Should Americans become more nationalistic?
Yes. Charity begins in the home. Take care of our problems first.
Absolutely! We are far too accepting of corrosive multiculturalism. We must preserve our culture and becoming more nationalistic is a crucial step towards doing that.
Do you believe that nationalism can go too far?
Of course. Any idea can go too far if taken to an extreme. The alt-right, black separatism, and other ethno-nationalist ideologies are good examples of nationalism that goes too far.
On the other hand, I believe that more reasonable forms of nationalism, specifically civic and cultural
nationalism, are among the most important things any nation can value.
How do you think the ideology of nationalism should be implemented?
Drastically cut current levels of legal immigration (zero would be an ideal number), eliminate illegal immigration entirely, make English the official language at the federal level and require all immigrants to learn it, end the promotion of multiculturalism in public schools and switch back to promoting assimilation and Americanization, end nation-building overseas and drastically scale back foreign intervention (including foreign aid and unnecessary wars), require all immigrants and citizens to take educational courses that teach American culture and civics in order to promote assimilation of newcomers and active participation in political matters, embrace economic nationalism & fair trade, prioritize our own national interests above all else, ban corporate and foreign lobbying, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, invest more in preserving our national parks and historic structures, end political correctness. Just to name a few.
What do you find to be wrong with multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism dilutes and eventually destroys the culture of the host country and divides the populous into tribal subgroups rather than uniting them under one national identity. That’s why I oppose it so vehemently. Every nation on the planet should resist it.
You know what Ned, before we continue, I’d like to acknowledge how impressed I am with you right now. Your questions here have all been intelligent, reasonable, unbiased, and respectful. These are excellent qualities that are far too rare in conversations nowadays. Honest question: have you ever considered a career in journalism? That industry could use more folks like you.
Well thank you for the compliment. I really just wanted to hear your opinions. That is the reason I made the poll in the first place, so I intend to ensure that my goal is met. To answer your question, I have considered journalism as a profession, though I have thought more about other fields in the past. I would be willing to become involved, though, as you said, there are many dishonest people involved currently. Now I will return to my questions.
Couldn’t one argue that nationalism breeds division as well?
Yes, one could argue that from a standpoint that it breeds more division between other nations. But that’s bound to happen anyway because every nation has its own interests that often conflict with those of other nations.
Does nationalism reduce tensions between groups within the country itself?
I certainly think so. People tend to get along better when they’re united under a shared national identity.
Can you provide an example of where this has worked before?
Japan, China, and most of the Nordic nations.
Did these areas face the same issues of multiculturalism that we are facing now?
Not to the extent we are, no. We have faced and conquered this problem before though and I believe we can do it again.
Well that was all the questions I wanted answered. Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable conversation.
It was my pleasure! I enjoyed this conversation as well. Thank you for your thoughtful, respectful, and unbiased questions. 👍🏻🇺🇸
Gluxford, the general rule of thumb in history is that stridency and division in a populace increases as nationalistic opinions surge to the for. That's why the Bush years were so contentious, and why our current years are so contentious, and why politics were so contentious during the McCarthy era. People are most at peace when they aren't on the lookout for "traitors" and those "lacking patriotism" or "colluding with the enemy." Indeed, multiple parties can end up fighting for the right to be patriotic while others are not.
“Gluxford, the general rule of thumb in history is that stridency and division in a populace increases as nationalistic opinions surge to the for”
That’s actually incorrect. There are probably a few outliers where that rings true, but it isn’t the case for the vast majority. Japan is probably the most ardently nationalist country out there right now. When was the last time you heard of a riot or a terrorist attack there?
“That's why the Bush years were so contentious”
The Bush years were contentious because we were in a constant state of war and our focus on foreign entanglements led to a neglect of the homeland and an increase in government surveillance. The Bush era was when neoconservatism and globalism
reigned supreme. Multiculturalism was thriving too. It was the exact opposite of nationalism.
“politics were so contentious during the McCarthy era.”
Politics were contentious under the McCarthy era because we were living under the constant threat of espionage and nuclear annihilation. It wasn’t due to nationalism.
“People are most at peace when they aren't on the lookout for "traitors" and those "lacking patriotism" or "colluding with the enemy.”
You are deeply misguided if that’s what you think nationalism is about,
Japan has terrorist attacks caused by their own populace, and its own internal stridency. They are not a beautiful, unified utopia we get the picture of from their media, and they do, in fact, allow immigration within particular parameters. Nor is a tiny island nation a model for an enormous one like ours or any landlocked nation. If it were, I could easily argue that communism, as it demonstrably works in very, very small communities, would work in our society.
