4 ms·

While I appreciate a lot of the sentiment, this is precisely what the author opens discussion with: the fact that “nation” is often a metonym, or even, as in th

While I appreciate a lot of the sentiment, this is precisely what the author opens discussion with: the fact that “nation” is often a metonym, or even, as in the parent’s comment, a metaphor.

notacoward 5y ago
I think part of the problem is that the noun form "nation" easily becomes the adjective form "national" (something the author briefly alludes to). "State" as an adjective kind of works, but often means literally owned by the legal entity of the state rather than representing the people within it. It's also tainted by its prominence in Marxist rhetoric and subsequent overuse e.g. in USSR. "Countrial" is not a word, while "imperial" or "hegemonic" would require admissions few are willing to make. "American" is the only significant alternative, even though it has its own rather obvious problems. Thus, many things are called "national" even though that's technically inaccurate, and when people hear "national" they assume the existence of a "nation" to go with it.
- papito 5y ago
  No offense, but this makes my head hurt. Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I tried to read the article. I don't understand the point of the point. It's a purely academic, useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy, and in fact, Western democracy.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I suppose the best answer I can give is what I said in another sub-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 > useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy Must we devote literally 100% of our time to discussing "serious" issues? Looking at the front page of HN right now, I see a lot of stories that could be considered "useless bla bla" the only difference being that they're "useless bla bla" of interest to a particular audience. The OP might be of interest primarily to another - historical, etymological - audience, but that doesn't make it lesser. Discussing other topics, even those far more frivolous than this one, can be considered a form of rest and recreation. Even literal soldiers get time for that, because it avoids exhaustion and makes them more able to fight when it really matters. If it's not your cup of tea, or even not a high priority for you, that's OK. But I don't think suppressing discussion of it will help wrt getting people to discuss the issues you do consider important. It's not a zero-sum game.

While I appreciate a lot of the sentiment, this is precisely what the author opens discussion with: the fact that “nation” is often a metonym, or even, as in the parent’s comment, a metaphor.

notacoward 5y ago

I think part of the problem is that the noun form "nation" easily becomes the adjective form "national" (something the author briefly alludes to). "State" as an adjective kind of works, but often means literally owned by the legal entity of the state rather than representing the people within it. It's also tainted by its prominence in Marxist rhetoric and subsequent overuse e.g. in USSR. "Countrial" is not a word, while "imperial" or "hegemonic" would require admissions few are willing to make. "American" is the only significant alternative, even though it has its own rather obvious problems. Thus, many things are called "national" even though that's technically inaccurate, and when people hear "national" they assume the existence of a "nation" to go with it.

papito 5y ago
No offense, but this makes my head hurt. Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I tried to read the article. I don't understand the point of the point. It's a purely academic, useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy, and in fact, Western democracy.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I suppose the best answer I can give is what I said in another sub-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 > useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy Must we devote literally 100% of our time to discussing "serious" issues? Looking at the front page of HN right now, I see a lot of stories that could be considered "useless bla bla" the only difference being that they're "useless bla bla" of interest to a particular audience. The OP might be of interest primarily to another - historical, etymological - audience, but that doesn't make it lesser. Discussing other topics, even those far more frivolous than this one, can be considered a form of rest and recreation. Even literal soldiers get time for that, because it avoids exhaustion and makes them more able to fight when it really matters. If it's not your cup of tea, or even not a high priority for you, that's OK. But I don't think suppressing discussion of it will help wrt getting people to discuss the issues you do consider important. It's not a zero-sum game.