|
Pochoclo posted:Never in my entire life has anyone ever given me one good loving reason why you should love your country. Loving your flag is such a ridiculous loving concept that I'm not even going to engage it - the fact that human beings are capable of such a sentiment is a terrible thing all in itself. But seriously, love your country? Basically it's loving a government, because people come and go - humans are migratory in nature, history is full of invasions and counter-invasions. Countries amount to nothing but government apparatus, and seriously, you love that poo poo? Are you loving stupid? Are you actually arguing here that nationalism is bad, or that nationalism is incomprehensible? 'Countries are just administrative entities' is just flat out wrong though. Countries are a shared belief. In an ideal form, there's a shared history, a shared system of values, shared laws deriving from that, shared culture, shared education system. When people say they love being British they are identifying a loyalty to their interpretation of any number of those things. Being British means not just traditional forms of 'loving Britain', but that you can obsess over Doctor Who, you can ridicule cricket, you can moan about Brexit, you can post in the UKMT thread and give a poo poo about it. And as society indoctrinating the abstract concept of 'doing best for Britain' has, alas, become pretty much the only check on the abusive behaviour of the rich and powerful. Witness the anger at the use of tax havens - that derives from the belief that countries are just administrative entities running head on into the widespread belief they are *not*. "Because people come and go - humans are migratory in nature, history is full of invasions and counter-invasions" is hilariously priviledged. Most people do not - cannot leave the city they grew up in, let alone the country. And that "the world has become a global arena for corporations (incarnations of collective greed)" is something that increases the relevance of opposing sources of power. I'd rather the world be run by the principle of citizen-representing governments, than by the principle of customer-exploiting corporations. Of course, I'd like even more for there to be international institutions with real power that operate according to something other than greed, but you don't always get what you want. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Feb 16, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
So if loving Britain isn't racist, what about despising this worthless country? Is that ok?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
It's ok but unhelpful. Much like "hope is a lie" it's basically seditious nonsense that just makes people want to give up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:We all know that the only bad nationalism is the inclusive multicultural Scottish variant, and all forms of English or British imperial revanchism are good and proper. No, we know that all forms of nationalism are poison and the only redeeming feature of Scottish nationalism is that right now it'll kill you more slowly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/832016867246104577 It has a certain ring to it
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
marktheando posted:So if loving Britain isn't racist, what about despising this worthless country? Is that ok? Giving a poo poo at all about this small and stupid island means, to at least some extent, buying into the idea of the British nation state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
TheRat posted:https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/832016867246104577 A strong contender for next months subtitle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Yes, that would be morally wrong. At least, if your decision was based on who you were related to (not on who you had the most chance of saving, or just tossing a coin, and the answer was your relative). It is not incorrect in either case. People can't be expected to feel less of a duty, or exactly the same duty, toward the welfare of friends and loved ones as they do toward strangers. You might say that they can, but it has nothing to do with real people or the real world. Loving someone gives you a motive to prioritize them above others. A perfectly valid motive. If people can't be expected to do this, and "ought" implies "can," then it is wrong to say that they ought to do it. Your kind of thinking annihilates ethics and morality. There cannot be impossible duties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:post in the UKMT thread and give a poo poo about it. This is stupid, unless your'e not allowed to complain about administrative entities. I have no particular attachment to my council but I'll still complain about it when they do something stupid. Fangz posted:And as society indoctrinating the abstract concept of 'doing best for Britain' has, alas, become pretty much the only check on the abusive behaviour of the rich and powerful. Witness the anger at the use of tax havens - that derives from the belief that countries are just administrative entities running head on into the widespread belief they are *not*. The concept of "doing the best for Britain" is completely meaningless and if it did anything to check the behaviour of the rich we'd be communist by now. And people's anger at tax havens has to do with economic injustice, not patriotism. smash the state
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:We all know that the only bad nationalism is the inclusive multicultural Scottish variant, and all forms of English or British imperial revanchism are good and proper. will you ever post anything that isn't the SNP party line
