Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

All you people better properly define what each of you means by nationalism before you spend the next ten pages talking past one another.

Coming up on Page 2 of this now.

[McTraveller]

I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.

IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves, communities being based on groupings of people that actually interact or whose behaviors have material consequences for each other.  And it should be recognized that communities are fluid things, and no one person belongs exclusively to a single one.  And people should be able to move/associate freely with one another.

But I'm an anarchist.

What name would you give to those "communities that govern themselves"?  History has given these the name "state"... what am I missing?

[SalmonGod]

I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.

IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves, communities being based on groupings of people that actually interact or whose behaviors have material consequences for each other.  And it should be recognized that communities are fluid things, and no one person belongs exclusively to a single one.  And people should be able to move/associate freely with one another.

But I'm an anarchist.

What name would you give to those "communities that govern themselves"?  History has given these the name "state"... what am I missing?

That I think states as they exist today are much larger entities than makes sense in terms of community according to the description I gave.  And that any individual person is a part of multiple communities, but a state superimposes over all of them.  And states are not fluid.  They do not allow free movement and association.  They demand the adoption of an identity based on accident of birth and if you don't feel that then too bad for you, you're stuck with it unless you're rich.

[WealthyRadish]

I think a critical disconnect here is that nationalists, patriots, or whatever else they call themselves will claim that this "community" applies to millions of imagined people they actually have no connection with (beyond ordinary impersonal engagement with society as currently organized), going so far as to imagine a direct connection with a simplified version of history that in reality varied wildly between generations (e.g. few people think about the year 1340 as being composed of very different people from 1370, let alone 1500 BC and 2000 BC, it all gets retroactively homogenized to fit a preconceived continuity).

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.

[McTraveller]

I guess it's a matter of scale - in the US you are very free to move between the States.  But yes you are still under the "US" federal jurisdiction.  How do you get out from under the jurisdiction of things like CO2 emissions, which "materially impact" the entire globe?  That is to say, what practically (in an everyday sense of the word) would be different from what we have now in terms of freedom (fully recognize this depends on highly on existing location - some places will change much more than others)?

As a devil's advocate, surely you don't mean something like "I am physically in this geographical area but I want to be held to the rules and norms of this other geographical area even though they conflict with the local ones"?

EDIT: From my post history, you will see that I agree with you that "jurisdictions" should be much smaller than they are today. Something far less than 100M people per "governed unit".  Our megacountries today just try to lump too many different views under one rule which starts to cause division instead of unity.

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.

[scriver]

Similarly, the existence of Indian territory in the US and Canada is a concession to native American/Indian/First Nation nationalism.

The what now? 

Are those a thing we still believe actually exist in any meaningful respect?

They exist in a more meaningful respect than if they didn't exist at all. Of course, I'd rather see the entirety of the Americas ceded back to the peoples that has ur-claim on them, or at least that the nations were given status as sovereign states, but that's me.

I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.

IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves

That's a state

I think a critical disconnect here is that nationalists, patriots, or whatever else they call themselves will claim that this "community" applies to millions of imagined people they actually have no connection with (beyond ordinary impersonal engagement with society as currently organized), going so far as to imagine a direct connection with a simplified version of history that in reality varied wildly between generations (e.g. few people think about the year 1340 as being composed of very different people from 1370, let alone 1500 BC and 2000 BC, it all gets retroactively homogenized to fit a preconceived continuity).

On the contrary, there is only one stronger connection than the bond of shared history, culture, language, customs and rights, and that is the familial one. The idea that the national bond is false or imaginary is the idea of people who must have very limited experience of what it's like to be in a place where your nation is not a foreignity.

All you people better properly define what each of you means by nationalism before you spend the next ten pages talking past one another.

Coming up on Page 2 of this now.

True, but I at l did make an effort to bring up my thoughts in relation to the double definitions of the word.

I mean sitting here in the states, I would be totally fine having the government over in Denmark making federal level decisions right now.

Strictly speaking between the way the senate and electoral college works the US literally has the vast majority of the population in a handful of states being forced to accept the stupid fucking whims and bullshit of entirely different parts of the country.

What the fuck does Wyoming or Kansas or Arizona have in common with California, New York, Florida, or Texas?

I read an idea last night which I'm fucking pissed off because I've never heard it seriously discussed if at all before, despite people talking about things like packing the supreme court, trying to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college, and whatnot.

We need to make sure we keep the House, get dumpfuck out of office, and get a bare majority in the Senate at least so we can use the constitutionally granted powers of congress to divide a couple of states.

It can only be done with consent of said state, but oh look at that, California and New York just happen to be two such states which are massively underrepresented currently, while just something basic like a North and South California plus New York and Long Island would add 4 democratic senators and I have no idea how the reapportionment of house seats would go, though it would also tilt the electoral college, as would giving D.C. proper statehood.

Naturally republicans would scream and bitch and claim it is wrong to do something like add states for political gain... though damn near every single state joined the union as just such a political calculation, and any sort of arguments that we should continue to allow further disastrous republican minority rule can straight up get fucked.

I remember when Owlbread was still around here there was much fun discussion about how to divide the US up further, but that was a long time ago now

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.

[Cthulhu]

Circling back to the NASCAR story, the noose was apparently tied some time last year, before Bubba Wallace was in there, and was apparently used as a pull rope.

That being said, a picture has been released and it is 100% a noose.  And no other pull ropes have been found at any of the other tracks or garages tied like that, and people of unknown provenance are saying it makes no sense to use that knot for a pull rope.  So we don't know who tied it or why but the fact remains that it was in fact a noose.  Guessing somebody did it as a joke and it's only coming up now that Bubba Wallace has the garage. 

[scriver]

Yup, that's a noose.

[hector13]

So that is quite clearly a noose.

Like, I have next to no interest in motor sports, but... surely there are much, much easier knots to tie in order to loop around something to open a garage door?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

NASCAR reviewed all their thousand or so garages, and found 11 with knots and none tied like that.

[Lord Shonus]

It is pretty much impossible to be targeted, as you don't know that long in advance who is going to be assigned which garage. This is almost certainly one mechanic with a bizarre and unfortunate sense of humor (I've seen people do similarly strange things on job sites), that happened to blow up big time.

[Max™]

I mean, the only thing to really get bothered by here is that it had been there that long and nobody even thought to say something about it or change the knot?