5 ms·

No? I don't think their nationality matters. And there's even a connection. All three countries have governments enacting extreme nationalist immigration polici

by tovej 1y ago

No? I don't think their nationality matters. And there's even a connection. All three countries have governments enacting extreme nationalist immigration policies (Poland:suspension of asylum rights, Denmark: atated goal of no asylum seekers, India: the prime minister is part of an ethnonationalist paramilitary organisation who has passed legislation blocking islamic asylum seekers from getting accepted). Nationalism is strong in all three countries, and when nationalism is strong, so are the most extreme expressions of it.

dismalaf 1y ago
So now nationalism is bad? Are all nations bad? Including non-white nations? Wait until you find out what the "free Palestine" movement wants... And Denmark was formerly very liberal, the pushback is for real reasons. Poland saw the lessons of other countries so wants immigrants with shared values, they've still taken more Ukrainians than anyone. And India has been the victim of many terrorist attacks.
- tovej 1y ago
  Did you notice the word "extreme"? And ethnonationalism is bad, nost definitely.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    None of them are extreme. You putting the word there doesn't make it so. And ethnonationalism is the rule for the majority of countries in the world. The only reason the Americas are different is because of colonialism.
    - tovej 1y ago
      They are extreme by any sensible use of the term. If your nationalist beliefs make you ignore human rights such as asylum, or if you specifically limit the rights of one ethnic group of people (such as India has done, e.g.) while you otherwise pretend to support liberal democracy, that is an extreme position. And ethnonationalism is _not_ the rule of the world. It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule. Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there. Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there, and given that ethnocity is a fuzzy concept itself, any ethnonationalist project is a social construction of an in-group made to exclude some out-group. That is irrational and radical.
      - dismalaf 1y ago
        > It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule Are you thick? Israel literally has Arab politicians and political parties, and 2 million Arabs living in Israel proper. > Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there. No, you're making up your own definition. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism While occasionally it means other ethnicities are second class citizens (if you want to use Jews as an example they were kicked out of a ton of Arab countries where they had lived for centuries) that's far from the rule. > Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there I mean, if a single person from another ethnicity lives there than this is true I guess. An absolute ton of countries are named after and defined by the majority ethnic group. Literally most in Asia, a bunch in Africa (and in the rest you have ethnic strife), most in Europe. Again, the places this isn't true is mainly places that were defined by colonialism. Name a country, either they're an ethnostate or a colonial remnant.
        tovej 1y ago
        The wikipedia article supports the point I made that you claim I made up: "The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens." That doesn't say "sometimes", that says "central tenet". Considering your reading comprehension, you calling me "thick" is hilarious. Quite literally the second paragraph of your own citation, it supports my main point, and you somehow still have the confidence to say that I'm making it up. That's some misplaced confidence. The apartheid in Israel is well documented, even by Israeli sources, I'll take a page out of your book and refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid If you would apply some elementary logic to the situation in Israel, you would be able to understand the apartheid and racism towards arabs. Israel quite literally disenfranchised nearly a million native Palestinian arabs in 1948, and are neither interested in goving them their own state, nor absorbing them into the state of Israel. Why not give them Israeli citizenship if they want to, and a right to return, as the U.N. has required them to do? Because they're the wrong ethnicity. Any ethnic jew (by Israels definition) is given automatic "birthright citizenship", even if they have no connection to the land, but arabs that were born in the territory are not let in. That's ethnonationalism right there (that's part of the apartheid). The rest of your post is a weird starwman handwave? (there's only single persons of the non-plurality ethnicity living anywhere?), and arguing about names, which is quite literally too dumb to even engage with. One final point: you seem to think I believe that nation states are a rare phenomenon, maybe because you're conflating the concept of nation states in general with the ideology of ethnonationalism. The most common form of nationalism is civic or cultural nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism), which does not place one ethnicity above another. It's not ideal either, but it's considerably more moderate. You're clearly out of your depth and arguing in bad faith, and I think you should calm down before you reply again. Maybe the discussion will be more civil then.

by tovej 1y ago

dismalaf 1y ago

So now nationalism is bad? Are all nations bad? Including non-white nations? Wait until you find out what the "free Palestine" movement wants... And Denmark was formerly very liberal, the pushback is for real reasons. Poland saw the lessons of other countries so wants immigrants with shared values, they've still taken more Ukrainians than anyone. And India has been the victim of many terrorist attacks.

tovej 1y ago
Did you notice the word "extreme"? And ethnonationalism is bad, nost definitely.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  None of them are extreme. You putting the word there doesn't make it so. And ethnonationalism is the rule for the majority of countries in the world. The only reason the Americas are different is because of colonialism.
  - tovej 1y ago
    They are extreme by any sensible use of the term. If your nationalist beliefs make you ignore human rights such as asylum, or if you specifically limit the rights of one ethnic group of people (such as India has done, e.g.) while you otherwise pretend to support liberal democracy, that is an extreme position. And ethnonationalism is _not_ the rule of the world. It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule. Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there. Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there, and given that ethnocity is a fuzzy concept itself, any ethnonationalist project is a social construction of an in-group made to exclude some out-group. That is irrational and radical.
    - dismalaf 1y ago
      > It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule Are you thick? Israel literally has Arab politicians and political parties, and 2 million Arabs living in Israel proper. > Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there. No, you're making up your own definition. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism While occasionally it means other ethnicities are second class citizens (if you want to use Jews as an example they were kicked out of a ton of Arab countries where they had lived for centuries) that's far from the rule. > Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there I mean, if a single person from another ethnicity lives there than this is true I guess. An absolute ton of countries are named after and defined by the majority ethnic group. Literally most in Asia, a bunch in Africa (and in the rest you have ethnic strife), most in Europe. Again, the places this isn't true is mainly places that were defined by colonialism. Name a country, either they're an ethnostate or a colonial remnant.
      - tovej 1y ago
        The wikipedia article supports the point I made that you claim I made up: "The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens." That doesn't say "sometimes", that says "central tenet". Considering your reading comprehension, you calling me "thick" is hilarious. Quite literally the second paragraph of your own citation, it supports my main point, and you somehow still have the confidence to say that I'm making it up. That's some misplaced confidence. The apartheid in Israel is well documented, even by Israeli sources, I'll take a page out of your book and refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid If you would apply some elementary logic to the situation in Israel, you would be able to understand the apartheid and racism towards arabs. Israel quite literally disenfranchised nearly a million native Palestinian arabs in 1948, and are neither interested in goving them their own state, nor absorbing them into the state of Israel. Why not give them Israeli citizenship if they want to, and a right to return, as the U.N. has required them to do? Because they're the wrong ethnicity. Any ethnic jew (by Israels definition) is given automatic "birthright citizenship", even if they have no connection to the land, but arabs that were born in the territory are not let in. That's ethnonationalism right there (that's part of the apartheid). The rest of your post is a weird starwman handwave? (there's only single persons of the non-plurality ethnicity living anywhere?), and arguing about names, which is quite literally too dumb to even engage with. One final point: you seem to think I believe that nation states are a rare phenomenon, maybe because you're conflating the concept of nation states in general with the ideology of ethnonationalism. The most common form of nationalism is civic or cultural nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism), which does not place one ethnicity above another. It's not ideal either, but it's considerably more moderate. You're clearly out of your depth and arguing in bad faith, and I think you should calm down before you reply again. Maybe the discussion will be more civil then.