Society/Culture So what is so wrong with 'Nationalism'?

[RobbieK]

Yes, yes it has. So you've admitted that the sentiment is different from the actual definition. Good for you.

Fact remains that 'nationalism' by sentiment is not a negative, only by definition is it 'bad' and just because philosophers and scientists have defined it as something different from the sentiment doesn't make it automatically correct.

You are talking incoherently again.

"Nationalism by sentiment" isn't just having pride in your nation, no matter how many times you repeat that you believe it to be. Nationalism was never just a matter of national pride. If someone holds nationalist sentiments it means they hold beliefs about the sovereign rights of their nation state. It is a political ideology, not just a sense of positivity about one's nation.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You are talking incoherently again.

"Nationalism by sentiment" isn't just having pride in your nation, no matter how many times you repeat that you believe it to be. Nationalism was never just a matter of national pride. If someone holds nationalist sentiments it means they hold beliefs about the sovereign rights of their nation state. It is a political ideology, not just a sense of positivity about one's nation.

Ok then it seems we're in agreement that there is actually a difference between the definition and the sentiment. Surely even you could agree that the sentiment (intent) is more important than the definition.

I've never just alluded that 'nationalism' is just about positivity, I'm challenging the negative sentiment not the definition itself.

So I'll ask you, forgetting about the definition, what is so wrong with the sentiment of having pride in ones nation?

 

[RobbieK]

Ok then it seems we're in agreement that there is actually a difference between the definition and the sentiment. Surely even you could agree that the sentiment (intent) is more important than the definition.

I've never just alluded that 'nationalism' is just about positivity, I'm challenging the negative sentiment not the definition itself.

So I'll ask you, forgetting about the definition, what is so wrong with the sentiment of having pride in ones nation?

The sentiment of having pride in ones nation is not the sentiment of nationalism. It just isn't. That's not how nationalism has ever been understood in the development of the concept. You are using words in a way that does not correspond to their accepted meanings, and as a result you are being incoherent and going around in circles.

I have already told you what is wrong with the sentiment of having pride in one's nation. it is irrational.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The sentiment of having pride in ones nation is not the sentiment of nationalism. It just isn't. That's not how nationalism has ever been understood in the development of the concept. You are using words in a way that does not correspond to their accepted meanings, and as a result you are being incoherent and going around in circles.

I have already told you what is wrong with the sentiment of having pride in one's nation. it is irrational.

Only because of the definition.

Seriously, you need to take a step back and stop banging on about it like it's the be all and end all. Life doesn't work that way and your grim defence of 'definition' is clouding your judgement on the actual intent (sentiment) of national pride, like it's a bad thing. It is not a bad thing.

Your summation of 'irrational' comes across as absolute, like there's no middle ground. Pride = bad, dismissal of pride = good, your stubbornness is showing and ultimately is incorrect.

Think we're done here, you've shown no flexibility in your thinking. National pride = bad, sentiment in that = bad.

 

[RobbieK]

Only because of the definition.

Seriously, you need to take a step back and stop banging on about it like it's the be all and end all. Life doesn't work that way and your grim defence of 'definition' is clouding your judgement on the actual intent (sentiment) of national pride, like it's a bad thing. It is not a bad thing.

Your summation of 'irrational' comes across as absolute, like there's no middle ground. Pride = bad, dismissal of pride = good, your stubbornness is showing and ultimately is incorrect.

Think we're done here, you've shown no flexibility in your thinking. National pride = bad, sentiment in that = bad.

So you agree that the "sentiment of nationalism" isn't the same thing as the "sentiment of national pride"... "only because of the definition" of the word nationalism.

Or, in other words, nationalism doesn't mean national pride because that's not what the word means.

You are special.

 

[Seeds]

In the last two decades there's been 'noise' around this apparent evil called 'nationalism'.

In other threads I've skimmed over there seems to be some sort of fear of having pride in the nation you and your descendants were born in.

