of course true of democracy, but has nothing to do with totalitarian systems and dictatorships.