Pissflaps posted:

What is the difference between a state and a nation?

learnincurve posted:

You are utterly and completely missing the point. It's the initial cost of buying those bulbs that's the issue here, that's not anactotal evidence that's the cost of bulbs vs how much people receive in benefits. Yes energy saving bulbs do blow in houses with dodgy electrics. My old house had what can only be discribed as a catastrophic electrics failure and it went from bulbs blowing once a year to bulbs blowing once a month or when certain electrical sockets were used. The only difference with led vs normal bulbs was that a normal bulb went plink and a led bulb often exploded. It's why I sold the house. A dodgy landlord wouldn't have given a flying fig.

There are plenty of people who go two weeks between bin collections quite happily, those people are not poor people. It's the Sam Vimes theory again, if you can only afford cheap stuff then that cheap stuff is going to break. Where does it go if the bin is jump on top of it full all the time? How do you go once or twice a year to the tip with all your accumulated broken stuff if you don't have a car?

A lot of people think that they have lived the life of a poor just because they have been to Uni, where they are wrong is that if you are at Uni then most people have a safety net of being able to go home to their parents and get a good meal or their clothes washed. They have no idea what grinding inescapable poverty feels like. I've been there, Jesus Christ, try rooting around the sofa for coppers so you can hopefully buy a loaf of economy bread because you have literally nothing in the cupboards and don't get paid for two days, then tell me it's fair to make the poor choose between food and loving light bulbs.

Pissflaps posted:

What is the difference between a state and a nation?

quote:

nation‐state

Literally, a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation. A mythical and intellectual construct with a highly persuasive and powerful political force. It is the primary unit in the study of international relations. Yet although it has a specific meaning it is also a highly abused political term, especially when too readily applied to the ‘real’ world. Its meaning is found in the coincidence of its two parent terms, ‘state’ and ‘nation’. ‘State’ refers to the political organization that displays sovereignty both within geographic borders and in relation to other sovereign entities. A world of nation‐states implies an international system of pure sovereign entities, relating to each other legally as equals. ‘Nation’ refers rather to the population within, sharing a common culture, language, and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity. This manifests itself in most members in a sentiment of collective, communal identity. When the two concepts, ‘nation’ and ‘state’ are combined, this creates an enormously compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites.

Unfortunately, there does not exist, has never existed, a nation‐state in the perfect sense. Nevertheless, it has commanded a strong following, as governments have endeavoured to attain the legitimacy and political stability it brings. It was used most effectively in the nation‐building of the nineteenth century, and has been the target more recently of many Third World governments hoping to build nations in support of their states as part of their socio‐economic development. A common strategy of elites in building a sense of internal cohesiveness is in creating strong enemy images from outside or within the society. It is often this feature that causes dynamic instability for nation‐states in the world system.

The later part of the twentieth century witnessed a decline in the power of the ‘nation‐states’, as other bodies gained power in international relations, bodies such as large multinational corporations, international organizations, and other collectivities. The rise of supranationalism, most clearly in the European Union, could well make the simple model of single‐level sovereignty implied by the nation‐state even more irrelevant. So could the problem of extranational minorities (such as Germans outside Germany, and Hungarians outside Hungary). For comparison, see also nationalism.

Baron Corbyn posted:

A nation is a group of people inhabiting a territory united by a common culture, history and/or language.

A state is a political unit.

vodkat posted:

To quote the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

Pochoclo posted:

Hi, I realise this is anecdote, but my family was poor as gently caress in the third world and there were a drat lot of "choose between food and x" decisions made daily and my parents still bought low-consumption bulbs (the gas-filled ones) when they came out, replacing the old incandescent ones over a period of time (not all at once - starting with the bulb that was used the most), because they had a brain and thought "hmmm if we reduce the power bill then we'll be a tiny bit less tight in the future". They did this kind of thing (fixing broken stuff also) when money came in from some gig my father could do. There were no benefits for the unemployed, of any sort, in that time, in that country. My father was too old for the job market. We had to beg from small neighbourhood grocers, and walk miles to get the best prices from different supermarkets in different goods, hunting offers. My diet was mostly potato/pasta/rice based for long stretches of time. Yes, I have a very good idea of what "grinding inescapable poverty" feels like, thanks.

Please don't underestimate the poor, many of them have brains and are capable of doing compromises, and can get creatively thrifty as gently caress

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

Does this increase blood flow? Shes always drinking no sugar lemonade due to her diabetes

Pissflaps posted:

You've provided the definite of 'nation state'.

Neither California nor Scotland are a nation state.

vodkat posted:

jesus loving christ pissflaps! I tried to find a, simple, concise entry, from a source you couldn't possibly find issue with, and I even highlighted the important sentences for you!