The Bush era was an era when nationalism governed the nation. We wouldn't have been at war if not for it. And I would argue that the focus on surveillance and reasoning behind the war were definitively "for the homeland." "Multiculturalists" balked at the idea of war and the surveillance state, that's why they tolerated the rise of cryptofascists like Alex Jones.
Globalism is pro war, though? Is that your argument?
I think you forget that nationalists are ALWAYS paranoid of espionage.
Those issues are inevitable in a cult of Nationhood. They're inevitable in any cult, the fear of those whose faith in the cult is not strong enough. Cults without external enemies split such that they find new ones, and sometimes, they do so regardless.
Nationalism is not a cult.
Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the modern world.
“Japan has terrorist attacks caused by their own populace, and its own internal stridency”
Incorrect. Japan has one of the lowest crime and terrorist rates in the world.
“They are not a beautiful, unified utopia we get the picture of from their media”
Actually, they kind of are.
“and they do, in fact, allow immigration within particular parameters.”
They almost never allow immigration. They are extremely restrictionist.
Can we have a real conversation here instead of bullshit?
1. Actually yes, Japan is a model for how we should be handling immigration.
2. Communism is an evil ideology and a deadly mistake of humanity that should not be repeated here or elsewhere.
Ubermensch, nationalism is demonstrably on the cult spectrum. It is ideological, entails strong in group bias, utilizes select brainwashing tactics, specifically assault on identity and shaming, is by nature insular....
“The Bush era was an era when nationalism governed the nation.”
Hahaha! That’s the funniest thing you’ve said so far. Bush was an ardent globalist who championed internationalism and foreign intervention. He was the furthest thing from a nationalist.
Then so is politics of any kind.
So is white guilt also cult like.
Gluxford, try to not spread your points out across multiple posts or I will block you to prevent you from destroying my notifications.
You might be confused by the fact that Japan has low foreign terrorism and we in America put a lot of effort into suppressing Japan's worse impulses. A brief overview of the more nationalistic media in Japan would demonstrate what nationalists would do if we suddenly disappeared. Namely, march on South Korea and drag the Pacific Ocean into war again.
And I don't know if you paid attention, but Japan is only a utopia from a financial perspective. It's a society of slow decay. Low birthrates, nationalistic angst, conservative suppression of the artistic culture....
Japan has a low crime rate that's a fact.
“Gluxford, try to not spread your points out across multiple posts or I will block you to prevent you from destroying my notifications.”
You did the exact same thing, hypocrite. I’m going to respond to every point individually. If you want to take the coward’s way out and block me, be my guest!
Can we at least hate each other politely?
White guilt can be, certainly. Just look at BAMN. But multiculturalism is an ideal, one a cult can have, one an ideology can have, but no more a cult than, say, believing in UFOs is a cult.
I would not call patriotism a cult, but you can be patriotic (right or wrong,) without being nationalistic.
If u want to talk about cults I just did a poll about it so it would be more relevant.
Gluxford, I max out the character limit. That is what I'm requesting of you.
“Can we at least hate each other politely?”
I wish, but Gorgon isn’t capable of that.
Patriotism and nationalism are the same thing in this context.
I don't hate you, Ubermensch, I'm just paranoid of you. : P But honestly, I'm just kind of rude when I'm in "the debate zone," and have been worrying too much about some weird Machiavellian stuff that's been going on on YouTube and Twitter with neo Nazis.... I'll try to make a better effort to be polite.
Not to gluxford, though, he's being an asshat.
I'll check out that poll in a bit. Thanks for the effort. c:
No prob and I don't think you were being rude to me. Neo nazis are a problem but the best way to talk to them is to explain why they are wrong in a respectful manner. When you attack someone they most likely won't respond reasonably.
I agree with TheUbermensch here. We need to be able to discuss this in an open and rational matter. We devolve into fallacy and name-calling otherwise. We wouldn’t get the truth that we are all looking for.
I agree with both Ned and Uber on all points here.
I'm pretty sure none of us are looking for the truth. I'm looking for reasonable discourse and potentially some new debating partners. Truth is desirable but I don't think it's that relevant to this discussion.
Gluxford, I requested you to not explode my inbox with tiny posts that could have easily been combined into one or two posts, and immediately you called my a coward and a hypocrite. Don't cast shade.
Gorgon I am interested in hearing your opinions on cults.
1. I’m not “casting shade”. I was merely agreeing with the points made by Ned and Uber. Don’t be catty.
2. I called you a coward for threatening to block me because I responded to each of your points individually to eliminate confusion instead in one long comment.
Both styles are valid in my opinion and I alternate from time to time.
