• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 19:33
CEST 01:33
KST 08:33
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed12Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Segway man no more. Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 696 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9365

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9363 9364 9365 9366 9367 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 07:22:44
November 30 2017 07:14 GMT
#187281
On November 30 2017 16:06 mozoku wrote:
It's worth noting that, even despite all of the news about wealth inequality and poverty, the bottom 10% in America today is fabulously wealthy compared to the bottom 10% 100 years ago. And the median American income is a roughly top 1% income earner worldwide. Hence the focus on growth.

Yeah, 100 years ago, coal miners had just finished fighting a small war against the mine owners for basic rights, and the South had replaced outright slavery with less obvious slavery called convict leasing. So sure, the most destitute Americans are better off than that, but "better than bad" is not equivalent to "good."

EDIT: Also, the homeless population is estimated at around 0.155% of the US population. A bit over half a million people. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/16/homeless-count-population-america-shelters-people
According to that attempt at testing the accuracy of the counting, it could easily be three times as many homeless people as are counted. To the best of my understanding, a lot of the unoccupied homes have been unoccupied for many years and a decent chunk of them were foreclosed in the 2008 crash.
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28650 Posts
November 30 2017 07:18 GMT
#187282
On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax.

Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it.

That said, the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy also need to be factored in politically. (goal of politics is to create a society that benefits its people as well as it possibly can, right?) Social trust and cohesion are important values. These are hurt by excessive imbalance in wealth. Nobody minds the doctor making twice as much as the store clerk, but when people get more than 100 times as much as others, especially when others struggle with having enough money to live dignified lives, that is (correctly, imo) perceived as a wasteful allocation of money because the added societal utility from 3x to 103x normal income or wealth is vastly inferior to the societal utility of bringing 500 people from 0.8x to 1x. It also fosters the creation of parallel societies, and being 'poor' hurts people's ability to be positive societal influences. If everyone is above the baseline, it's not that big of a deal that some people are way above the baseline, but there is a baseline of income/wealth required to be the best version of yourself that you can be, and as many people find themselves below that baseline, correcting this is good.
Moderator
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23206 Posts
November 30 2017 07:21 GMT
#187283
On November 30 2017 16:14 Kyadytim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 16:06 mozoku wrote:
It's worth noting that, even despite all of the news about wealth inequality and poverty, the bottom 10% in America today is fabulously wealthy compared to the bottom 10% 100 years ago. And the median American income is a roughly top 1% income earner worldwide. Hence the focus on growth.

Yeah, 100 years ago, coal miners had just finished fighting a small war against the mine owners for basic rights, and the South had replaced outright slavery with less obvious slavery called convict leasing. So sure, the most destitute Americans are better off than that, but "better than bad" is not equivalent to "good."


I feel like the constant battles, up to and including actually fighting and killing on the streets in order to attempt to extract those gains from the capital class is completely ignored in these fanciful historical recountings.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 07:29:13
November 30 2017 07:28 GMT
#187284
On November 30 2017 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 16:14 Kyadytim wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:06 mozoku wrote:
It's worth noting that, even despite all of the news about wealth inequality and poverty, the bottom 10% in America today is fabulously wealthy compared to the bottom 10% 100 years ago. And the median American income is a roughly top 1% income earner worldwide. Hence the focus on growth.

Yeah, 100 years ago, coal miners had just finished fighting a small war against the mine owners for basic rights, and the South had replaced outright slavery with less obvious slavery called convict leasing. So sure, the most destitute Americans are better off than that, but "better than bad" is not equivalent to "good."


I feel like the constant battles, up to and including actually fighting and killing on the streets in order to attempt to extract those gains from the capital class is completely ignored in these fanciful historical recountings.

Uh, fanciful historical recounting? I literally meant a small war. In the battle of Blair Mountain, for example, the mine owners went as far as deploying bombers against the miners.
The whole wikipedia article on the Coal Wars is really interesting reading, as are all of the articles on individual battles and see also articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

But yeah, going back to that whole "It's just jealousy," spiel, those two really remind me of caricatures of French nobility insisting that nothing was really wrong and it was just some minor discontentment among the peasants right up until the guillotine started doing its work.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23206 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 07:39:57
November 30 2017 07:35 GMT
#187285
On November 30 2017 16:28 Kyadytim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:14 Kyadytim wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:06 mozoku wrote:
It's worth noting that, even despite all of the news about wealth inequality and poverty, the bottom 10% in America today is fabulously wealthy compared to the bottom 10% 100 years ago. And the median American income is a roughly top 1% income earner worldwide. Hence the focus on growth.

Yeah, 100 years ago, coal miners had just finished fighting a small war against the mine owners for basic rights, and the South had replaced outright slavery with less obvious slavery called convict leasing. So sure, the most destitute Americans are better off than that, but "better than bad" is not equivalent to "good."


I feel like the constant battles, up to and including actually fighting and killing on the streets in order to attempt to extract those gains from the capital class is completely ignored in these fanciful historical recountings.

Uh, fanciful historical recounting? I literally meant a small war. In the battle of Blair Mountain, for example, the mine owners went as far as deploying bombers against the miners.
The whole wikipedia article on the Coal Wars is really interesting reading, as are all of the articles on individual battles and see also articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

But yeah, going back to that whole "It's just jealousy," spiel, those two really remind me of caricatures of French nobility insisting that nothing was really wrong and it was just some minor discontentment among the peasants right up until the guillotine started doing its work.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referencing the post you were responding to with the "fanciful" part. Meaning people like to talk about the "lifting all boats" or whatever without mentioning that they had to be scared/threatened/forced into it. It's not as if the billionaire class wouldn't mainstream outright slavery again if they thought it wouldn't result in their heads being prematurely separated from their bodies.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
kollin
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United Kingdom8380 Posts
November 30 2017 07:42 GMT
#187286
On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?

It can result in massive political instability, and consequently extremism (though I'm sure that's a positive for you). Also, the more unequal a country the more it's poorer citizens suffer from pathologies such as alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, health issues, mental health issues, suicide and so on. There is a reason countries measure poverty relatively and not absolutely.
Kyadytim
Profile Joined March 2009
United States886 Posts
November 30 2017 07:43 GMT
#187287
On November 30 2017 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 16:28 Kyadytim wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:14 Kyadytim wrote:
On November 30 2017 16:06 mozoku wrote:
It's worth noting that, even despite all of the news about wealth inequality and poverty, the bottom 10% in America today is fabulously wealthy compared to the bottom 10% 100 years ago. And the median American income is a roughly top 1% income earner worldwide. Hence the focus on growth.

Yeah, 100 years ago, coal miners had just finished fighting a small war against the mine owners for basic rights, and the South had replaced outright slavery with less obvious slavery called convict leasing. So sure, the most destitute Americans are better off than that, but "better than bad" is not equivalent to "good."


I feel like the constant battles, up to and including actually fighting and killing on the streets in order to attempt to extract those gains from the capital class is completely ignored in these fanciful historical recountings.

Uh, fanciful historical recounting? I literally meant a small war. In the battle of Blair Mountain, for example, the mine owners went as far as deploying bombers against the miners.
The whole wikipedia article on the Coal Wars is really interesting reading, as are all of the articles on individual battles and see also articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

But yeah, going back to that whole "It's just jealousy," spiel, those two really remind me of caricatures of French nobility insisting that nothing was really wrong and it was just some minor discontentment among the peasants right up until the guillotine started doing its work.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referencing the post you were responding to with the "fanciful" part. Meaning people like to talk about the "lifting all boats" or whatever without mentioning that they had to be scared/threatened/forced into it. It's not as if the billionaire class wouldn't mainstream outright slavery again if they thought it wouldn't result in their heads being prematurely separated from their bodies.

No problem. I was about 50-50 on which post you were referencing; sorry if I came off as rude because of that.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12162 Posts
November 30 2017 10:04 GMT
#187288
Please notice how the last conversation "subtly" went from trickle down works to trickle down is okay because income inequality is okay.
No will to live, no wish to die
esla_sol
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States756 Posts
November 30 2017 10:08 GMT
#187289
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


I mostly lurk the thread but I thought I would respond.

I think of it as an ethical thing. Being in poverty increases suffering. Redistributing wealth from those that do not need it to those whose suffering would be lessened by receiving services is the moral thing to do.

Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10696 Posts
November 30 2017 10:14 GMT
#187290
On November 30 2017 19:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Please notice how the last conversation "subtly" went from trickle down works to trickle down is okay because income inequality is okay.


You forgot to add:
because people that think there is too much income inequality are just jealous.


Standard right wing talking point bingo.
Biff The Understudy
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
France7886 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 10:20:07
November 30 2017 10:18 GMT
#187291
On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax.

Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it.

That said, the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy also need to be factored in politically. (goal of politics is to create a society that benefits its people as well as it possibly can, right?) Social trust and cohesion are important values. These are hurt by excessive imbalance in wealth. Nobody minds the doctor making twice as much as the store clerk, but when people get more than 100 times as much as others, especially when others struggle with having enough money to live dignified lives, that is (correctly, imo) perceived as a wasteful allocation of money because the added societal utility from 3x to 103x normal income or wealth is vastly inferior to the societal utility of bringing 500 people from 0.8x to 1x. It also fosters the creation of parallel societies, and being 'poor' hurts people's ability to be positive societal influences. If everyone is above the baseline, it's not that big of a deal that some people are way above the baseline, but there is a baseline of income/wealth required to be the best version of yourself that you can be, and as many people find themselves below that baseline, correcting this is good.

I think xDaunt nailed conservatism there though. I think the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives don’t see pre-existing social structural hierarchy at birth as a problem. Men over women, white over black, rich over poor, that’s all fine, and should even be, if not strengthened, at least preserved.

For me being a liberal means that everyone should be as equal as possible at birth. It will never be the case, but it’s something we tend towards. The fact that a woman, a black dude or a poor kid start life with a gigantic disadvantage and are most likely to “stay at their place” is a problem that deserves to be corrected.

Anyway, that bring said, saying that the grotesque inequalities we observe today are ok is just either delusionnal or simply evil. Wealth is not infinite. You can’t vote Trump because people feel so disfranchised and want at the same time some disgustingly rich people keep siphoning all the wealth created by getting exponentially richer as time goes.

I assume the bottom line is that french comedy line: “the rich are meant to be very rich and poor very poor!”, which really could be the motto of the GOP.
The fellow who is out to burn things up is the counterpart of the fool who thinks he can save the world. The world needs neither to be burned up nor to be saved. The world is, we are. Transients, if we buck it; here to stay if we accept it. ~H.Miller
doomdonker
Profile Joined October 2017
90 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 10:34:07
November 30 2017 10:20 GMT
#187292
On November 30 2017 19:08 esla_sol wrote:
Show nested quote +
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


I mostly lurk the thread but I thought I would respond.

I think of it as an ethical thing. Being in poverty increases suffering. Redistributing wealth from those that do not need it to those whose suffering would be lessened by receiving services is the moral thing to do.



Its funny that the same people keep going on about the need to maintain Western culture through nationalism yet ignore the majority of teachings from the New Testament that encourages the haves to help the have nots. The same people who read the Parable of the Good Samaritan yet refuse to open their doors for asylum seekers because they're illegals and only want to do nothing but ruin American culture and welfare.

I've noticed that the Anglican church is much different that US denominations of Christianity. Far less materialistic, less obsessed with religion itself and more to do with what the book actually teaches. Or at least the Victoria Diocese.
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
November 30 2017 10:22 GMT
#187293
I'd be fine with the current level of income equality if the death tax was 100% for everyone. Then it would be a shitload less ridiculous.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 11:43:49
November 30 2017 11:41 GMT
#187294
On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had.

The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental?

Equating apartheid with liberal, capitalist systems. Sometimes I really wonder, if you are ignorant or it's deliberate.
I suppose that's what happens when the danglars-xdaunt circlejerk happens and climax with nonsense or support of racism.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21654 Posts
November 30 2017 11:55 GMT
#187295
On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing?


Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had.

The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental?

Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me.

And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country?
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Schmobutzen
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Germany284 Posts
November 30 2017 12:14 GMT
#187296
All the arguments against wealth inequality boiled down to being poor. Dead poor at that. That seems to be the real problem. Of course that is a two headed giant, in that some of the rich have at least partially something to do with it.

I a.m. with Liquid Drone, use the taxes to educate and to fight of health problems and to give them a chance in equal footing.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
November 30 2017 12:15 GMT
#187297
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-30 12:57:18
November 30 2017 12:57 GMT
#187298
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
November 30 2017 12:58 GMT
#187299
On November 30 2017 12:31 mozoku wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2017 11:41 zlefin wrote:
On November 30 2017 11:14 mozoku wrote:
On November 30 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:
On November 30 2017 10:46 mozoku wrote:
On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it)

Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler.

low is a bit vague, could you estimate to within a factor of 2?

we understand your point; ours is taht "nationalism" has a reasonably well understood meaning in political science, as well as in common parlance, and it's generally not what you're referring to, and is quite prone to going well into the evil territory.
in part because the people pushing "nationalism" are usually people exploiting xenophobia, bigotry, and generalized fear of the "other" for political advantage. also because the very nature of it tends to increase divisions and lead to problems, as it emphasizes tribalism, and tribalism is generally not something the world is short of.

I'm not answering because I'm not confident I can come up with a reasonable answer in five minutes of thought. It's an extremely difficult question. With little thought, I would say less than two for me. I could imagine that I know plenty of people that I wouldn't consider evil that would probably put the number between 10 and 20.

I'm not sure how the definition you're referencing is fundamentally different than mine. When you're a bigot, you care less about your non-countrymen, and thus your countrymen:foreigner ratio goes up. If someone is merely exploiting bigots for political gain, they aren't a nationalist but merely selfish and/or morally depraved. They may be publicly holding nationalist political positions though.

how is exploiting bigots for political gain much worse than simply being bigoted itself?
nationalist sentiment has its psychological roots in xenophobia/othering. thus the people pushing it are either ones who are themselves xenophobic, or are simply politicians exploiting it for political gain.

1:10-20 seems like a pretty high ratio to me, it'd certainly be evil under some moral systems. though i'd imagine such ratios might depend also on which other nationality you're comparing to. at what point would you say the ratio is so high as to become evil? (again setting aside the realities of ethics where it depends alot on the circumstances leading to each death).

how familiar are you with the political history of the term? it's hard to explain/identify the differences since they come from a lifetime of education. maybe the wiki on nationalism would help, but it's hard to say. i'm getting sleepy and less focused; maybe noting that nationalism played a significant part in major wars of the past century. while its antonym doesn't do that so much.

You're mistaking the cause for the effect, and we're coming full circle.

Nationalism is about putting your nation/countrymen above others. Widespread and extreme nationalism tends towards war in a world with scarce resources. I'm well aware of 20th century history. Moderate levels of nationalism (e.g. the average person) are less clearly destructive.

On the other hand, there are at least two motivations for being a nationalist. You can A) be a bigot or B) care more about those who are close to you (something akin to loyalty or kinsmanship). The first socially taboo (and rightfully so). The second is socially virtuous in most circles.

The default leftist assumption is that all nationalism is the former. Trump's base likely has significant numbers of both. Maybe more A than B, but there's definitely some B in there too. At the very least, you can support Trump's non-racist nationalist stuff (which I don't) under B and not be an evil cretin.

I disagree about mistaking the cause for the effect (probably at least, i'd need to verify which exact thing you were claiming that about)

you say moderate nationalism less clearly destructive; let me ask: is internationalism destructive? if one is choice is possibly destructive, and the other is not destructive, then there would still seem to be a clear choice.

socially virtuous in some circles, dunno about most, i'm not sure how common universalism (or whatever the proper word) is. tribalism is still far more prone to lead to war, things like the kantian imperative would say to avoid it. There's a very important distinction between caring more (which is bound to happen to some degree), and asserting the ethical rightness of so doing in terms of value of human life (which seems more likely to exacerbate the problem).

on the distinction between your 2 cases I would ask: what is the definition of a bigot?

perhaps that is not an assumption, but a question of definition. If a leftist defines nationalism as referring to your case A only, then you'd have no disagreement ove rthem opposing it? the left is a broad group, with many different people holding many different beliefs. and language is complicated, every word has different meanings to each person, and different groups often have different standards of usage and meaning; to some, when they speak of nationalism, they're focusing on the parts that are closer to jingoism.


which things of Trump would you classify as non-racist nationalist?
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8061 Posts
November 30 2017 13:03 GMT
#187300
On November 30 2017 21:57 Nevuk wrote:
https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/936172776637026304


I'm kinda curious as to why his Twitter account hasn't been banned yet, as it's clearly in conflict with the ToS (and has been for a while). Oh yeah, I forgot, rules don't apply to that orangutan
Prev 1 9363 9364 9365 9366 9367 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 10h 27m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SpeCial 311
Livibee 115
StarCraft: Brood War
Aegong 101
Dota 2
monkeys_forever888
NeuroSwarm85
League of Legends
Grubby4651
Dendi1065
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K875
sgares804
Foxcn250
taco 8
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King91
Liquid`Ken45
AZ_Axe6
Other Games
summit1g13842
shahzam1036
Day[9].tv598
C9.Mang0257
ViBE168
Maynarde147
Skadoodle129
Trikslyr75
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1534
BasetradeTV53
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 21 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 89
• davetesta53
• musti20045 37
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 45
• Eskiya23 18
• Azhi_Dahaki8
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22662
League of Legends
• Doublelift2624
• TFBlade637
Other Games
• Scarra2174
• Day9tv598
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
10h 27m
OSC
13h 27m
WardiTV European League
16h 27m
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
1d
Epic.LAN
1d 12h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CSO Contender
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
5 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.