|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them.
|
On September 19 2012 12:27 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it.
The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. How does a country think if not for the individuals? How does a country hate if not for the individuals? And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism How does a country think if not for the individuals? Leaders.How does a country hate if not for the individuals? Public sentiment.And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Other countries. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism So? Life is a disease by the accounts of biologists. Does that make it less relevant?People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience. The unit of social organization need not be modern nations, of course - historically, it was at the level of tribes, kingdoms, ethnic groups, social classes, and empires. But it is never just the individual. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:
[quote]
No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude? It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior. When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that. Sure, it's an extension of tribalism, but MisterFred's point was against a specific form of tribalism that has influenced 20th century history so much that it was given a name--nationalism. Tribalism covers from a small village of a dozen people up to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pretty obvious strawman when you tried to swap his criticism of nationalism with millions of people with a criticism of tribalism in general (which he never made). Tell me how you go from this: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. to this: Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:
Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival.
He certainly did criticize all forms of collectivism - not just nationalism. Your ability to nitpick is legendary, but I suggest you go back and read the exchange between MisterFred and I again. Specifically this:
MisterFred:
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion.
Azarkon:
Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude?
MisterFred:
It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments.
Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil.
---
It's obvious that we were talking about both nationalism and tribalism at the end, which precedes my comment that I do not believe he knows enough of the world to judge.
|
On September 20 2012 01:53 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:27 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used.
"Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. How does a country think if not for the individuals? How does a country hate if not for the individuals? And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism How does a country think if not for the individuals? Leaders.How does a country hate if not for the individuals? Public sentiment.And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Other countries. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism So? Life is a disease by the accounts of biologists. Does that make it less relevant?People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience. The unit of social organization need not be modern nations, of course - historically, it was at the level of tribes, kingdoms, ethnic groups, social classes, and empires. But it is never just the individual. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post:
Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country?
There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude? It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior. When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that. Sure, it's an extension of tribalism, but MisterFred's point was against a specific form of tribalism that has influenced 20th century history so much that it was given a name--nationalism. Tribalism covers from a small village of a dozen people up to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pretty obvious strawman when you tried to swap his criticism of nationalism with millions of people with a criticism of tribalism in general (which he never made). Tell me how you go from this: On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. to this: On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:
Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. He certainly did criticize all forms of collectivism - not just nationalism. Your ability to nitpick is legendary, but I suggest you go back and read the exchange between MisterFred and I again. Specifically this: MisterFred: No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Azarkon: Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude?MisterFred: It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. --- It's obvious that we were talking about both nationalism and tribalism then.
Tribalism or nationalism, however you want to call it : its not because its natural, that its good. its not because it protected man in the early days, that it still fits in todays society. There is nothing wrong with protecting the people around you, there is however with using irrational violence against other groups in modern day society. We DO have to be the judge sometimes.
|
On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them.
this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around.
|
On September 20 2012 01:53 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:27 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used.
"Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. How does a country think if not for the individuals? How does a country hate if not for the individuals? And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism How does a country think if not for the individuals? Leaders.How does a country hate if not for the individuals? Public sentiment.And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Other countries. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism So? Life is a disease by the accounts of biologists. Does that make it less relevant?People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience. The unit of social organization need not be modern nations, of course - historically, it was at the level of tribes, kingdoms, ethnic groups, social classes, and empires. But it is never just the individual. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post:
Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country?
There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude? It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior. When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that. Sure, it's an extension of tribalism, but MisterFred's point was against a specific form of tribalism that has influenced 20th century history so much that it was given a name--nationalism. Tribalism covers from a small village of a dozen people up to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pretty obvious strawman when you tried to swap his criticism of nationalism with millions of people with a criticism of tribalism in general (which he never made). Tell me how you go from this: On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. to this: On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:
Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. He certainly did criticize all forms of collectivism - not just nationalism. Your ability to nitpick is legendary, but I suggest you go back and read the exchange between MisterFred and I again. Specifically this: MisterFred: No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Azarkon: Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude?MisterFred: It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. --- It's obvious that we were talking about both nationalism and tribalism then.