Fair enough, Existential and Ubermensch. Generally I get prickly with neo Nazis when I shouldn't always.
Me, I'd say I'm interested in truth, but a lot of this conversation is about value judgments? Hard to discuss the quantifiable in a debate about things this abstract.
Also, been really stressed out, some of it for personal reasons, some of it because of some crazy shit I've seen not in this specific debate, but elsewhere.... not meaning to say that as an excuse, more of an explanation. At minimum, my fault for debating "under the influence" of negative emotions. Probably need a break or something...
Take a rest of debate something less intensive. Look forward to hearing your thoughts when you come back.
Or debate autocorrect is the worst.
Gluxford, if you are calling others cowards and hypocrites, you are insulting them. : / That style is valid, but I request you not use it here as the notification box has an extremely low limit. I lost track of another great debate I was having recently because of a thread that ran away from me....
Sorry if that upset you. I hope in the future we can move forward without stepping on eachother's toes.
In the meantime, I'm going to take a nap, as Ubermensch suggested.
“Gluxford, if you are calling others cowards and hypocrites, you are insulting them.”
My intent was not to insult but to call a spade a spade. Threatening to block people because you don’t agree with the points their making and you don’t want to see their comments in your notifications is cowardly. Don’t do that in the future and I won’t call you a coward again.
This is irrelevant at this point.
“That style is valid, but I request you not use it here as the notification box has an extremely low limit. I lost track of another great debate I was having recently because of a thread that ran away from me....”
That is a fair request and I will honor it from this point forward. Thank you for asking it in a gentlemanly manner this time around. That’s all I was looking for.
“Sorry if that upset you. I hope in the future we can move forward without stepping on eachother's toes.”
Thank you and likewise. I also apologize for being to hasty with calling you a coward.
“In the meantime, I'm going to take a nap”
Alrighty then. Have a nice rest. ✌🏻
Unfortunately we did not get to talk about cults.
Back everyone. Yeah, sorry again, I didn't mean to at all imply I was unhappy being confronted by contrary opinions. And looking forward to future conversations with all of you. Hopefully I'll be in a better headspace....
We're plenty nationalistic. I see no reason to strengthen in group bias.
No, Americans should become more capitalistic
No, less. Privileged people don't have the right to be proud of their identity.
That is not how it works. I come from a background where My family lost everything in world war 2 but because of my white skin I am still somehow privileged. This type of thought is infectious and destroys any meaningful conversation. Why do you get to decide who is privileged and who isn't.
Ubermensch, I think Doctor is talking about social, not financial, privilege. Definitely a concept difficult to quantify, but still relevant?
Social privilege does not exist. It is a lie for political agenda. Yes certain people are privileged but race is irrelevant. And I am pretty sure he is talking about both
Ubermensch, that is demonstrably untrue. For example, religious people are highly overrepresented in government, with Christians being overrepresented again in that population. Government office is both a social position and a privileged position.
It can be argued that the term is used by certain ideologies and to push certain agendas, but so is the term "agenda" itself. Should we throw out all words used by an ideologue?
Jews are even more overrepresented. This idea that overrepresentation means privilege is ridiculous. Jews were excluded from the system for a long time. Not all words by and ideologue but some.
Autocorrected to and it should be an.
Ubermensch, I see people misidentified as Jewish all the time, so I highly doubt that.
We're talking overrepresentation in government office. That's overrepresentation in power accrued to a demographic.
If you want to argue that white Christians are benevolent towards non whites and non Christians and act as a proxy power for those they are not, make your case, but currently, from my experience, Christians fight long and hard in government to lord their power over non Christians.
And I have definitively personal experience that white officials empower white districts over others. I attended an elementary school in Oregon, (one of the most Liberal states,) in the Portland area, (one of the most Liberal places in Oregon,) where the district lines had been drawn to funnel Mexican neighborhoods into that school, and it was very underfunded.
I'm not trying to undermine you, I'm only trying to demonstrate that positions of privilege exist and are often abused.
Jews are overrepresented that is fact not just a far right conspiracy. Christians are extremely bias towards Christians but have no race bias at all.
White officials empower white districts and minority districts. White people are the majority so they are responsible for both.
Privilege exists but not in the form of race, sexual orientation or gender. Privilege is economic status and political power. Just because groups are overrepresented does not mean they favor their own groups. Politicians don't help minorities and poor people not because they are helping there own groups but because they are taking the focus of off real issues. For example democrats need to push for better FDA regulation and the end of the reign of health insurance companies. Republicans need to push for the end of Democrats changing are language into a tool for their political agenda.
Gorgon, financial privilege is a form of social privilege.
No social privilege is financial privilege. Nothing makes people treat you differently like money.
