Nationalism Thread

Flags are for flag boards

>>1844601
America is, according to the definition of nation, not a nation. You're a "melting pot". If you honestly believe your 63% constitutes a nation you're retarded.

>>1844601
>/his/ - History & Humanities

>history

>humanities
???


>>>/int/

File: gv39JjO.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>nationalism
>loving your country

>>1844601
There's a difference between patriotism and nationalism, and there's a difference between all the different subtypes of nationalism too. Some are dangerous. Some are just being proud of your heritage and others are xenophobic. Can't just call nationalism in general a bad thing.

>>1844610
America is clearly a nation, in that is a group of people (Americans) who share a distinct culture and feel themselves to be a distinct group deserving their own state. Not everyone in the United States is a member of that nation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>>1844610
It's not a nation state you mean. There probably is a group of wihte, urban, English speaking Americans that constitute some form of a nation. It's a shitty nation without a proper culture but still a nation.

>>1844618

Why not?

>>1844723
I prefer not to be owned by things that don't actually exist.

>>1844719
What's a "proper culture?"

>>1844610
We're a salad bowl, not a melting pot. Based Civic Nationalism. Singapore, Taiwan, and Brazil do it too

>>1844730

1) How do you determine what is real
2) Why does is matter if it's "not real"?

>>1844735
>Based Civic Nationalism
I'm only used to this term being used satirically on Brit/pol/.

>>1844746
1) Not that guy, but anything that doesn't have some sort of physical existence as either matter or energy is not real.

2) It doesn't.

>>1844782

>Not that guy, but anything that doesn't have some sort of physical existence as either matter or energy is not real.

[citation needed]

>>1844812
It's called not being a crazy person.

>>1844757
Holy fuck the hair on the first paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism

>>1844817

You sound like the crazy one, m8

>>1844601

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Backing_Britain

Nationalism is a dead cause. 21st century people are out for #1 and no one else.

>>1844827
Good comeback. Did you have to call your mom for help coming up with it?

>>1844831

Thanks!

File: f1a46a47c8a7d38f37f9df51eefbac19c28e83bc.jpg (16KB, 331x334px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 331x334px

HAHA NICE SPOOKS NERD

>>1844610
>nation includes a community tied together by cultural and linguistic ties
>America fits that description to a T
>therefor America is not a nation despite fitting the textbook definition of a nation because Europoor says
Ethnic nations aren't the only kind of nations, Hans.

>>1844601
Janitors are sleep, post things that make your American blood boil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v582kPp43Mg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJuWszf4g_s

THE UNION FOREVER, HURRAH BOYS HURRAH!

DOWN WITH THE TRAITORS AND UP WITH THE STARS!

AS WE RALLY 'ROUND THE FLAG, BOYS WE'LL RALLY ONCE AGAIN

SHOUTING THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM!

>>1845207
THEY LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES ON A BLOODY BATTLEFIELD
SHOUT SHOUT THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM
OUR MOTTO IS RESISTANCE, TO TYRANTS WE'LL NOT YIELD
SHOUT SHOUT THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM

OUR DIXIE FOREVER
SHE'S NEVER AT A LOSS
DOWN WITH THE EAGLE
AND UP WITH THE CROSS
WE WILL RALLY ROUND THE BONNIE FLAG
WE'LL RALLY ONCE AGAIN
SHOUT SHOUT THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM

>>1844618
Rationality is effective self interest
Pride is effective collective interest

Those who know neither pride, nor rationality, cannot be considered effective or respectable. Valuing and developing one more than the other is, of course, a matter of perspective. Having none is a sign of unformed comprehension skills.

>>1845221
>rationality
>pride
>considered
>effective
>respectable

O i am laffin'

I kid, but seriously, true self-interest would involve being willing to abandon either pride or rationality as it suited. The former for instance when your survival depended on it, or the latter when you reached that line in the sand that you simply won't cross, no matter how rational it is to do so.

Self-interest in the context of Stirner's work isn't really like the "must get ahead at any cost" sort of self-interest; it's more about being cognizant of what you want and why you want to do it, which could even include some things that aren't on the surface egoistic.

>>1844618
>implying spooks are bad

>>1845283
To gauge your self interests and the optimal actions to improve them you would require rationality and logic.
Even if a context of survival required less cognition and instead an active autonomic reaction having the reasoning to mediate those two states would still me considered rational.
You're talking some pretty thoughts, but ultimately rationality is the peak individuality.

Regardless of the perscribed end goal or individuality rationality is still the prime force in achieving it. Spooks are, in Stirner's warrants and premise, irrational. To intentionally and consistently address them will OF COURSE require a rational approach.

Pride's role is, naturally, another kettle of fish.

>>1844612

are political sciences not humanities anymore

>>1845296
>Spooks are, in Stirner's warrants and premise, irrational.

Indeed, but he's pretty explicit in that rationality itself can become a spook. If one were to be truly self-owned, it likewise would have to be just another ideological tool you'd have to be prepared to discard if it no longer suited you.

>>1844601

>Nationalism
>Posts a British born Canadian citizen who was paid to wrap herself in a US flag

lol

>>1845301
I haven't read this explicit opinion. Care to point me to his anti-rationality opinions, or give me a tl;dr?

Honestly it sounds very stupid. Rationality, like logic, like science, like mathematics, like theology is simply a tool of obtaining and processing information. Naturally due to the unique nature of these processes certain ideologies will become attached or attracted to certain ways of thinking. In reality however it is quite simply to divorce the dogma from the data. It's whether people are willing to or not that is the issue.

While I can see why he suggests distancing yourself from processes that tie you to superfluous ideology his conflation of the two and implied inability to divorce them doesn't say great things about his perspective, 2bh.