Why is that? What is this evil in having pride in your nation?

I'm fascinated by those who passionately oppose national pride and would like to know why these types are so averse to national pride, what is this poison to society that is caused by nationalism? Why is it so dangerous?

There are plenty on these boards that have immense pride (that I can gauge by some of the posts) in opposing nationalism.

I think it is more noise than an actual problem, but for those who are vehemently in opposition to having pride in your nation? What is the actual threat of nationalism?

This should make for an interesting debate, and will show us who has pride and who has a problem with it.

Its not last two decades. Its been the case since the 1930s when nationalism led to the greatest human attrocity of all time.

hmm what is the threat of nationalism? Ummm hhmmm its a toughy. Maybe it could be that it leads to dehumanisation of people in other nations that leads to war and genocide. That possibly could be it. Maybe.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Its not last two decades. Its been the case since the 1930s when nationalism led to the greatest human attrocity of all time.

hmm what is the threat of nationalism? Ummm hhmmm its a toughy. Maybe it could be that it leads to dehumanisation of people in other nations that leads to war and genocide. That possibly could be it. Maybe.

Don't know if you've read the thread, but basically I've challenged the definition of the word.

It's pretty obvious that nationalism by it's very definition is of course bad, oddly if you google the definition a similar is patriotism (hence my challenge), patriotism by it's sentiment is certainly not bad.

 

[RobbieK]

Don't know if you've read the thread, but basically I've challenged the definition of the word.

It's pretty obvious that nationalism by it's very definition is of course bad, oddly if you google the definition a similar is patriotism (hence my challenge), patriotism by it's sentiment is certainly not bad.

You haven't challenged the definition of the word. You have just demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to accept the definition of the word. Why that is is beyond me.

Why do you think the word nationalism should mean the same thing as the word patriotism, rather than the distinct and different meaning that it has maintained for a few hundred years?

 

[Carringbush2010]

You haven't challenged the definition of the word. You have just demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to accept the definition of the word. Why that is is beyond me.

Why do you think the word nationalism should mean the same thing as the word patriotism, rather than the distinct and different meaning that it has maintained for a few hundred years?

Hello again mind reader.

Actually you're not, in fact you haven't even comprehended the post you replied to where I stated the reason I saw reason to challenge.

I'm not going to around in circles with you Robbie, you're completely rigid in your thinking.

Challenge definition because it mentions patriotism as similar in your book = inability or unwillingness to accept. With no thought of actually discussing it, you just immediately dismiss the notion because you don't like it, it displays your complete narrow mindedness.

On ignore you go.

 

[RobbieK]

Hello again mind reader.

Actually you're not, in fact you haven't even comprehended the post you replied to where I stated the reason I saw reason to challenge.

I'm not going to around in circles with you Robbie, you're completely rigid in your thinking.

Challenge definition because it mentions patriotism as similar in your book = inability or unwillingness to accept. With no thought of actually discussing it, you just immediately dismiss the notion because you don't like it, it displays your complete narrow mindedness.

On ignore you go.

I'm not a mind reader. That would require something to be read.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

In the last two decades there's been 'noise' around this apparent evil called 'nationalism'.

In other threads I've skimmed over there seems to be some sort of fear of having pride in the nation you and your descendants were born in.

Why is that? What is this evil in having pride in your nation?

I'm fascinated by those who passionately oppose national pride and would like to know why these types are so averse to national pride, what is this poison to society that is caused by nationalism? Why is it so dangerous?

There are plenty on these boards that have immense pride (that I can gauge by some of the posts) in opposing nationalism.

I think it is more noise than an actual problem, but for those who are vehemently in opposition to having pride in your nation? What is the actual threat of nationalism?

This should make for an interesting debate, and will show us who has pride and who has a problem with it.

Consider some of the difficulties created by Chinese nationalism. It's not just "national pride" - it's the idea that China has some claim or inalienable influence in the region that is at odds with international law and even the sovereignty of other countries.