Or being a certain skin color, or gender, or a million other biases people have
Yes like the bias people have in courts specifically divorce courts towards women.
Or literally any other part of life
Privilege depending on non financial aspects are inconsistent.
What do you mean by that? Also there is male and female privilege. Black and white privilege. White privilege being the ability to be a conservative without being considered a race traitor. So many kinds of privilege that it is irrelevant to a broad conversation.
No, they follow regular patterns. Black people are oppressed. Women are forced into molds of femininity (and men the opposite, although masculinity comes with important privileges, whereas femininity only helps in court when dealing with children). The patterns are quite clear, and if you can't see it, you're deliberately missing it.
This is individualist ideology, the failure to recognize collective oppression. Only individuals are oppressed, so only individuals need freedom.
The oppression of blacks is widespread and systematic. If being a conservative is the most oppression any black person fells, chances are they're rich, and race traitors.
So being conservative and black is being a race traitor. That sounds extremely racist. Also females are usually seen as more likable. How is that not a form of privilege. Women aren't expected to pay for bills. Women make up 7 percent of workplace deaths and 23 percent of suicides. How is that not privilege. Blacks and other minorities have easier time getting jobs and into college because of affirmative action. Every metric that measures white privilege has Jews and Asians as more privileged people.
Name one systematic oppression of blacks and women. Privilege is not a metric of representing individuals. Individuals are the most oppressed minority. Identity politics are a cancer that destroys the minds of people.
It's not worth the effort. The fact that you can't see it reeks of your own privilege. I can't make you see it for you. Talk to black people and women about it.
I have to women and they all agree with me. Most gay bi and so on agree with me. Black people online usually agree with me. I have had one trans person disagree with me but not to the degree you do. You are not a minority, even if you were one you would not be able to speak for the whole community. I am a Hispanic German Jew which is not a privileged state according to your identity politics. Another part of my family died in Russia because of your precious Soviet Union. When every one of family members arrived here they had nothing. Most of the family tree winded up dead because of these governments. My family got no reparations at all. They had to work hard to get back what they had. I do have privilege. The privilege of family members who understood their governments would turn tyrannical. And my other privilege, family members who
You're really something.
Just because I am a minority does not mean I need to be a victim. Women don't need to be victims. Why can't we all just get along and not use privilege as a weapon. Can't we focus on important issues like FDA regulation.
We clearly are not up to date compared to any other western country.
You're not oppressed, you're a white man.
Systematic racism is a big deal. Haven't you seen prison populations? I for one don't support enslaving black people.
I never claimed to be oppressed. The most oppressed form of people throughout history are Jews. I am dark for a white person. Black people are put in jail a lot. As far as I know all of the black people are given a far trial. Certain types of crimes get unfair sentences and black people get most of those crimes. It's a big issue but if you race bait then you are exacerbating the issue.
*Get convicted of those crimes not get those crimes.
Why do you hate black conservatives.
Yup, criminal justice is fair, and black people are just violent druggies who deserve it.
I never said that. Provide an example of unfair black incarceration. I said certain crimes that black people get convicted of more have unfair sentencing laws. Are you ignoring me?
Check out PamGH's polls. She does a lot about how black people are mistreated by the justice system. Or look at all those studies showing that black and white people do drugs at the same rate, yet those city police forces prefer to lock up black people over the real problem, privileged white men.
That's racist. If black people and white people do drugs at the same rate ,which according to the statistics I have seen they do, you should be arguing for equal incarceration not only white incarceration.
Why do you hate white men. Not all white men are evil so why do you treat them that way. I have a diverse pool of friends and none think the way you do about white men.
I don't think anyone should be incarcerated for personal drug use. I'm pointing out how the system targets black people.
I don't think the system targets black people I think the system targets poor people and black people make less income then white people. Certain drugs like marijuana clearly have too great sentencing laws and a good argument for being legal but drugs like bath salts should clearly be illegal.
Are you open to any new opinions? If not why do you always assume you are right?
I change my mind all the time. But I'm not blind enough to deny systematic racism.
That's not being open to new opinions. Define systematic racism.
I believe that we have gotten a bit off topic, so I will attempt to bring us back to the original point.
Wasdarb, your original claim is in need of rational justification. Why is national pride only to be used by the oppressed? Can you show privilege to be a clearly established institutional norm? There is a need for greater clarification on your argument.
Ubermensch, Wasdarb’s claim about the disproportionate output of the justice system is correct. However, I question whether the inequality is due to racism rather than the current state of purely African American communities.
The main points should be as follows:
a) Should pride be exclusive to the oppressed?
b) Is there a truly oppressed class in our current society?