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Yes, that would be morally wrong. At least, if your decision was based on who you were related to (not on who you had the most chance of saving, or just tossing a coin, and the answer was your relative). I think we can all agree that extreme versions like 'I'd rather 1000 brown people die than one brit' is horrible and insane, but come on, you really place no premium on familiarity at all? Why are you even posting in the UKMT thread, because whatever happens in Britain is gonna be only a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket of the sum total of human misery?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Paxman posted:You shouldn't put your life or your family's life ahead of the lives of other people. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Giving a poo poo at all about this small and stupid island means, to at least some extent, buying into the idea of the British nation state. Recognising that States exist and being a nationalist are the same thing now
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
cargohills posted:Recognising that States exist and being a nationalist are the same thing now One thing is the more extreme form of the other is what I am saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
TheRat posted:https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/832016867246104577 that whole exchange is really dumb 
Looke fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Have you actually read the post you quoted? Because I said quite clearly that feelings of tribalism with human beings you know is something I understand and yes, a part of human nature, but a) it's not the best part - it's responsible for a lot of bad poo poo, and b) "loving your country" is not tribalism with humans you know - countries are a goddamn fiction because there's absolutely nothing linking you to all those million people you'll never ever loving know in your life. I've read a lot of history and travelled the world extensively, and spent years living overseas in places radically different from where I'm from pochoclo, why do you ask? Maybe you don't feel like there is anything linking you to your country, but in my experience this is a large deviation from the norm, and not the way most people see things. If a country is not also a "unit of culture" then why are the Chinese the way they are? Or First Nations/ Native Americans? Explain to me how you propose to divorce "Japanese culture" from the nation of Japan. The Chinese consider themselves to be one big family, all Chinese together in "我们中国." Explain to me why you think they are all so stupid. Maybe all these other countries and cultures are just not as smart as you or whatever, and that's why they don't all see it your way, but I have my sincere doubts. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Fangz posted:One thing is the more extreme form of the other is what I am saying. One is just existing in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
It's immoral to use private education or healthcare, they should both be illegal. And yes, I definitely think less of Abbott and more of Corbyn for the choices they made for their own children.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Looke posted:that whole exchange is really dumb 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
cargohills posted:This is stupid, unless your'e not allowed to complain about administrative entities. I have no particular attachment to my council but I'll still complain about it when they do something stupid. It's still *your council*. People complain about the british government when much of what it does has basically no effect on themselves. That means they fundamentally identify with the people this affects, or the perpetrators, more than the hundreds of other countries they don't care about. quote:The concept of "doing the best for Britain" is completely meaningless and if it did anything to check the behaviour of the rich we'd be communist by now. And people's anger at tax havens has to do with economic injustice, not patriotism. Is there no intermediate state in your mind between 'completely meaningless' and 'totally powerful leading to communism'? Some level of trust and loyalty in society beyond what the law demands or what you can get away with is actually really necessary to the functioning of a democratic society, as the behaviour of Trump demonstrates. People's anger at tax havens is at least partially about patriotism. If it was pure economic justice, we wouldn't be demanding 'british' rich pay british taxes. We'd be demanding they pay their taxes to somalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Honestly curious, how many people here see themselves as British? As in, actually subscribe to 'British Values' as a whole and reject their national identities to accomodate this self-perception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The Chinese consider themselves to be one big family, all Chinese together in "我们中国." Explain to me why you think they are all so stupid. Much like '英国人的价值观'. In theory you can have a state that agrees on the provision of vital services without steamrollering everyone else into the majority/hierarchy culture, it practice it often doesn't seem to work that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
how many ukippers are there
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Also sending your kid to be indoctrinated into being a posh bastard and used as a human toast rack by some aristocratic bully should be considered child cruelty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Saith posted:Honestly curious, how many people here see themselves as British? As in, actually subscribe to 'British Values' as a whole and reject their national identities to accomodate this self-perception. I'm doubting a lot of people here consider themselves 'english'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Because that often works out as Han supremacy and the suppression of marginalized groups. That would make them bad though, not stupid, wouldn't it? He said they were stupid, i.e., not intelligent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'm doubting a lot of people here consider themselves 'english'. Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Saith posted:Why? Because identifying as English as opposed to British is a distinction that declares you hold certain values that most people posting here don't hold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I'd consider myself instinctively 'british'. People who bang on about being uniquely English or Scottish seem to be UKIP/SNP types