To mister fred:
We are the product of our environment but this not make us void of our individuality. You do recognize that recognizing an absolute moral compass does not make any sense since there is no defined "goal"(isn't the word goal itself just our illusion of conscience trying to fill the void?) to life. Tribes and countries were useful one day to humanity, now we have too much knowledge and technology, we have nothing to protect ourselves from, we have already conquered nature we have now only to conquer ourselves to attain what I'd call moral progress(given that in thise case moral is defined as the least amount of human/animal suffering possible)as a whole. Those concepts(nation in this case) are only turning ourselves against each othere which is exactly what we can't do when we have the technology we have. We don't get to "believe" because it is not everybody that "believes" in the same thing. We need more than a belief to determine what the best course of action is for the biggest amount of people. It sounds like you're just saying whatever you like, the way you talk about evil makes me think you're kind of sick and believes in very strange forces. I don't want the morality of a man that does not care equally for all men in these planet, I do not want the morality of a man that does not believe that only in making our society truly just we will be able to be happy in our individual lifes.
We have resources for everybody why do we have to let some people rot and others not just because they are from a different country specially now that we have the scientific enlightement to understand why we needed to have aggressive conflict between tribes and now we don't. The only reason that ever made sense to fight for was for food and shelter. Newsflash, we have food for everybody(and shelter obv), I don't see the validity of acting upon a morality that does not include making sure people don't die of starvation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around.
yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered.
|
On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered.
You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you.
|
On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered.
Wth is that even supposed to mean? How is a child soldier's actions in a hypothetical situation when being shot indicative of their intelligence? A child soldier in a realistic context either has no control of his actions because he is being forced by external factors, has no way of being responsible for his actions because he does not understand them, or is picking up a weapon due to genuine needs to defend his life. Why is trying to stay alive indicative of intelligence? Unless you are talking about the emotional stress that any person would be placed under while being shot at in which case they can not form coherent opinions, but surely then the blame lies with the people who are shooting them? If I put a weapon in a child's hands and then start shooting at them and they panic, that doesn't make the child stupid, it makes me the sadistic attempted murderer. Surely hatred towards me would be justified in this case or any case where serious bodily harm is being attempted.
So mass nationalist hysteria in China is being engineered in the same manner you would educate a child soldier? What formats is that taking? Propaganda for one to see that the state represents them and is a legitimate governing body? That you should perform tasks for the good of the country by which they mean the government? This shit is thrown around in American political discourse at every fucking opportunity for emotional effect by privately owned interests, you can't listen to a single speech about America with out hearing the words "I love America", "God Bless America", "America is the best country in the world", "People shouldn't freeload because they need to contribute to this great nation of ours", etc ad nauseum.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh. the shooting part is there because im too lazy to think of an actual side of a conflict involving child soldiers. you could as well replace that with (young) jihadis hating on amerikka or something.
the point is, the larger insular culture in china is constantly seeded with narratives from the 50's. the national consciousness is much more foreign policy oriented, and this is because the regime would like themselves be seen as identical with China, the historical protagonist. i'd add more color commentary along the veins of god and the state are opiate of the masses but that'd be bad style.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you.
most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad.
in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous.
|
On September 20 2012 02:50 oneofthem wrote:
uh. the shooting part is there because im too lazy to think of an actual side of a conflict involving child soldiers. you could as well replace that with jihadis hating on amerikka or something.
the point is, the larger insular culture in china is constantly seeded with narratives from the 50's. the national consciousness is much more foreign policy oriented, and this is because the regime would like themselves be seen as identical with China, the historical protagonist.
Really? Because it sounds like you are the one who thinks that China is still stuck in the 50s. The majority of political and domestic discourse has been about domestic policies such as wages, worker's rights and entitlement disputes for rural areas, education, healthcare, and so on. Mao and any political leader from that era is almost never mentioned any more outside of historical disputes. Where is your factual evidence? Are you suggesting that the rioters entirely represent the views of the larger insular culture in China?
|
On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you. most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad. in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous.
Hypothesis: most people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism. Factual evidence: none. Stop being a condescending dick. I guess that's why Chinese parents are all trying to send their children to get education from western institutions and voicing their opinions internationally? (look at the drastic increase in rates of emigration and student visas) I guess that's why Chinese people take every chance they can to go to Hongkong to commemorate events like Tiananmen square? (Traffic to Hongkong on commemoration dates increase literally folds and there are routinely hundreds of thousands who partake in protests / memorials) I guess that's why the most fervantly Anti-Chinese government daily protests outside Chinese embassies in Canada or America or Hongkong are done by mainland Chinese people? (You can literally go to the Chinese embassy / consulate office in Toronto or any major western tourist / industrial city right now and there would be mainland Chinese people outside protesting, I took a trip to Europe this year with a Chinese tourist group and literally every major site we went to be it the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Cathedral in Kohl or the walkways of Amsterdam there are Chinese people handing out flyers exposing the faults of Chinese nationalism)
|
Hmm, i would say that most people that were born/ dont have foreign origins in a country will be nationalist unless they have a good education and can develop a relatively high sense of critisism (by knowing the history of ur country, what most nationalist lack). U can also develop this by going in other countries and discovering different styles of life, encountering misery also help. This nationalist feeling is even more present in developing countries, even more in countries like China without any politics groups and nobody to criticize the government. Obviously most of the people will believe whats in front of them and wont bother to search for the truth, similar to islamic extremist enraging and generating hate between people for retarded reasons !
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:59 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you. most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad. in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous. Hypothesis: most people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism. Factual evidence: none. Stop being a condescending dick. I guess that's why Chinese parents are all trying to send their children to get education from western institutions and voicing their opinions internationally? (look at the drastic increase in rates of emigration and student visas) I guess that's why Chinese people take every chance they can to go to Hongkong to commemorate events like Tiananmen square? (Traffic to Hongkong on commemoration dates increase literally folds and there are routinely hundreds of thousands who partake in protests / memorials) I guess that's why the most fervantly Anti-Chinese government daily protests outside Chinese embassies in Canada or America or Hongkong are done by mainland Chinese people? (You can literally go to the Chinese embassy / consulate office in Toronto or any major tourist / industrial city right now and there would be mainland Chinese people outside protesting)
being dissatisfied with living conditions is rather expected, but does not in turn prove some sort of anti-nationalist theory being popular. i have seen plenty of chinese media production and news reports. the central news agency for instance is very cleverly designed to always present a national narrative, getting people to take perspective in this dramatic of "china among other nations" play.
if you resent this characterisation, okay. but i do have my reasons for making this observation.
|
On September 20 2012 03:01 Acertos wrote:
Hmm, i would say that most people that were born/ dont have foreign origins in a country will be nationalist unless they have a good education and can develop a relatively high sense of critisism (by knowing the history of ur country, what most nationalist lack). U can also develop this by going in other countries and discovering different styles of life, encountering misery also help. This nationalist feeling is even more present in developing countries, even more in countries like China without any politics groups and nobody to criticize the government. Obviously most of the people will believe whats in front of them and wont bother to search for the truth, similar to islamic extremist enraging and generating hate between people for retarded reasons !
Problem with this hypothesis is that this Generation (people who are 12-25 right now) have international context and are socially aware and thus do not simply take what's infront of them for granted. Where as the previous generation (people who are 40-50) have gone through the events of the cultural revolution, the famines, and so on and don't buy that crap from the government any more. The only demographic which this applies to in China is uneducated people in poverty with no means of understanding or communicating with the outside world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:58 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:50 oneofthem wrote:
uh. the shooting part is there because im too lazy to think of an actual side of a conflict involving child soldiers. you could as well replace that with jihadis hating on amerikka or something.
the point is, the larger insular culture in china is constantly seeded with narratives from the 50's. the national consciousness is much more foreign policy oriented, and this is because the regime would like themselves be seen as identical with China, the historical protagonist. Really? Because it sounds like you are the one who thinks that China is still stuck in the 50s. The majority of political and domestic discourse has been about domestic policies such as wages, worker's rights and entitlement disputes for rural areas, education, healthcare, and so on. Mao and any political leader from that era is almost never mentioned any more outside of historical disputes. Where is your factual evidence? Are you suggesting that the rioters entirely represent the views of the larger insular culture in China?
yes domestic problems are numerous, which is why the nationalist line is a great distraction from all that.
in a domestic dispute, the National Veil, so to speak, is pierced. you see actual people making decisions that fuck up your life, so you complain. in a nationalistic narrative, your actors are nations instead of particular officials and regimes, even though the guys in charge are the same guys.
as for the 50's reference. the most well represented theme in chinese media is the 40-50's period of wars against either japan or the nationalist government. one could also observe the preponderence of such themes in literature classes at the elementary to high school level.
common words have different definitions in china as opposed to the west. when we talk about politics, we have in mind theories. in china it either means networking/power play, or international stuff. the ideological vacuum is especially stressing given the ceremonial function of the state ideology. so i'd say there is not much thinking ideology in china, not even the state theories. there is only primitive animal instincts. this is rather tragic.
interestingly the other dominant theme is feudal. kind of a more accurate representation of living conditions.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw, nationalism is obviously a deeply ingrained instinct and that instinct is found in the best educated people from even just 50 years ago. however, the liberalisation of politics and the dominant anti-nationalist perspective is a rather recent, western development. it's natural to not see so much of this in china. it is however a very populous place and if this current of crass nationalism is legitimized, then it's a big obstacle on the road of progress.
|
On September 20 2012 03:07 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:59 Caihead wrote:On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you. most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad. in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous. Hypothesis: most people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism. Factual evidence: none. Stop being a condescending dick. I guess that's why Chinese parents are all trying to send their children to get education from western institutions and voicing their opinions internationally? (look at the drastic increase in rates of emigration and student visas) I guess that's why Chinese people take every chance they can to go to Hongkong to commemorate events like Tiananmen square? (Traffic to Hongkong on commemoration dates increase literally folds and there are routinely hundreds of thousands who partake in protests / memorials) I guess that's why the most fervantly Anti-Chinese government daily protests outside Chinese embassies in Canada or America or Hongkong are done by mainland Chinese people? (You can literally go to the Chinese embassy / consulate office in Toronto or any major tourist / industrial city right now and there would be mainland Chinese people outside protesting) being dissatisfied with living conditions is rather expected, but does not in turn prove some sort of anti-nationalist theory being popular. i have seen plenty of chinese media production and news reports. the central news agency for instance is very cleverly designed to always present a national narrative, getting people to take perspective in this dramatic of "china among other nations" play. if you resent this characterisation, okay. but i do have my reasons for making this observation.
So, your proof for the hypothesis that the majority of people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism is central news agency propaganda, and proof to the contrary regardless of frequency, number, or inherent logic if you listen to protesters, parents, students who partake in these issues including the person who's talking to you right now, if you look at statistics for emigration, statistics for protests against the Chinese government inside China, statistics compiled by Amnesty international for dissident voices that exist with in China let alone outside it by mainland Chinese people who are prosecuted, is disproven because it doesn't have "popularity"?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 03:14 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 03:07 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:59 Caihead wrote:On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you. most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad. in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous. Hypothesis: most people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism. Factual evidence: none. Stop being a condescending dick. I guess that's why Chinese parents are all trying to send their children to get education from western institutions and voicing their opinions internationally? (look at the drastic increase in rates of emigration and student visas) I guess that's why Chinese people take every chance they can to go to Hongkong to commemorate events like Tiananmen square? (Traffic to Hongkong on commemoration dates increase literally folds and there are routinely hundreds of thousands who partake in protests / memorials) I guess that's why the most fervantly Anti-Chinese government daily protests outside Chinese embassies in Canada or America or Hongkong are done by mainland Chinese people? (You can literally go to the Chinese embassy / consulate office in Toronto or any major tourist / industrial city right now and there would be mainland Chinese people outside protesting) being dissatisfied with living conditions is rather expected, but does not in turn prove some sort of anti-nationalist theory being popular. i have seen plenty of chinese media production and news reports. the central news agency for instance is very cleverly designed to always present a national narrative, getting people to take perspective in this dramatic of "china among other nations" play. if you resent this characterisation, okay. but i do have my reasons for making this observation. So, your proof for the hypothesis that the majority of people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism is central news agency propaganda, and proof to the contrary regardless of frequency, number, or inherent logic if you listen to protesters, parents, students who partake in these issues including the person who's talking to you right now, if you look at statistics for emigration, statistics for protests against the Chinese government inside China, statistics compiled by Amnesty international for dissident voices that exist with in China let alone outside it by mainland Chinese people who are prosecuted, is disproven because it doesn't have "popularity"?
as i have already said, dissent against the govt is not the same as antinationalism. might you be falling into the trap that being against china(the regime anyway) is the same as being against the concept of china being so dominant.
sure, there may be people who recognize the nationalist line as a ploy by the regime. i am, however, much more pessimistic than you on their influence.
|
On September 20 2012 03:17 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 03:14 Caihead wrote:On September 20 2012 03:07 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:59 Caihead wrote:On September 20 2012 02:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:42 ddrddrddrddr wrote:On September 20 2012 02:32 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
the chinese people has about as much smartness as a child soldier hating on some other dudes shooting at them. this post has about as much intelligence or relevance as a child pounding on a keyboard with all the letters switched around. yea that's about right for that post, since it did not seem to address the obvious fact that mass nationalist hysteria in china is rather engineered in the same manner as the education of a young child soldier is engineered. You must not know any Chinese people. That or ... well I rather not get a warn for the likes of you. most chinese people you know probably don't understand the faults of nationalism, or in this case jingoistic politics. this is a rather uncontroversial topic. aggressive nationalism is bad. in fact, holding on some form of crass nationalism is very bad form. in some cases, like israeli nationalism, it can be scandalous. Hypothesis: most people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism. Factual evidence: none. Stop being a condescending dick. I guess that's why Chinese parents are all trying to send their children to get education from western institutions and voicing their opinions internationally? (look at the drastic increase in rates of emigration and student visas) I guess that's why Chinese people take every chance they can to go to Hongkong to commemorate events like Tiananmen square? (Traffic to Hongkong on commemoration dates increase literally folds and there are routinely hundreds of thousands who partake in protests / memorials) I guess that's why the most fervantly Anti-Chinese government daily protests outside Chinese embassies in Canada or America or Hongkong are done by mainland Chinese people? (You can literally go to the Chinese embassy / consulate office in Toronto or any major tourist / industrial city right now and there would be mainland Chinese people outside protesting) being dissatisfied with living conditions is rather expected, but does not in turn prove some sort of anti-nationalist theory being popular. i have seen plenty of chinese media production and news reports. the central news agency for instance is very cleverly designed to always present a national narrative, getting people to take perspective in this dramatic of "china among other nations" play. if you resent this characterisation, okay. but i do have my reasons for making this observation. So, your proof for the hypothesis that the majority of people in China don't understand the faults of nationalism is central news agency propaganda, and proof to the contrary regardless of frequency, number, or inherent logic if you listen to protesters, parents, students who partake in these issues including the person who's talking to you right now, if you look at statistics for emigration, statistics for protests against the Chinese government inside China, statistics compiled by Amnesty international for dissident voices that exist with in China let alone outside it by mainland Chinese people who are prosecuted, is disproven because it doesn't have "popularity"? as i have already said, dissent against the govt is not the same as antinationalism. might you be falling into the trap that being against china(the regime anyway) is the same as being against the concept of china being so dominant.
Do you literally want instances where protest banners say "Love for China =/= love for government of China, Nationalism in China isn't representative of the people"? Because I can find them, easily, and I see them near government / embassy areas. You can also find them easily in the written words and words of the dissidents and average citizens. Or would you just dismiss them all the same? How about western surveys conducted by non nationally affiliated organizations that show that Chinese people are still consider corrupt officials top problems alongside rising prices and rich/poor gap? How about all time low communist party / population representation? (6.33% by Chinese central media's own numbers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