Sub points within the discussion are as follows:
a) Does political representation affect the situation of racial groups to a significant degree?
b) Does inequality of outcome indicate intended oppression?
c) If privilege does truly exist, what should be done about it?
Overall, I disagree with identity politics and believe that pride is something that can be used by anyone. Race, ethnicity, gender, and class are all just products of chance, yet an individual’s ideology is composed of much more. Separate the concepts of the mind from those of appearance.
I never said disproportionality was incorrect I said it wasn't a result of racism.
Ubermensch, I didn’t say that you did. I was simply making a clarification.
"Should pride be exclusive to the oppressed?"
Oppressors being proud of their identity is to be proud of being an oppressor, or at least a benefactor of oppression, to avoid any semantic disagreement. Being proud of oppression is an untenable position.
"Is there a truly oppressed class in our current society?"
All modern societies are composed of oppressed and oppressors.
"Does political representation affect the situation of racial groups to a significant degree?"
Not exclusively, because there's more than just identity to consider. Examples include collaboration between local elites and colonizers, Jewish elites and fascist regimes, etc. Electing more black people won't make racism disappear.
"Does inequality of outcome indicate intended oppression?"
Not as an abstract, generalized rule. We should avoid dealing with the abstract when we have real material conditions we can work with.
"If privilege does truly exist, what should be done about it?"
Depends on the privilege. Class privilege for the wealthy requires ending class society. Racial privilege for whites requires ending imperialism and colonialism. Gender privilege for men (to the detriment to women and non-cis individuals) requires ending patriarchy. The struggles are closely related, and all of them demand some degree of anti-capitalism.
DoctorWasdarb, the part of your argument that I disagree with is the distinction between oppressors and oppressed. While a society can certainly drawn along such lines, a more nuanced model is required to truly understand our situation. The “oppressed” are not inherently deserving of more, for they are not inherently good or bad people. The “oppressors” are not inherently deserving of less, for the exact same reason. One deserves something if it is a) needed as a basic property of human life or b) earned by some display of virtue. It is not determined by class, even if such classes do exist. While I appreciate your emphasis on focusing on all aspects of society, we need to ensure that we are truly accounting for all factors.
Colonialism and patriarchy are not inherent to capitalism. They might have been part of the same system in the past, but the mustn’t be equated. Class may be argued to be a part of capitalism, if you believe that such levels within society exist. However, I disagree with the concept that inequality of outcome justifies an end to all hierarchical constructs. Such a value is in need of justification and a viable counterplan.
I don't see how you can recognize the existence of injustice but not want to resolve it. Yes, when there is one group which has more social power and another group with less social power, privilege exists, and, once demonstrated that this distinction in social power constitutes an injustice (an important nuance to make, because I don't want my words to be twisted to defend rapists or murderers in prison), this injustice must be resolved. And the only way to resolve inequality in social power is to either give one group more social power, give the other less, or a mix of both.
Colonialism is inherent to capitalism. Patriarchy is not, but it is inherent to class society. Women were the first exploited class at the dawn of civilization. Capitalism, as a classist mode of production, reinforces patriarchy (although along different lines from feudalism) and creates colonialism.
And I'm not an anarchist, I'm not advocating for the end of all hierarchical constructs, just unjust ones, like patriarchy and capitalism-imperialism.
In fact, I specifically said that I don't think inequality in outcomes necessarily constitutes an oppression, saying we shouldn't be dealing with the abstract.
“Justice” is a very broad term. I do believe that all people should ideally have a fair starting position within society. I do not believe that all those who gain wealth of any kind should have that wealth redistributed. I’m not saying that this is your argument, I’m just demonstrating the extent of the word. In my opinion, a value of any kind is in need of reasonable explanation. I would like to see the justification for “justice” and “equality”, beyond that they are simply inherently good. They are interesting concepts, yet we cannot use them as justifications for our actions without saying why.
I’m not arguing that you are an anarchist. I simply don’t agree with your division of society between “oppressed” and “oppressor”. It seems like a superimposed concept to me, and I would just like to see your reasoning for it. What constitutes oppression, and why must it be rectified? I certainly believe that some people have been exploited in society before. Some people still are exploited. But I fail to see how such a distinction could be made along such general lines.
I mean, I'm content saying that justice is inherently good. (Not going to include equality, because some inequality is just, like having violent criminals in prison, or oppressing oppressors.)
There's a fine humanist and utilitarian case that can be made for the value of justice. But if you find the term too subjective or abstract, I'm more than willing to work more materially.
