Wow i actually agree with you.... its boring now
Rights and Freedoms Is nationalism bad?
- Thread starter SexyAsianBitch
- Start date
Stanthropical
De̸͍̺̺̓̾m̶̶̶ͫͫod̶̶̶ͩͩu̶̶̶ͧͧLaᴛ̶̶ⷮo̵̢̦̟͋̾̓r
You're just spamming discussions with nonsense, not adding anything to any discussion.
Stanthropical
De̸͍̺̺̓̾m̶̶̶ͫͫod̶̶̶ͩͩu̶̶̶ͧͧLaᴛ̶̶ⷮo̵̢̦̟͋̾̓r
I'll vote for Drumpf if he bans guns or severely restricts them.
I would never vote for TR.ump . But when he dies I may act like I voted for him get a maga hat . Take the hat to the cemetery, Throw the hat on his grave and light it on fire. Then whip out my dick and piss on it while singing Dylan's God on our Side . Haha
S
Sarah_100
Guest
Do you need to post the same fucking things in every thread ?
L
LillyK
Guest
Lmao
na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"
synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"
synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"
synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"
synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism
Nowhere in the definition does nationalism state your country is better. You are thinking of ultranationalism.
Nationalism in the U.S would definitely be closer to the ultra version than not . It is now and always has been about the perception that some are better than the ' others' . The ' others ' have changed over time . It was the Irish . Italians, Chinese, and Jews in the past . Now it is anyone brown or black. Nationalism in America has always had racist undertones as well. In America it's always been about a group of people who need to feel supperior to others because of their religion or ethnicity. There may be some who say America first who are not bigots or islamaphobes. But the walk had and hand with those in the movement who are. So no distinction can be made . You are judged by the company you keep, as the old saying goes.
These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.
I was basing my response from this which was taken from Merriam-Webster. I tried to post the link, but it was deemed inappropriate for some reason.
I was basing my response from this which was taken from Merriam-Webster. I tried to post the link, but it was deemed inappropriate for some reason.
Yes.
This is just wrong, this is ultranationalism
How can two different websites that state dictionary definitions have different definitions?
Nationalists aren't super my nation best regardless, if anything they're super pissed off when their leaders do stupid shit because it makes the whole nation look bad.
If you have blatant proof to the contrary that X is worse than Y in some regard, they'll not declare I win regardless. With America those who're American Nationalists don't think America is the best because Muh Merica they believe America is the best option in the world providing the best opportunities in the world and while it isn't perfect, it is the best option. Does this mean let's say France has a better health care system, (I dunno for sure since never looked into the French systems) and the US lacks behind them, they're going to say America needs to improve on that front instead of "No America best!"
If you asked a lot of people who voted for Rudeman or for the Brexit party in the UK, do you approve of immigration where they are legal and pay their fair share, they'll agree with it for the most part.
Sure you'll get the ship them all back to where they came from rhetoric, but that's the same on either side of the spectrum as many are happy for as much undocumented immigration as possible even though this is both illegal and destroys a nation's internal structure system.
There are certain things that make America, America and Britain, Britain. To replace them lessens that and ends up making the nation not that nation.
Say you removed all the Brits from Britain, is it really Britain?
If I replaced tomorrow all the people of Indonesia with people from the Congo, is it really Indonesia any more? Geographically, sure it could be, but the culture and people of Indonesia is gone.
Nationalists want their nation to do the best they possibly can. But this doesn't mean drag down other nations.
If you have a child, you want them to do the best they possibly can. You don't start take out the other children to prove yours best.
And even if your child isn't the best at anything, you're still proud that they give it their all and represent themselves to their fullest.
However you can argue X nation is superior due to their morals, laws or traditions and arguably is superior.
Although arguably nationalism is vital to a nation's survival. If a nation doesn't identify itself on a collective people of beliefs and values, it doesn't really stand the test of time. Sure people disagree on issues, they still are of that nation.
The Winter War in 1939 or 1940 I forget, the Soviets misjudged the Finnish Communists as being more sympathetic to the Soviet forces over their own Finns and so when they expected Finnish forces to join them, they found them against them during the Winter War. Nationalism ties into Ethnic shit due to the nation's history, if someone was asked to describe a British person or a German or a Russian person, they're not likely to say a 6ft dark skinned person or 5ft yellow skinned person. The nationalistic view of the Finns made those on either side of the extreme unite to fight a foe who threatened their homeland and lives.