At this point you are either being willfully obtuse or lack basic reading comprehension.

vodkat posted:

you are either being willfully obtuse

vodkat posted:

jesus loving christ pissflaps! I tried to find a, simple, concise entry, from a source you couldn't possibly find issue with, and I even highlighted the important sentences for you!

At this point you are either being willfully obtuse or lack basic reading comprehension.

Namtab posted:

I'm going to make the broad point that maybe some water or squash may be good for her

Dabir posted:

This explains your pizza opinions.

Cerebral Bore posted:

My money's on Pissflaps actually being illiterate. It would provide a most elegant solution, which I'm fond of as a mathematician.

Pissflaps posted:

I think you're way past the point of being able to make a successful argument that Scotland could declare UDI and have it taken seriously by the international community.

Namtab posted:

Scotland could do UDI, but I suspect it would not end well for scotland

Kegluneq posted:

This is great, if only for the 'bosses'.

Pesky Splinter posted:

forkboy84 posted:

Nothing will end well for Scotland. Such is our history.

learnincurve posted:

You are utterly and completely missing the point. It's the initial cost of buying those bulbs that's the issue here, that's not anactotal evidence that's the cost of bulbs vs how much people receive in benefits. Yes energy saving bulbs do blow in houses with dodgy electrics. My old house had what can only be discribed as a catastrophic electrics failure and it went from bulbs blowing once a year to bulbs blowing once a month or when certain electrical sockets were used. The only difference with led vs normal bulbs was that a normal bulb went plink and a led bulb often exploded. It's why I sold the house. A dodgy landlord wouldn't have given a flying fig.

There are plenty of people who go two weeks between bin collections quite happily, those people are not poor people. It's the Sam Vimes theory again, if you can only afford cheap stuff then that cheap stuff is going to break. Where does it go if the bin is jump on top of it full all the time? How do you go once or twice a year to the tip with all your accumulated broken stuff if you don't have a car?

A lot of people think that they have lived the life of a poor just because they have been to Uni, where they are wrong is that if you are at Uni then most people have a safety net of being able to go home to their parents and get a good meal or their clothes washed. They have no idea what grinding inescapable poverty feels like. I've been there, Jesus Christ, try rooting around the sofa for coppers so you can hopefully buy a loaf of economy bread because you have literally nothing in the cupboards and don't get paid for two days, then tell me it's fair to make the poor choose between food and loving light bulbs.

dispatch_async posted:

Theresa May accused of being 'Donald Trump's mole' in Europe after UK tries to water down EU climate change policy


ffs

PIGS BREXIT posted:

And who said brexit was all bad, at least we won't be able to poison this well any more

vodkat posted:

We are arguing about if you understand the difference between a state and a nation now. It is a very basic political concept, which you appear not to get.

Gort posted:

Or Richard Branson throwing bedpans.

learnincurve posted:

There are plenty of people who go two weeks between bin collections quite happily, those people are not poor people.

Pissflaps posted:

No we are arguing about whether Scottish UDI is remotely possible or not.

I asked how you define the difference between nation and state because you seem to think it's the trump card in declaring California to be different to Scotland - but considering they both, by your own definitions, have attributes of both nations (shared culture) and states (are political units) all you've managed to do is argue against yourself.

serious gaylord posted:

And you're so far past the point that you don't realise you turned off of it 16 miles back.

You don't have to go out and replace all your bulbs straight away, you replace them as they go. You're also once again going for the blind deaf wheelchair bound grandma of examples to fail once again at proving your point. Your example of having to root around for coppers to buy economy bread would mean you wouldn't have been able to afford a normal old bulb either. Jfc read back what you're posting. You're alluding to the fact that all 'poor people' wallow in their own filth and darkness because of led lightbulbs and biweekly bin collections. And you're even daring to pull a no true scotsman on it too. I'm sure the multitude of posters in here who've lived through poverty love what you're saying right now.

And i'm going to pull you on the landlords thing here. My experience of renting, and i've rented some lovely places in my time, is that electrics are the ONE thing landlords will sort out (eventually) since it can be immediately life threatening and will get them properly in the poo poo. Mold? Damp? They don't care, but broken sockets and exploding lights? Yeah they'll sort that. Just because you couldn't be bothered to sort out the electrics of a house you owned does not mean landlords wouldn't.

serious gaylord posted:

You don't have to go out and replace all your bulbs straight away, you replace them as they go.

Zalakwe posted:

Please no Scottish cringe Forkboy. We need to stop telling ourselves this. It's not only bullshit but self fulfilling bullshit.

learnincurve posted:

Now how insignificant does that £3.75 lightbulb feel?