For example, Beijing insists it has a historical claim to a vast swathe of the South China Sea, which it delineates with a "nine-dash line", marking out the parts of the sea it claims as China's.

A bunch of other countries in the region have competing and overlapping claims to the South China Sea but China doesn't care. The United Nations ruled on this dispute between China and the Philippines, rejecting China's claims. But China doesn't care. That's nationalism.

So do you want a system where every country just decides for themselves what rules they want to follow and the bigger countries can invariably throw their weight around and impose themselves on smaller countries? Or do you want some kind of international order where the objectives of individual nations are subject to a broader framework that everyone has agreed?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Consider some of the difficulties created by Chinese nationalism. It's not just "national pride" - it's the idea that China has some claim or inalienable influence in the region that is at odds with international law and even the sovereignty of other countries.

For example, Beijing insists it has a historical claim to a vast swathe of the South China Sea, which it delineates with a "nine-dash line", marking out the parts of the sea it claims as China's.

A bunch of other countries in the region have competing and overlapping claims to the South China Sea but China doesn't care. The United Nations ruled on this dispute between China and the Philippines, rejecting China's claims. But China doesn't care. That's nationalism.

So do you want a system where every country just decides for themselves what rules they want to follow and the bigger countries can invariably throw their weight around and impose themselves on smaller countries? Or do you want some kind of international order where the objectives of individual nations are subject to a broader framework that everyone has agreed?

I'm not sure if you've read the thread, but in summation I've challenged the definition of the word because it is viewed as similar to patriotism (which by and large is not viewed negatively) going by a google search.



It's pretty obvious by it's very definition nationalism is bad, a very good example you've provided here. Not disputing that what China is doing is bad but I wouldn't call that patriotism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not sure if you've read the thread, but in summation I've challenged the definition of the word because it is viewed as similar to patriotism (which by and large is not viewed negatively) going by a google search.

I'm not sure how you "challenge the definition of a word".

If you are talking about nationalism in geopolitical terms then it is regarded as a counterpoint to globalism. It leads governments to shun multilateralism and international institutions. It's in that context that criticisms of nationalism arise. It doesn't mean that you simply have a good feeling about your country.

It's pretty obvious by it's very definition nationalism is bad, a very good example you've provided here. Not disputing that what China is doing is bad but I wouldn't call that patriotism.

It's nationalism, and you should assume that this aspect of Chinese foreign policy is driven in part by appeals to patriotism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not sure how you "challenge the definition of a word".

If you are talking about nationalism in geopolitical terms then it is regarded as a counterpoint to globalism. It leads governments to shun multilateralism and international institutions. It's in that context that criticisms of nationalism arise. It doesn't mean that you simply have a good feeling about your country.

It's nationalism, and you should assume that this aspect of Chinese foreign policy is driven in part by appeals to patriotism.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I've asked this many times in this thread with no real answer.

So what is so wrong with the sentiment of having pride in nation? Emphasis on the sentiment, patriotism is largely viewed as sentimental right? So therefore I find it conflicting that nationalism which by the definition which I pasted is similar to patriotism yet patriotism is not viewed as negative.

I know this may come across as over analytical, and maybe it is, still there is inconsistence between the two yet described as 'similar' if you look up the definition of nationalism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So what is so wrong with the sentiment of having pride in nation? Emphasis on the sentiment, patriotism is largely viewed as sentimental right? So therefore I find it conflicting that nationalism which by the definition which I pasted is similar to patriotism yet patriotism is not viewed as negative.

You are talking about patriotism, which is more benign than nationalism and has no real meaning in geopolitical terms, provided it doesn't manifest in destructive ways.

Your question may instead be "what's wrong with patriotism?"

 

[Carringbush2010]

You are talking about patriotism, which is more benign than nationalism and has no real meaning in geopolitical terms, provided it doesn't manifest in destructive ways.