When you have an unjustified (which is not the same as unjust - I'm avoiding language concerning justice) hierarchy (oppressor-oppressed contradiction), then it should be dismantled. I don't know how you could argue against this. Utilitarianism, greatest good for the greatest number.
Once again, the terms of “oppressor” and “oppressed” seem quite vague. You use them very often, and I am curious to see your definitions of them. It is especially interesting if it constitutes a part of your definition of justice. Once defined, I would like to get back to the topic of pride and to whom it applies.
Oppressor and oppressed are the terms which I find most accurate when dealing with social justice in the abstract. If you'd prefer, we can deal with a specific form of oppression. Take imperialism or patriarchy, whichever you prefer.
For imperialism, the term "oppressor" would be replaced by "imperialist nations," and "oppressed" by "imperialized nations" or "neocolonies." When dealing specifically with European colonialism or especially with settler colonialism as it exists in the US, it becomes appropriate to use terms of "white" for oppressor and "non-white" for oppressed. Of course within those groups there are oppressed and oppressors. Like black women are oppressed by black men, or black LGBT people by hetero and cis people. But the overarching oppression of imperialism concerns the above mentioned terms. Women and LGBT oppression falls more under the category of patriarchy, which requires different definitions for oppressor and oppressed, although the two systems are related.
While you have provided some applications for the terms, you haven’t given a clear-cut definition. I apologize if I wasn’t clear about that. The examples themselves are fine, I just don’t see the correlation between the “oppressing” groups and the “oppressed” groups.
Also, it seems that a hierarchy of oppression is being formed here. This is a common criticism of similar ideologies, and one that I think is applicable here. Which group is the most oppressed seems to be an underlying question in your analysis, yet once again I don’t see why such generalizations are necessary to begin with.
I don't really believe in defining oppression (or anything else) in the abstract. If we want to say whether imperialism or patriarchy constitutes a form of oppression, we end up playing a semantic game, which ultimately distracts from the matter at hand, which is the fact that imperialism is destructive for the vast majority of the world's population and that we should end it. I don't see the benefit in arguing over the semantics of how we define imperialism. We don't need to define oppression or injustice to say it's bad. If you don't like those terms we can use other terms.
I think a hierarchy of oppression is necessary to some extent, depending on the system we're defining. If we're talking about imperialism, it makes sense to talk about colonizers and colonized. If we want to end imperialism, it doesn't make sense to focus on other oppressions. They shouldn't be ignored, but they don't merit central focus. Again, it depends what system we're trying to abolish. In my view, imperialism is the most consequential system in need of abolition, so I emphasize imperialism in my analyses.
I’m not asking for definitions to simply delineate between good and bad systems, though it is a part of the conversation. I just think that such clarifications are necessary for a rational debate. It’s ok if you don’t want to be involved in that type of argument, but it is necessary if you do. If it’s a focal point in your justification, then it isn’t simply semantics, it is definitely worth noting.
As for imperialism, once again, it is a fine argument, yet I need your reasoning in order to engage in a rational analysis. For the most part, it seems to make sense. However, for the parts that elude me, I need your explanation.
Semantics aside, me argument is that imperialism is destructive to the welfare of the vast majority of the global population. Sometimes I may choose to defend my point of view through terminology concerning oppression or injustice, but I don't seek to define an all-encompassing definition of what oppression and injustice are, only to say that imperialism constitutes one of their many diverse forms.
I really don't think it's beneficial to provide absolute definitions for words. There will almost always be exceptions to definitions, yet where a term can still be pertinent. Words exist to help communicate. An argument around semantics over the notions behind our words is useless. We don't need absolute definitions for words, but relative definitions which best suit our purposes at any given moment. We don't need to pursue this point, but it is important to be able to use words without needing to provide absolute definitions for them. Working definitions at any given moment are enough.
To the extent that I want to define injustice, I would say it is unjust for a small minority of the world to profit from the destruction of the rest. And I really don't see how defining what unjust means adds anything meaningful to the substance of my argument.
In order to understand to true nature of our situation and what must be done, we must understand what we are talking about. Semantics can be excessive in many cases, yet here it is tied to our central debate. It is true that sometimes working definitions are needed in the absence of absolute clarification, yet you haven’t even provided that.
As of now, it is clear that I require a definition to continue our discussion, and that you are unwilling to supply one. That is absolutely fine, yet I cannot engage in a rational debate without defined terms. It helps ensure that circular reasoning and fallacy are kept to a minimum, while also being the basic substance of logical conversation. I would like to continue, but I cannot until those needs are met. Thank you for the argument, despite our inability to complete it.
There goes my notifications, lol.
Ubermensch, have you gotten the ancestry results of all politicians? Or do you operate with a "they've got a big nose and lots of money, and I don't like them, they must be a Jew" criteria?
White officials do not empower non white districts as much as you think, as my first hand experiences in what should be a very pro civil rights town demonstrates. Don't gaslight me.
Again, as an atheist, I can assure you that it's a sunny day in hell when people in power represent other demographics. It happens, and it's great, and it should happen more often, but it's an exception. Politicians put atheists on blast whenever the subject comes up.
You can focus on multiple things. Redistricting is a local issue, easily remedied, and it's not happened in my town. Why is that? I have a feeling people like you who gaslight minorities have something to do with it.
Changing terminology? Privelege has had that meaning for a long time.
DoctorWasarb's correction is technically correct. Financial privelege is a subset of social privelege, if only because money influences how people treat you, (a recent Hollywood scam in the news demonstrates that,) and your social position can allow you to gather currency, hence why corporations put effort into PR.
As for Black oppression, district boundaries and school funding easily fulfill that criteria. Systematic, and racist. There it is.
You don't live in Soviet Russia, which, in modern times, is steeped in anti non white racism, homophobia, and transphobia, on account of an incredibly socially conservative leader, (something something horseshoe theory.) I don't think anyone advocated for Soviet Russian policies. Stop throwing people into an out group.
If you understand governments turn tyrannical, you should resonate with what I'm saying. Government gets taken over by one groups who use that privelege to harm others. In my town, that's Hispanics being harmed.
Wasdarb advocated for Soviet Union policies and I don't hate Jews.
That's not a tyrannical government. That's greedy politicians not helping certain areas. Again why do you get to determine what privilege means.
ExistentialNed, addressing your questions:
A) I think a better question is "what use is pride?" How about we attempt empathy, instead? Pride is useless for everyone without empathy.
A2) As demonstrated by the absurd districts in my hometown, which funneled Hispanic children into an elementary school ridden with cockroaches, yes.
B2) I don't think anyone has or would argue it does.
C) I assume you mean group privelege, not individual privelege. Given the machinations of several cults in the US,I would argue that, ignoring the federal government, race, etc., we can all agree that group privelege exists. As stated before, I think the district problem I spoke of proves racial privelege exists.
Identity politics is the state in which people can vote for people who represent them, and is an alternative to the two party system. Do you mean tribalism? Tribalists are why racial privelege is a thing.
Ubermensch, I don't advocate for Soviet policies.
Russia is recovering from Soviet Russia
You have numerous times.
Russia's been "recovering" for almost 30 years. Why can't the right just admit that capitalism hasn't worked in Russia?
No, you've misinterpreted my statements. I think the Soviet Union was a lot better than it's treated in our media and academia, but that doesn't mean I want to recreate 1917.
ExistentialNed, oppression speaks of criteria used to judge people, to reward them, to teach them, etc.. If a systematic bias is strong enough, no individual within a group the system is biased against will escape the consequences. The larger the groups involved in the society, the more the society's features follow the criteria, for the same reason statisticians need large sampling size to see mathematical biases.
Its definitively difficult to establish a capitalist system that never rewards a single scam, (and what is colonialism but the scamming of natives? See the Congo for a good example of that,) and the more people included in that system, the more likely someone is scammed. I'm not knowledgable enough to say a Capitalist system, properly regulated, could be involved in a society without colonialism, but I can decisively say our society has made a great many scam artists rich.
That's my case. Sorry for multipost.
The Soviet Union was a disaster where if you complained about being starving you were an enemy of the state.
Gorgon you have no proof
Ubermensch, whether you hate Jews or not, Jews aren't overrepresented in politics, and hardly anyone with Judaism in their recent ancestry sees themselves as non white, and so isn't going to discriminate against other whites out of racial motivations. My apologies, however, if I misrepresented you. I've grown quite paranoid with the cryptofascist stink that's been getting unveiled recently, with a lot of centrists being found to having been blackmailed by neo Nazis....
I think it behooves you to quote Wasdarb if you think he supportes Russian policies.
As for racial abuse of districting, look up "redlining." Its very prevalent.
That's is not current day and no problem i usually get profiled as a radical.
Jews make up 1.4 percent of the United States population yet they are clearly have more political positions then that.
Yes it is, Ubermensch. 30 seconds of research can prove it. In fact, many corporations use redlining practices to charge different prices to districts with more minorities in them by tracking location. Many different corporations have and continue to get in trouble for redlining. Everyone in my hometown of Hillsboro knows that Hilhi, centered in a rich, white district, is given more attention and funding by the government than the high school I went to, Glencoe.
And even if redlining didn't happen, guess what? Studies show that neighborhoods redlined by banks in 1930s are today more likely to be disproportionately inhabited by minorities and more likely to be poverty striken.
