• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The List of Blame for all Conservatives' problems

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Seriously, are you well in the head or is it just that your programming is stuck on "nonsense strawman/force interrupt/ fallacy fallacy fallacy /gish_gallup/ success!"
Your education(or what you got out of it) shows. Either you weren't taught about it, or you forgot, or you weren't very bright, or you weren't paying attention.

None of you can't even answer a simple question on whether it's okay to call oneself a nationalist, failing to give a clear, well-argued and unemotional response, and your collective hysteria over topics which seem provocative to you is a clear indication that you're governed by unreason.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,174
18,796
136
Your education(or what you got out of it) shows. Either you weren't taught about it, or you forgot, or you weren't very bright, or you weren't paying attention.

None of you can't even answer a simple question on whether it's okay to call oneself a nationalist, failing to give a clear, well-argued and unemotional response, and your collective hysteria over topics which seem provocative to you is a clear indication that you're governed by unreason.
You've defined a problem that you claim exists (it clearly doesn't), argued against that problem (for the sake of sounding like you know...something), then when called on your nonsense, call such people stupid, simply for "not being aware of the nonexistent thing that you claim exists."

This is basically every one of your posts in this thread, and it is perfectly obvious to everyone but you. It's a common tactic among the shrunken-brained alt-right internet warriors, and it is copy-pasted everywhere such warriors piss their little "alternative theory" genre of debate, facts, reasoned arguments, all over the internet. This isn't a mystery to anyone. Your approach is wholly unsound, and you are the clear result of a bitter response to shitty grades in whatever discipline that you felt you deserved better, but were "shamed by biased professors!" rather than just accepting that you are too lazy to be bothered by actually challenging your internal prejudices.

You created your account here in the same time as all of our most recent Trump fanatics that have spent the last year littering these pages with valueless nonsense and unquestionably unreasonable skill when it comes to understanding simple debate, and even simpler logic. You are thoroughly outmatched, but it seems to be your collective assault on the basic standards of intellect that makes you persist. Basically: you are simply too stupid to understand what you don't know, that there are things that you don't know, and when you have been thrashed in debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
Your education(or what you got out of it) shows. Either you weren't taught about it, or you forgot, or you weren't very bright, or you weren't paying attention.

None of you can't even answer a simple question on whether it's okay to call oneself a nationalist, failing to give a clear, well-argued and unemotional response, and your collective hysteria over topics which seem provocative to you is a clear indication that you're governed by unreason.
I would trust a humanist before a nationalist. What is your definition of a nationalist (there appears to be more than one definition)? There are a few openly racist groups that use the label "nationalist" as a description of themselves.

For clarification though, when you say "none of you can't" what you are actually saying is "all of you can". Double negatives are a thing.
 
Last edited:

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
You've defined a problem that you claim exists (it clearly doesn't), argued against that problem (for the sake of sounding like you know...something), then when called on your nonsense, call such people stupid, simply for "not being aware of the nonexistent thing that you claim exists."

This is basically every one of your posts in this thread, and it is perfectly obvious to everyone but you. It's a common tactic among the shrunken-brained alt-right internet warriors, and it is copy-pasted everywhere such warriors piss their little "alternative theory" genre of debate, facts, reasoned arguments, all over the internet. This isn't a mystery to anyone. Your approach is wholly unsound, and you are the clear result of a bitter response to shitty grades in whatever discipline that you felt you deserved better, but were "shamed by biased professors!" rather than just accepting that you are too lazy to be bothered by actually challenging your internal prejudices.

You created your account here in the same time as all of our most recent Trump fanatics that have spent the last year littering these pages with valueless nonsense and unquestionably unreasonable skill when it comes to understanding simple debate, and even simpler logic. You are thoroughly outmatched, but it seems to be your collective assault on the basic standards of intellect that makes you persist. Basically: you are simply too stupid to understand what you don't know, that there are things that you don't know, and when you have been thrashed in debate.
My statement, which is factual, was that far left ideologues are functionally no different from far right ideologues. They both seek to infiltrate and exert their control over institutions (the media, the university, etc along with other statutory regulatory bodies), use their control over said institutions to dictate the narrative of discourse, play vicious identity politics whose ultimate aim is to placate the electorate, cultivate "vote banks" to ensure they have the required numbers come the next election and in extreme cases initiate attacks on the fundamental principles of democracy.