The same with describe a typical person from Africa, you're not going to say some Charlie Chaplain looking fellow or someone who looks like Teddy Roosevelt.
Each of the nations of the world has developed differently some vary greatly while some have small differences. Each race needs their race respected, be they French, German, British, African, Chinese, Japanese, Native American, Indian and so on.
Nationalism however for some reason is associated with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Blackshirts of Britain and Imperialist Japan and some others that I can't remember off the top of my head. It is more or less complete demonetisation of the word. All of those used Fascism of some form, Imperial Japan I may be wrong on since I don't really know much about Japan other than it recently came out of Feudalism during the 1900s and had only became a world power so to speak when they beat the Russian army and navy in the war they had in the 1910s. Also look up the Russian Baltic Fleet, fuck up after fuck up just making their way to fight the Japanese.
The word isn't that bad, it just means a love for your nation, for example as a Brit, I disliked Theresa May, I felt she was a bad choice for the nation and I feel she poorly reflected the British people, however, as much as I dislike her, I cannot decide the nation is bad because of it, the nation is still above her and any other Brit and all we can hope is the next leader chosen is able to properly represent the nation as for my faith in Boris, it is yet to be seen, he at least makes me laugh so there is that. And in clown world, least we have an actual clown in command.
I'm gonna go pass out now or have a wank, don't @ me.
Also note to self drink more rum.
If you have blatant proof to the contrary that X is worse than Y in some regard, they'll not declare I win regardless. With America those who're American Nationalists don't think America is the best because Muh Merica they believe America is the best option in the world providing the best opportunities in the world and while it isn't perfect, it is the best option. Does this mean let's say France has a better health care system, (I dunno for sure since never looked into the French systems) and the US lacks behind them, they're going to say America needs to improve on that front instead of "No America best!"
If you asked a lot of people who voted for Rudeman or for the Brexit party in the UK, do you approve of immigration where they are legal and pay their fair share, they'll agree with it for the most part.
Sure you'll get the ship them all back to where they came from rhetoric, but that's the same on either side of the spectrum as many are happy for as much undocumented immigration as possible even though this is both illegal and destroys a nation's internal structure system.
There are certain things that make America, America and Britain, Britain. To replace them lessens that and ends up making the nation not that nation.
Say you removed all the Brits from Britain, is it really Britain?
If I replaced tomorrow all the people of Indonesia with people from the Congo, is it really Indonesia any more? Geographically, sure it could be, but the culture and people of Indonesia is gone.
Nationalists want their nation to do the best they possibly can. But this doesn't mean drag down other nations.
If you have a child, you want them to do the best they possibly can. You don't start take out the other children to prove yours best.
And even if your child isn't the best at anything, you're still proud that they give it their all and represent themselves to their fullest.
However you can argue X nation is superior due to their morals, laws or traditions and arguably is superior.
Although arguably nationalism is vital to a nation's survival. If a nation doesn't identify itself on a collective people of beliefs and values, it doesn't really stand the test of time. Sure people disagree on issues, they still are of that nation.
The Winter War in 1939 or 1940 I forget, the Soviets misjudged the Finnish Communists as being more sympathetic to the Soviet forces over their own Finns and so when they expected Finnish forces to join them, they found them against them during the Winter War. Nationalism ties into Ethnic shit due to the nation's history, if someone was asked to describe a British person or a German or a Russian person, they're not likely to say a 6ft dark skinned person or 5ft yellow skinned person. The nationalistic view of the Finns made those on either side of the extreme unite to fight a foe who threatened their homeland and lives.
The same with describe a typical person from Africa, you're not going to say some Charlie Chaplain looking fellow or someone who looks like Teddy Roosevelt.
Each of the nations of the world has developed differently some vary greatly while some have small differences. Each race needs their race respected, be they French, German, British, African, Chinese, Japanese, Native American, Indian and so on.
Nationalism however for some reason is associated with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Blackshirts of Britain and Imperialist Japan and some others that I can't remember off the top of my head. It is more or less complete demonetisation of the word. All of those used Fascism of some form, Imperial Japan I may be wrong on since I don't really know much about Japan other than it recently came out of Feudalism during the 1900s and had only became a world power so to speak when they beat the Russian army and navy in the war they had in the 1910s. Also look up the Russian Baltic Fleet, fuck up after fuck up just making their way to fight the Japanese.
The word isn't that bad, it just means a love for your nation, for example as a Brit, I disliked Theresa May, I felt she was a bad choice for the nation and I feel she poorly reflected the British people, however, as much as I dislike her, I cannot decide the nation is bad because of it, the nation is still above her and any other Brit and all we can hope is the next leader chosen is able to properly represent the nation as for my faith in Boris, it is yet to be seen, he at least makes me laugh so there is that. And in clown world, least we have an actual clown in command.
I'm gonna go pass out now or have a wank, don't @ me.
Also note to self drink more rum.
B
bttmguy4fwb
Guest
Being a nationalist is not bad or wrong. It is not wrong to think of your country first or the best. Yes a nationalist can be bad but so can a demacrat, republican, or an independent.
In my civil opinion, it is important to first emphasize the usefulness of Nationalism in a country. The political movement originated in Europe, more specifically, in France (around 1780). This was a period in which countries were not so much a country as we know them today, but rather the territory of noble families. Also in countries such as Germany, which consisted of a federation of different duchies, there was no question of a complete unity. What did happen at the time was an increase in the working lives of the "ordinary" citizen, the industrial revolution had begun and at a lower cost and with fewer people more goods and food could be produced.
This development of wars between noble families and the increase in prosperity for normal people has, in my opinion, been the birthplace of Nationalism, the movement aims, through pride in the territory, to activate and motivate the citizen to actively to stand up for its own rights.
I therefore strongly believe that nationalism is more a political tool. Nationalism still has a prominent position in our modern world. You see this, for example, in the USA, which for years has been the leading world power, and by using nationalism and pride for the country it is hoped that the country and its citizens are committed to keeping the USA the world power. First, to ensure that its citizens want to make an effort to secure their borders. But more importantly, to encourage the elite to invest its money and resources in it's country's economy. This second point makes it clear to me that nationalism has a huge competitor in Globalism, you could argue that not really a countries government is in charge of what happens in a countery but the big international companies. With the arival of the Internet the government lost its grip on framing the opinions of it's citizens. The news we all see in the western world is provided by 7 multinationals, the websites we find information on is provided by a hand full of search engins. Those aret the main sources who bend our opinons gently in a direction, and this diriction is mostly based on economic gains.
Back to the question of whether nationalism would be good or bad. I firmly believe that a successful country cannot go without a phase of nationalism. In order to be successful as a country, its citizens must be willing to make sacrifices for its country. Protecting its raw materials, leveling import taxes and export taxes on goods to prototect its economy and, more importantly, motivating and activating its citizens to protect its own values in order to form a unity. Certainly for countries with low prosperity, nationalsme is a trend that keeps popping up. As a means to resist potential oppressors. For the common man, nationalism is a solution to counteract the power and exploitation of the big companies, but in many cases it comes with a sacrifice.
This development of wars between noble families and the increase in prosperity for normal people has, in my opinion, been the birthplace of Nationalism, the movement aims, through pride in the territory, to activate and motivate the citizen to actively to stand up for its own rights.
I therefore strongly believe that nationalism is more a political tool. Nationalism still has a prominent position in our modern world. You see this, for example, in the USA, which for years has been the leading world power, and by using nationalism and pride for the country it is hoped that the country and its citizens are committed to keeping the USA the world power. First, to ensure that its citizens want to make an effort to secure their borders. But more importantly, to encourage the elite to invest its money and resources in it's country's economy. This second point makes it clear to me that nationalism has a huge competitor in Globalism, you could argue that not really a countries government is in charge of what happens in a countery but the big international companies. With the arival of the Internet the government lost its grip on framing the opinions of it's citizens. The news we all see in the western world is provided by 7 multinationals, the websites we find information on is provided by a hand full of search engins. Those aret the main sources who bend our opinons gently in a direction, and this diriction is mostly based on economic gains.
Back to the question of whether nationalism would be good or bad. I firmly believe that a successful country cannot go without a phase of nationalism. In order to be successful as a country, its citizens must be willing to make sacrifices for its country. Protecting its raw materials, leveling import taxes and export taxes on goods to prototect its economy and, more importantly, motivating and activating its citizens to protect its own values in order to form a unity. Certainly for countries with low prosperity, nationalsme is a trend that keeps popping up. As a means to resist potential oppressors. For the common man, nationalism is a solution to counteract the power and exploitation of the big companies, but in many cases it comes with a sacrifice.