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/832204095658266628 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/832204918123536384
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
To simplify a lot, things regarded as British: BBC NHS Great British Bake Off Things regarded as English: English Defense League Tories English football team
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
I'm English, British, and European.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:32
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
Not a citizen of the world? :p
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
I'm ukosian
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
I'm one of those kooky World Citizen types. Mostly because the white British treated my Asian rear end like poo poo and I have no feeling of attachment to the place now beyond a few close friends, the NHS being good and the place where I grew up having some nice countryside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Saith posted:Honestly curious, how many people here see themselves as British? As in, actually subscribe to 'British Values' as a whole and reject their national identities to accomodate this self-perception. I see myself as British, I've lived most of my life in either England or Scotland. It's not something I particularly think about often, it's just what I am. But then the reason that Brexit was so soul crushing was how clearly it showed that my values were out of sync with the majority of the population so maybe I do place more importance on it than I thought. I know plenty of people who consider themselves Scottish over British and they're not all nationalistic - Scottish is just what they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It is not incorrect in either case. People who think about ethics and morality have generally tended to accept that human beings tend not to act in a moral or ethical way. It's not a strange argument that destroys morality, it's often the starting point for a debate about morality. If we could see what was moral simply by looking at how people actually behave already, there wouldn't be thousands of years of debate about it. So for example, you might say that to see what a moral or just or ethical society should look like, you have to imagine what an impartial observer would think was just. Or, a variation on the theme, you might imagine a person who knows that they will be part of a society but does not know what their place will be - who does not know "his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like" - and ask what they would consider to be a just society (the approach taken by John Rawls). Now, you may think these are dumb ideas but they're certainly not ideas that destroys morality or ethics. They're ideas people who think about morality and ethics have found extremely useful. What does this mean for your example of a person who sees two people drowning, one of whom is a relative, and can only save one? It means that we cannot expect moral behaviour in that situation. They would probably save their relative - you would do that, I would do that - and this is why I said "we might understand and forgive someone who did that in an extreme situation, but their behaviour would still be morally wrong." But the fact that many of us would behave in an immoral way when given the chance to prioritise our family over other people doesn't somehow destroy morality. It just means that the way to get a moral outcome is to avoid giving people a chance to prioritise their family over other people. And I think this is actually an idea that we tend to accept. We don't think a doctor should be able to ensure their relative gets treatment first. We would call that a "conflict of interest", and demand that someone else - an impartial person - make the decision instead. We wouldn't blame a doctor for putting their relative first, as that would indeed be "only human". But we wouldn't think it was moral behaviour, which is why we'd try to prevent it happening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:'Even' Diane Abbott? Is she meant to be the Gold Standard now? a core member of the inner circle of the left wing leadership of the country's major left of centre party. close ally of Corbyn for decades. I don't know what the gold standard should be. but if Abbott doesn't pass I don't expect very many will. marktheando posted:It's immoral to use private education or healthcare, they should both be illegal. it is immoral to own private automobiles too. more harmful to society through pollution, road deaths, etc. and also a marker of relative wealth. (excepting those in rural areas obviously)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think we can all agree that extreme versions like 'I'd rather 1000 brown people die than one brit' is horrible and insane, but come on, you really place no premium on familiarity at all? Why are you even posting in the UKMT thread, because whatever happens in Britain is gonna be only a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket of the sum total of human misery? I often behave in an immoral way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Paxman posted:People who think about ethics and morality have generally tended to accept that human beings tend not to act in a moral or ethical way. It's not a strange argument that destroys morality, it's often the starting point for a debate about morality. I think "People who think about ethics and morality" have pretty much abandoned the concept that there's a single universally held moral system that is demonstrably the best. Not everyone is a strict utilitarian - in fact very few people are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:49
|
|