A recent bill weakened the government's ability to monitor key data in monitoring banking practices, specifically in regards to watching for redlining.
Also, it's easy to consider others radical. Centrists pick up terminology that extremist groups try to inject to strengthen their ideology. For example, the idea that Jews hold most positions of power is a concept promoted by... Well, by anti semites.
Today, there's a big stink being uncovered because alt rights have been found to be blackmailing numerous centrist youtubers, and making great efforts to rebrand themselves as centrist and shift the overton window by adopting novel or obscure terminology, like "holocaust revisionists," "identitarians," "cultural Marxism," that kind of thing.
When centrists start using these terms, (like centrists complaining about cultural Marxism,) it allows neo Nazis to blend in, while also creating narratives that they can utilize to shift opinion more towards their ideology.
That's why I'm....cautious.
For example, gluxford above is either a neonazi working along plans brainstormed by neonazis, or deeply gaslighted by them.
Jews don't have most positions of power that's absurd. They are overrepresented in positions of power. Cultural Marxism is a real threat. Wasdarb has justified the killing of wealthy people in the Soviet Union. Yes there are after effects of redlining but the government can't be responsible for that. The black community is a mess right now and I would be curious if you would have any solutions. There clearly needs to be time devoted to helping poorer communities. Both sides of politicians dance around these issues and idk how to make them care.
It's not skin tone privilege, it's money privilege. Always has been, unfortunately it always will be. With money comes privilege n power. If you got enough money you can buy off whoever you want, that's where privilege comes in.
Just read gluxford and I would disagree with what he is saying. I don't like nationalism or any type of ethnic pride. Keep in mind that means anyone including minorities.
I respectfully disagree! 🇺🇸 first!
Money talks and .... walks!
Cultural Marxism! Don't make me laugh! Let me guess, the postmodernists brainstormed cultural Marxism so they could smuggle it into culture to take over or destroy western society, huh?
You've yet to demonstrate your thesis that Jews are in power, but I'm starting to think your claim that you're Jewish is disingenuous.
You still aren't quoting Wasdarb. What, word for word, letter for letter, did he say condoning mass murder in Soviet Russia? He very well might have for all I know, this conversation is very long and my memory and patience finite.
The Black community is a mess because of redlining. My suggestion would be applying civil rights law to districts, such that inequal prices can't be used to discriminate. Government could easily achieve this with minimal fuss.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say you don't approve of nationalism and agree with gluxford, because he said we need more nationalism.
Patriotic, as demonstrated in the case of redlining in the 30s being a predictor of what districts and neighborhoods are both poor and have an overrepresentation of minorities, it is demonstrably a fact that financial privelege is, today, promoting racial privelege.
Jazzy, Wasdarb is speaking about internal disputes, American versus American. "America first" is therefore irrelevant.
Gorgon, if you want evidence of Ubermensch‘s claims, here is an article about Jews in Congress:
Jews currently make up about 1.4% of the population, yet hold 6% of Congressional seats. This isn’t a good or bad thing. I am a Jew myself, and I do not take offense to Ubermensch’s claims.
Gorgon, you should also know that Unermensch is referencing a previous conversation with Wasdarb, in which he advocated for certain Marxist policies, and a portion of that conversation has carried over in their discourse.
Finally, redlining did cause many issues for the black community. That is understood. The question is “does that constitute oppression by our current society?”. The issue certainly must be rectified, though not through racial or class-based division. This shouldn’t be a question of equity, but rather a question of equal opportunity.
Interesting. My first thought is that 6% isn't a huge overrepresentation, especially considering the small sampling size? But I will grant it is an overrepresentation.
I'll grant Wasdarb may have done so, as well. Thanks for the clarification.
As for redlining, part of the issue is that it's an ongoing ordeal that corporations still contribute to. Within the past decade or two, several corporations have been sued for it, as well as several banks, and yet the government is undoing legislation allowing them to pursue that kind of charge, even though it's clearly too early to trust the private sector on this front.
That, and redlining is happening across the country in public education. There's websites that do it using arbitrary rating systens that rank schools as red, yellow, or green and offer no data for it, but a lot of people take their word for it, and these websites target schools in poor districts, causing middle class individuals to further abandon them. Very sad stuff.
Gonna take a nap, be back tomorrow or later or something. Need a break from politics....
That’s fine. I hope to see you on my next poll
Yeah. c: Checking out your polls, I must say, they are decently good questions.
Thanks. I see you’ve begun to comment
Yup. At work, and I have nothing better to do. XD
Though I'm about to log off. Got to get moving. Ttyl c: