How Biden can unite the country

[Hatin Since 87]

I don't have an ignore list and don't plan to start one.

Keep feeding the animals they’ll keep hanging around the porch.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't have an ignore list and don't plan to start one.

And you don’t need to. If you engage me with common sense, I will reciprocate. Disagreeing with what I say, isn’t license to go off the deep end, unless I kick it off first.

 

[buckwacker]

What is it, when someone else FIRST try to get under your skin, and ironically your response get under theirs?

I was simply responding to the words you wrote. The question is, are you here to learn and broaden your perspectives, change minds, Polish your debate skills, or simply to enjoy spooling people up?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was simply responding to the words you wrote. The question is, are you here to learn and broaden your perspectives, change minds, Polish your debate skills, or simply to enjoy spooling people up?

Do me a favor, and look back a few pages, in this thread, and tell me if I was asking legitimate questions, and engaging in valid debate. Then tell me where you think things went sideways. You can send me a PM if you don’t want say so in open forum.

 

[Twangbanger]

Both from the CED

patriotism
noun [ U ]
the feeling of loving your country more than any others and being proud of it

nationalism
noun [ U ]
a nation's wish and attempt to be politically independent
a great or too great love of your own country:

six o' one, half dozen of another

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

That post is just not very woke at all.

 

[buckwacker]

Do me a favor, and look back a few pages, in this thread, and tell me if I was asking legitimate questions, and engaging in valid debate. Then tell me where you think things went sideways. You can send me a PM if you don’t want say so in open forum.

I've read the entire thread. I also didn't claim you were the only one trolling, but you were the one who essentially claimed you were doing so in so many words. I did notice you didn't answer my question. Was that an oversight or intentional?

 

[Chewie]

I accept your graceful exit.

But victory is not yours to claim. Which is how I read your reply (called a personal opinion) by someone who uses english as their first language. Sorry but an earlier response to someone who had a differing viewpoint strikes me as antagonistic. Just like I am probably being perceived as.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

I am absolutely baffled that you (correctly) state “America is one example of a country with nationalist roots...” and yet fail to recognize the GLARING issue with that fact. Nationalists have a collective identity, if you aren’t part of that identity, you are excluded. Nationalism isn’t ever simply being a citizen of said nation. There ARE qualifiers. Cultural, religious, ideological, ethnic, or something else. There is always something else, outside of citizenship. You won’t find ONE country, today nor historically, that is considered Nationalist, where that doesn’t apply. If you can think of one, I’d like to know.
Nationalism hold that the nation in question, is superior. That the American, simply by virtue of being American, is better than any other nationality. As such that brings forth the entitlement of nationality. The idea that since your way is the best way, everyone else should recognize it. If something is beneficial to your nation, but is detrimental to another, the latter need not be considered, because the overall benefit is to your own nation. You guys really have never had it deconstructed to you before? The differences between patriotism and nationalism?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've read the entire thread. I also didn't claim you were the only one trolling, but you were the one who essentially claimed you were doing so in so many words. I did notice you didn't answer my question. Was that an oversight or intentional?

Honestly, I vaguely remember seeing that question. Which post was it again?

 

[jamil]

A vote cast for a candidate that you believe is best suited for the job is never wasted. Continuing to elect the same parties that got us here is what is keeping us here. I have no regrets.

You don’t get “best suited”. You get potential outcomes.

 

[CampingJosh]

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

Ctrl+H
"Nationalist"
"Communist"

Huh... I feel like I've seen the refutation of that argument a few times.

 

[buckwacker]

I was simply responding to the words you wrote. The question is, are you here to learn and broaden your perspectives, change minds, Polish your debate skills, or simply to enjoy spooling people up?

Do me a favor, and look back a few pages, in this thread, and tell me if I was asking legitimate questions, and engaging in valid debate. Then tell me where you think things went sideways. You can send me a PM if you don’t want say so in open forum.

I've read the entire thread. I also didn't claim you were the only one trolling, but you were the one who essentially claimed you were doing so in so many words. I did notice you didn't answer my question. Was that an oversight or intentional?

Honestly, I vaguely remember seeing that question. Which post was it again?

 

[jamil]

There's nothing intrinsically or morally wrong with nationalism on a "country" level, any more than there's anything wrong with being selfish, concerned with your own interests, and looking out for #1 on a personal level. It doesn't grant a nation justification to do anything they want, any more than an individual's freedom to swing his arms extends past where another's nose begins.

I don't have a problem with this paragraph. The key phrase is "on a country level."

Germany wasn't evil because it was nationalist. Germany was evil because it invaded other countries and marched people into gas chambers. China isn't evil because it's nationalist. It's evil because of what it does to its own people. I actually don't begrudge China being nationalist and looking out for its own interests. They have reasons for that. They do not owe us charity; it is up to us to "up our game" if we want to beat them. However, I see no reason for the U.S. to abide by rules that China won't abide by. That's just being a sucker. Expecting a level playing field, and treating them the way they treat us if they won't provide it, is just good sense.

I do have a problem with this paragraph. Germany was also evil--ESPECIALLY EVIL--because it was not nationalist on a country level. It was nationalist on a racial/ethnic level. That's the kind of nationalism that's evil. A belief that a particular heritage is infirior to another or yours, espeically such that you oppress people of that heritage (race is nothing more than heritage) is evil.

People who get all sweaty about "nationalism" are just hysterical (meaning in the female uterus sense, not the funny sense). These sorts of moral histrionics are common in certain circles. It's akin to saying "Money is evil," because it leads to people doing evil things. No, money isn't "evil;" love of money to the exclusion of all else, encompassing a willingness to trample the rights of others, is evil. This type of over-the-top hysterical moralizing even makes its way into the gun debate. It's sorta like Raphael Warnock saying guns have no place in a "Charch Meetin'." Ok, well make sure you tell that to the folks at Emanuel AME church. (Best be putting up some magnetometers and some darn good security checkpoints while you're at it).

No problem with this paragraph either.

America is one example of a country with nationalist roots, that didn't lead to it being an evil, failed state. In fact, it has actually progressed the other direction. It's the only example which needs to be provided to bust the argument. If histrionic black social justice preachers and Harvard professors want to claim otherwise, let them. Nobody need waste any attention on them.

And I pretty much agree with this as well.

 

[jamil]

Okay so Kut asked me to come over here and opine on Patriotism vs Nationalism.

A nationalist would say: My country comes first. I kinda think it's better than your country. **** off if you don't like that.

A white nationalist would say: My country comes first. It was founded by white people for white people and it should remain white. Everyone else should leave.

Patriotism. I love and am devoted to my country, it's an important part of my life.

Nothing wrong with nationalism, per se. Nothing wrong with Patriotism. Obviously white nationalism is immoral and intolerable.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

How he can unite the country?
Legalize the constitution
Legalize cannabis
Put real poverty help in the cities
Educate the country on the 10th A.
Rent a gun and buy a couple bullets (if you get my drift)


Apply purple where you see fit, if at all.

 

[jamil]

I am absolutely baffled that you (correctly) state “America is one example of a country with nationalist roots...” and yet fail to recognize the GLARING issue with that fact. Nationalists have a collective identity, if you aren’t part of that identity, you are excluded.

That's not necessarily true. First, I'm not sure I would say that America was founded on nationalist roots. It kinda was in that colonists didn't really identify with England. They identified as Americans. But they didn't think of themselves as a nation. They identified with the place. So I wouldn't say that's "nationalist roots"

If you're saying taht having a collective identity is bad, then white people feeling a collective White identity (really most don't) is bad. Black people feeling a collective Black identity is bad. Latinos feeling a collective Latino identity is bad. You get the point. If the sense of national identity is not based on immutable characteristics like heritage (race) there's nothing wrong with it. To the extent that the early colonies were White oriented was an artifact of time and place. It would not be for hundreds of years after the colonies were settled that social evolution de-emphasized physical characteristics as a consideration of "nation".

Nationalism isn’t ever simply being a citizen of said nation. There ARE qualifiers. Cultural, religious, ideological, ethnic, or something else. There is always something else, outside of citizenship. You won’t find ONE country, today nor historically, that is considered Nationalist, where that doesn’t apply. If you can think of one, I’d like to know.
Nationalism hold that the nation in question, is superior. That the American, simply by virtue of being American, is better than any other nationality. As such that brings forth the entitlement of nationality. The idea that since your way is the best way, everyone else should recognize it. If something is beneficial to your nation, but is detrimental to another, the latter need not be considered, because the overall benefit is to your own nation. You guys really have never had it deconstructed to you before? The differences between patriotism and nationalism?

This is only true because most nations were born from heritage. The nations of Europe were of white heritage. The nations of Africa were of Black heritage. The US is unique in that it is a nation of immigrants, mostly white immigrants at first.

On no other nation even close to the scale of the US will you find a people who accepts all heritages as citizens and brothers like the US does. That doesn't mean all do.

The overall point is, nationalism isn't the problem. It is when race is the basis of the identity and not the nation. It's not wrong to feel that our collective identity as Americans is important. THAT's nationalism. I think we get so caught up with the negative connotation of White Nationalism that we think ANY form of nationalism is wrong.

 

[CampingJosh]

I do have a problem with this paragraph. Germany was also evil--ESPECIALLY EVIL--because it was not nationalist on a country level. It was nationalist on a racial/ethnic level. That's the kind of nationalism that's evil.

I have to wonder how much the Nuremberg Trials did to set it in the world's minds that Germany's decision to commit ethnic cleansing was the worst atrocity in history. But it wasn't really an exception; it was the norm.

The nations that carried out those trials (Britain, France, the US, and the USSR) don't exactly have shining histories with regards to ethnic cleansing. Colonies in Africa, India, Australia, and others. The American west (and before). After all, there's not a lot of difference between Hitler's Lebensraum and America's "Manifest Destiny."

I think nationalism has a history of being problematic. At the least, it hasn't often been contained to anything like a healthy self-pride.

 

[Twangbanger]

Wow. Okay, I work in a profession where it's important to define terms, and I just learned my lesson for today. I attempted a stab at "nationalism," not realizing the real word that needed to be defined was simply the word "nation."

-Twang (proud but still-smarting member of "Buckeye Nation"...who went to a school with a map on the wall, and realizes "Buckeye Nation" isn't really a "nation.")

(*you Michigan people are still sub-human mongrels though, so phllllbtttt! )

 

[jamil]

I have to wonder how much the Nuremberg Trials did to set it in the world's minds that Germany's decision to commit ethnic cleansing was the worst atrocity in history. But it wasn't really an exception; it was the norm.

The nations that carried out those trials (Britain, France, the US, and the USSR) don't exactly have shining histories with regards to ethnic cleansing. Colonies in Africa, India, Australia, and others. The American west (and before). After all, there's not a lot of difference between Hitler's Lebensraum and America's "Manifest Destiny."

I think nationalism has a history of being problematic. At the least, it hasn't often been contained to anything like a healthy self-pride.

Nationalism isn't just self pride anyway. If it were, they'd just call it patriotism. Nationalism is a feeling of identity with one's own nation. I don't think it was the problem in any of the examples. I think the problem was/is human nature's interaction with the circumstance of social evolution progressing much faster than physical evolution.

What I mean by that, I think the circuitry is programmed for survival in a much different social environment than the one we've evolved into. Take jealousy, for example. We strive to override it now, because we see it as evil. And it socially harmful in the current environment. It evolved because of some evolutionary advantage. But that advantage is now long gone and exists in an environment quite different from the one that saw it as an advantage.

I think we'd be a lot better off if we looked at humanity for what it is. It's 2021 and we're walking around in social situations with instincts evolved from when they were an advantage. I think it's generally dangerous to suppress our programming when we don't know anything about it. But, social evolution does kinda figure some things out. It's figured out that it's wrong to oppress people because of their heritage.

I think we should just go with that and quit blaming the people from long ago of making the those mistakes as if we would have done anything different were we in their exact shoes. The people who made mistakes before us had the social knowledge of their time, not ours. They didn't know they were mistakes any more than the mistakes we're undoubtedly making today that our future generations will hopefully not castigate us like so many elitists do today. We've socially evolved away from those mistakes. Give ourselves some credit.