Your question may instead be "what's wrong with patriotism?"

Well then If I posted a thread about 'what is wrong with patriotism'? Then I doubt It would go past half a dozen posts. Same if I went with 'what is wrong with the sentiment of having pride in nation'?

The idea is to point out the inconsistence of the definition vs 'similar' to patriotism which has virtually zero opposition.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well then If I posted a thread about 'what is wrong with patriotism'? Then I doubt It would go past half a dozen posts. Same if I went with 'what is wrong with the sentiment of having pride in nation'?

It would better reflect your actual question.

The idea is to point out the inconsistence of the definition vs 'similar' to patriotism which has virtually zero opposition.

Nationalism has specific implications in geopolitical terms. You are asking a question but then ignoring those implications.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It would better reflect your actual question.

Nationalism has specific implications in geopolitical terms. You are asking a question but then ignoring those implications.

Like I said I don't disagree with that and like I said I'm probably being a little over analytical. Point remains I find it inconsistent that the definition finds patriotism as a similar when patriotism is virtually nothing to see here.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Like I said I don't disagree with that and like I said I'm probably being a little over analytical.

You're using a word with specific implications but asking people to interpret it to mean something else, without those implications.

Point remains I find it inconsistent that the definition finds patriotism as a similar when patriotism is virtually nothing to see here.

Because nationalism has specific implications in discussing geopolitics. There's no inconsistency.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You're using a word with specific implications but asking people to interpret it to mean something else, without those implications.

Because nationalism has specific implications in discussing geopolitics. There's no inconsistency.

Like I said I don't disagree nationalism is bad by it's very definition, however it seems difficult to get ones head around that there is an inconsistency in the definition of terms when you put look at the sentiment.

Park the thought of geopolitical for a minute.

Surely if patriotism is not viewed as bad then why is it a similar in the definition?

Here is something to ponder:

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Like I said I don't disagree nationalism is bad by it's very definition, however it seems difficult to get ones head around that there is an inconsistency in the definition of terms when you put look at the sentiment.

The word simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's not an inconsistency.

Park the thought of geopolitical for a minute.

That's where the criticism of nationalism arises. That is the answer to your question.

Ask a different question if that's what you want people to answer.

Surely if patriotism is not viewed as bad then why is it a similar in the definition?

Here is something to ponder:

View attachment 989163View attachment 989164

Your questions are ridiculous.

What's wrong with nationalism, excluding the specific reasons it's bad?

 

[RobbieK]

Welcome to "So what is wrong with nationalism?", the thread where an adult human being struggles to come to terms with why two different words with different meanings have "inconsistent definitions" and can't be used interchangeably.

Challengers from a variety of nations have appeared, attempting to enlighten our hapless hero, but all have failed in their task, succumbing to his circular reasoning and unintelligible syntax.

Will a new challenger appear? Will our protagonist ever overcome this inexplicably crippling confusion?

To find out hit "subscribe to thread" and stay tuned to:

SO

WHAT

IS

WRONG

WITH

NATIONALISM?

 

[Toump Ass]

What is this evil in having pride in your nation?

I don't think it's necessarily evil, but it is pretty ******* stupid.

Congratulations on falling out of your mother's vagina where you did, that's great, *in' ANZAC SPIRIT
"THROW ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE!!! AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!! OI OI OI!!!"

 

[Toump Ass]

(also what constitutes "national pride" is usually just the ugly part of an identity with what actually makes a nation great wholly removed).

Ask your average "True Blue Aussie" what makes our nation great and you'll get an incoherent soup of marketing slogans, empty platitudes and tired catchphrases.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think it's necessarily evil, but it is pretty ******* stupid.

Congratulations on falling out of your mother's vagina where you did, that's great, fu**in' ANZAC SPIRIT
"THROW ANOTHER SHRIMP ON THE BARBIE!!! AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!! OI OI OI!!!"

lol, no need to get emotional.