Nobody even debated me on this premise, instead they resorted low-level insults and petty name-calling, whimpering away like dogs after failing to provide straight answers to straightforward questions and given that you are the last man standing, I'd hardly call that a thrashing.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
I would trust a humanist before a nationalist. What is your definition of a nationalist (there appears to be more than one definition)? There are a few openly racist groups that use the label "nationalist" as a description of themselves.

For clarification though, when you say "none of you can't" what you are actually saying is "all of you can". Double negatives are a thing.
My answer to that question, from the context of my country's independence movement, would be that nationalism is about the right to self-determination claimed by a people sharing a "national identity". I put that in quotes because the question 'what is a national identity?' is a complex one given the sheer diversity of my country. But fundamentally, nationalism for me is about liberty.

Your issue with the grammar is duly noted - that double negative was the result of auto-suggest.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
My answer to that question, from the context of my country's independence movement, would be that nationalism is about the right to self-determination claimed by a people sharing a "national identity". I put that in quotes because the question 'what is a national identity?' is a complex one given the sheer diversity of my country. But fundamentally, nationalism for me is about liberty.
.
Nationalism and liberty should NEVER construed to be anywhere the same thing. In general, when nationalism rises, liberty falls. Nationalism has risen in Turkey and liberty has fallen. Nationalism has risen in Russia and liberty has fallen. You get the point.

Nationalism has been used FOREVER by autocrats to suppress liberty. It is the go to option and it works nearly 100% of the time.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,472
10,237
146
He keeps asking what's the problem with nationalism, while history and the internet can provide the answers. There's nothing wrong with patriotism, love for ones country, etc....nationalism takes that to the religious blind Faith level.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Nationalism and liberty should NEVER construed to be anywhere the same thing. In general, when nationalism rises, liberty falls. Nationalism has risen in Turkey and liberty has fallen. Nationalism has risen in Russia and liberty has fallen. You get the point.

Nationalism has been used FOREVER by autocrats to suppress liberty. It is the go to option and it works nearly 100% of the time.
Please read again what I said. My position on nationalism wouldn't make sense outside the context of the freedom struggle of India.


The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 defined liberty in Article 4 as follows:

Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.
Nationalism for me is the movement of seeking self-determination, and self-determination the first requirement for securing liberty. There is no way to exercise "natural rights" without self-determination.

I'm in no way contending your assertion that nationalism has acquired a different meaning throughout multiple instances when looking at recent history. But you specifically asked for my take on the subject, and this is what I have to say about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
He keeps asking what's the problem with nationalism, while history and the internet can provide the answers. There's nothing wrong with patriotism, love for ones country, etc....nationalism takes that to the religious blind Faith level.
Patriotism and nationalism are different things. The latter isn't some extreme version of the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,174
18,796
136
My statement, which is factual, was that far left ideologues are functionally no different from far right ideologues. They both seek to infiltrate and exert their control over institutions (the media, the university, etc along with other statutory regulatory bodies), use their control over said institutions to dictate the narrative of discourse, play vicious identity politics whose ultimate aim is to placate the electorate, cultivate "vote banks" to ensure they have the required numbers come the next election and in extreme cases initiate attacks on the fundamental principles of democracy.

Nobody even debated me on this premise, instead they resorted low-level insults and petty name-calling, whimpering away like dogs after failing to provide straight answers to straightforward questions and given that you are the last man standing, I'd hardly call that a thrashing.
Do you understand why your initial diatribe in this post can't possibly be shown to be a factual statement?

Again, you ignored, repeatedly, the only response that you deserved: you established a baseless premise, argued against it, then got angry when people point this out to you.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,174
18,796
136
Patriotism and nationalism are different things. The latter isn't some extreme version of the former.
Of course it can be, and certainly has been at many documented points in history. Please explain why you think otherwise.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,174
18,796
136
You can now add vegans to list.
I added them to "liberals." I can't imagine a conservative would think a vegan would be anything else, and I would also agree that this is probably true, on average.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,697
2,217
136
I added them to "liberals." I can't imagine a conservative would think a vegan would be anything else, and I would also agree that this is probably true, on average.
good thing that I'm a no beefitarian
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
Nationalism for me is the movement of seeking self-determination, and self-determination the first requirement for securing liberty. There is no way to exercise "natural rights" without self-determination.
Perhaps the term democracy would be more appropriate? When most readers see self-determination, they think democracy, not nationalism. You appear to be using the term "nationalism" as a substitute for "democracy". If this is not what you were doing, could you explain the difference between your "nationalism" and democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Your education(or what you got out of it) shows. Either you weren't taught about it, or you forgot, or you weren't very bright, or you weren't paying attention.

None of you can't even answer a simple question on whether it's okay to call oneself a nationalist, failing to give a clear, well-argued and unemotional response, and your collective hysteria over topics which seem provocative to you is a clear indication that you're governed by unreason.
Hey guy, I haven't been in this thread in awhile so don't know if anyone answered this or not but I'll take a stab at it. Honestly it depends on your definition of nationalist. If you just mean taking pride in your country and wanting to see it do well, then that is okay. If you mean we are better than everyone else and/or it's okay to hurt other countries in order to make ours better, then no, it's not okay, at least from a moral standpoint, IMO. Thinking people than happen to be born on a specific patch of dirt makes them better people would be illogical, no?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Ah I see, Indian. So my guess is he is coming from the perspective of casting off the shackles of other nations' interference. Nothing wrong with that. He just has to understand that while the US was founded on that principle, the term nationalism means something very different here.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Of course it can be, and certainly has been at many documented points in history. Please explain why you think otherwise.
Just because the word has acquired another meaning owing to recent occurrences in history doesn't mean that one shouldn't attempt to draw a distinction between its recent connotations and what it usually means. Here is what nationalism means, quoting from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.
Therefore, nationalism is about an idea, as understood from the first part, and its execution, which is the second part. Just because there are many examples which show that the execution of the second part has been morally questionable doesn't mean that the idea was untenable to begin with.
Perhaps the term democracy would be more appropriate? When most readers see self-determination, they think democracy, not nationalism. You appear to be using the term "nationalism" as a substitute for "democracy". If this is not what you were doing, could you explain the difference between your "nationalism" and democracy.
No, I'm not using "nationalism" as a substitute for "democracy". A nationalist movement might culminate in the establishment of a democracy, but nationalism doesn't always result in democracy. The obvious example is that of Pakistan, where Islamist Nationalism was tried and we all know how spectacularly that turned out. But the more important point is that the idea which leads to a demand of self-determination transcends all barriers between individuals, tribes, communities and people in general, and it is precisely the idea behind nationalism. That there is a way for all people, irrespective of their differences, to unite in a way to collectively determine their future, without any external interference.
Ah I see, Indian. So my guess is he is coming from the perspective of casting off the shackles of other nations' interference. Nothing wrong with that. He just has to understand that while the US was founded on that principle, the term nationalism means something very different here.
How far back in history does the meaning of nationalism in America diverge from what I just mentioned above?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,174
18,796
136
so you changed the definition of nationalism to suit your own purposes, claim it is the original definition, then just get mad.

We already have a word for what you want to defend, and that is patriotism.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Just because the word has acquired another meaning owing to recent occurrences in history doesn't mean that one shouldn't attempt to draw a distinction between its recent connotations and what it usually means. Here is what nationalism means, quoting from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Therefore, nationalism is about an idea, as understood from the first part, and its execution, which is the second part. Just because there are many examples which show that the execution of the second part has been morally questionable doesn't mean that the idea was untenable to begin with.

No, I'm not using "nationalism" as a substitute for "democracy". A nationalist movement might culminate in the establishment of a democracy, but nationalism doesn't always result in democracy. The obvious example is that of Pakistan, where Islamist Nationalism was tried and we all know how spectacularly that turned out. But the more important point is that the idea which leads to a demand of self-determination transcends all barriers between individuals, tribes, communities and people in general, and it is precisely the idea behind nationalism. That there is a way for all people, irrespective of their differences, to unite in a way to collectively determine their future, without any external interference.

How far back in history does the meaning of nationalism in America diverge from what I just mentioned above?
Honestly I think the moment your country is no longer controlled by another, nationalism quickly changes from self defense to infighting.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,104
3,970
146
How far back in history does the meaning of nationalism in America diverge from what I just mentioned above?
Probably the civil war, or at least the rise of the KKK/white nationalists and their ilk.

As others have stated, Patriotism is the word that defines what you're talking about, not Nationalism. Original decade-old definitions don't mean much if the word's usage has changed over time.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Probably the civil war, or at least the rise of the KKK/white nationalists and their ilk.

As others have stated, Patriotism is the word that defines what you're talking about, not Nationalism. Original decade-old definitions don't mean much if the word's usage has changed over time.
These aren't decade-old definitions. These are the generally accepted definitions among historians and philosophers. They don't change over time or on somebody's whim, unless their meanings are twisted by those in power to suit their own purpose.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY