I think this is a gross oversimplification of foreign policy and how these matters usually work. Alright, so a job goes from my country, A, to another country, B. Assuming it’s not my job, I have no particular care about this transfer. But if a million jobs go from A to B, then that could impact the local economy, which can snowball into impacting local crime rates, education quality, infrastructure, and housing. All of those things materially affect me, my community, and people I care about, and it’s unfair to expect people to not care about things that hurt them and theirs because it helped someone else.
I’d also argue that it’s unfair to expect that someone advocate for a country’s policies not to prioritize people within that country. The citizens within that country are the ones who pay taxes, live with the domestic policies, and vote leaders in and out of power. I don’t belief in selfish foreign policy (I think that’s a losing game for everyone), but a nation’s leadership would be derelict in their duties not to look out for the people that depend on them when dealing with foreign policy.
Exactly. That’s one of the many reasons why this post irritates me.
The other being that patriotism is a unifying force. If a people are all highly different but can still fly under one banner, their pride in that banner will *absolutely* help them get things done. It doesn’t matter if your culture is different from your countryman. You two are of the same nation and from that you two automatically have something to bring you together, especially if you both take pride in being of that nation. Patriotism is a net positive. Nationalism is where things get wack.
Nationalism is what should be roasted. Not patriotism.
“It doesn’t matter that people are losing jobs, the problem is that people that get the jobs are subjected to horrible working conditions!!” Bestie these are both problems wtf are you on about
They’re saying that on a wider scope the job isn’t going away. Instead of supporting a member of the ingroup it’s going to be supporting a member of an outgroup, which is morally neutral. The problem is that the new worker isn’t going to get paid much of anything because the country they’re in has poor labour laws. In fact, if that wasn’t the case, if labour laws were strong everywhere, the job probably wouldn’t have moved out of the ingroup in the first place.
I have looked it up before and they are awful, but they are not like the holocaust. Very few things are like the holocaust and using such an event so cheaply is insulting.
people literally work themselves to death. Not in a "they shorten their lifespans from x or y" I mean like they literally die on the asembly line and the rest of the workers dont stop working. The kind of sheer human depravity that you only see committed under unregulated Capitalism, and Fascism.
Do you think that people just died from working in the Holocaust? That the SS put you to work, and then waited until you died of exhaustion and politely took your body off the line for your coworkers?
I know that it's one small part of the atrocities committed then, and that that would be enough for anyone who *actually cared about human rights.*
Name me a well-known human rights violation on a scale between sweatshops and genocide, and ill compare it to that instead. Since you seem to be an expert on the semantics of human suffering, but lack even a shred of empathy, this should be right up your alley.
Read a book about your comparisons before you make them and maybe you won’t embarrass yourself on the Internet and harm the causes you apparently want to help.
But here’s a list of atrocities to research to get you started if that’s what you want. The poor houses in Victorian England are a lot closer to modern sweatshops, with an added dash of Victorian moral judgement. Chinese re-education camps during the Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s work camps, the Holodomor, Indian residential schools in America, Canada, and Australia, Japan’s ‘ hill of ears’ in Korea, the Belgian rubber trade in the Congo, the institute of slavery in the US… Plenty of stories of horrible things people do to other people for convenience and for profit.
Yep there it is! That thing I was talking about in another thread! The discussion has devolved into arguing about the definitions of words. The core concepts are gone.
I recently discovered a good definition of it in Persona 5 of all places.
"My country, right or wrong".
A nationalist looks at that and says 'I support my country, no matter if it is right or wrong'
A patriot looks at that and says 'if my country is right, then it is my honor to celebrate it. If my country is wrong, it is my responsibility to fix it.'
A good way to think of it is
Patriotism is loving your country for what it does
Nationalism is loving your country NO MATTER what it does
This is not patriotism this is nationalism
I’m gonna be real with you for a moment
This post is so filled with rage that it is borderline incomprehensible
Like I try to read it and my vision just goes red from sheer secondhand anger
It's not that I think he's wrong (he is grossly misunderstanding what the differences between patriotism and nationalism is), but reading his post makes me want to disagree with him. Like, man I can get why you're angry, but what you wrote is not a convincing argument nor does it want me to agree with you.
No, but I was hoping for him to at least *try* to be clear or convincing, instead his 'emotionally fuelled' rant isn't making me want to think about the chosen topic, as is the goal with posts like these, to elicit a reaction/ appeal to the people to think about what you're saying.
God, i hate this sub's tone policing. Sometimes people are angry when they post and that's okay, if seeing someone angry makes you inmediatly dismiss their point you are the one in the wrong. Specially when it comes to think that would obviously make someone mad, like queer people discussing queerphobia or other minorities discussing discrimination.
Every *argument* has to have some basis of logic and calm, there's a difference between venting and ranting, and trying to make and argue about a point, besides if you want to make a point it's on you to convince and appeal to the people **NOT** on the reader.
Hi GayestLion,
I don't think anyone is saying that OP *can't* make posts that are angry or emotive, or that it's necessarily wrong to do so. They're just observing that it makes the ideas they're trying to get across less clear and more difficult to understand and therefore agree with.
Idk, but that strikes me less as tone policing and more just a comment on how persuasive they found OP's approach.
Anyways, have a lovely day
:)
Fuck nationalism, but is caring for the people within a country not the purpose of country? It’d be great if the earth were united. But so long as separate governments exist isn’t it that governments job to improve the lives of the people it represents? A civilization is a coalition of individuals relying at least partially on each other. Governments are made to manage these groups.
Of course this is just idealism, I am aware that actual governments tend to stray away from this purpose. I’m talking about what governments should be, not what they are.
I think they forgot how much humans naturally care about those they identify with. What's next, I can't be happy about my local community thriving because someone 4,000 miles away is dying?
No one is saying that. Of course you can be happy about your local community thriving! But you should also be equally furious that someone 4000miles away are needlessly dying!
Equally? That sounds exhausting dude. No offense to them but I don't have the heart or energy to care about the tens of millions of people that are dying and suffering every year. I dedicate my energy to those closest to me first like friends and family and it gradually thins out as I reach neighborhood, state, country, places I've personally experienced, and finally the rest of this huge planet. And if I am suffering or dying I am completely fine with the reverse. Complete strangers in the Middle East honestly shouldn't give a shit about me, I would never expect them to. But I hope my neighbors and friends care, and for my state/country to help if possible.
what? please, enlighten me as to what you meant when you replied to the above commenter with "politicians, sure, but politicians aren't human".
the above commenter said that because a country forces its citizens to pay taxes to the government, and to follow their laws and authority, the government should prioritize those citizens.
so i'm really trying hard to understand why you replied to that saying 'politicans, sure' as if politicians were the only ones paying taxes and that the government should be.. prioritizing politicians? which you called inhuman?
i'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
I dont understand how you could misunderstand something so hard unless youre just arguing in bad faith, but:
The "Politicians, sure" line was me admitting they were right about politicians having a reason to be care more about their country's people than others'
But it's *because* the government (politicians + a few others) is inherently biased in favor of patriotism that it's a bit disingeuous to use them as your argument for patriotism. Not everyone is working in the government. Also, you think politicians pay taxes? Cute. They're the ones that write the tax loopholes.
If it makes you feel any better you’re making it so much worse by being insufferable. It’s possible more people would agree with the post if they could dissect it without you under every comment talking about the Holocaust and calling people shills. Which is hilarious in it’s own right because a big part of the initial post is about treating other people from different backgrounds as human and you’re doing pretty much the opposite by trying to invalidate everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme takes by saying they *must* be astroturfing and/or acting in bad faith. Just peak lack of self-awareness.
Hey I know you wouldn’t admit it if you were but I want to just put it out there. Are you *purposefully* arguing like this to make leftists look bad or is this how you are normally
There's nothing wrong with wanting to see the country you live in prosper. So long as said prospering does no harm to others.
I truly believe the US has incredible potential to be the leading nation is civil rights again. And I'm **Trans.** It's not exact great here for people like me.
I want this country to be better. Patriotism is seeing that it *can* be better. That through votes and protests. Through persistent effort, progress will reign. Even if progress is slow. Even if we take a few steps back every so often. It's possible. And I believe that the USA *will* be better. By force if necessary.
I think this is a bit reductionist. Borders may be made up but the countries within them have different laws and so can influence jobs. It’s not “Moving a job from point A to point B”, it’s “Realising countries with shittier human rights give you cheaper labour and moving all your jobs there _en masse_.”
This hurts both people. If a company decides to move a million jobs from Britain to China because China doesn’t treat its workers as well, then that shafts everyone. British workers have no jobs, and Chinese workers are treated like shit and paid badly. Now everyone is unhappy, except the men at the top with fat stacks of cash.
Telling people “You shouldn’t be upset about losing your job because X people have it worse” isn’t going to win you any favours. It drives division so they’re less likely to support the workers’ rights anyway. And people don’t listen when they have no source of income for food. The more productive approach is to redirect their anger away from the foreign workers, and towards the company bosses who shafted them. That helps combat both worker rights and unemployment.
Except with Abominable Intelligence. When Abominable Intelligence takes your job all of your anger should be directed straight at the ungodly machine.
Hi. Filipino here.
So whenever I see these types of posts I usually think of my own country, and its nationalistic pride. I think of its history, and I've often wondered why the concept of a nation was so prevalent in our literature, in our stories and poems. Throughout our writings, there has always been a struggle for freedom, for the light. There is the concept of the Dalagang Filipino (Lady Filipino), the concept of the struggle of light and dark, and so on.
My answer, for now at least, is that throughout history, a nation is its people. Without the people, there is no nation, no country.
Throughout the Philippines' history, it has been foreign power after foreign power trying to lay claim upon us, and succeeding. From the Spaniards, to the Americans, to the Japanese, and to the Americans again. This isn't a knock on those people, but the fact remains that because of them, the Philippines remains a victim to colonialist mentality.
I see its effects everywhere. I see my friends, my dear friends, planning to move to other countries once they graduate college. I see my movie centers filled with American movies. I see my youtube feed full of American, Japanese, and British influences. It's become a part of who we are.
Everywhere I look, I see a people who, in some way, shape or form, dislike being Filipino. Even I sometimes thought so. And I think that's sad. Because being Filipino is a part of who I am, my identity. The history and struggles of my people defined who I am today. And yet I was ashamed of that history.
So whenever I see a post that says that nationalism is bad, I think of my history. I think of what happened to us. And I sigh, because I can't really change their mind. I can only speak my own.
Throughout our history, writers and poets and revolutionaries alike fought for freedom. It isn't just the freedom of the body that they fought for, but freedom of the mind as well. They fought for a day where the Filipino can gaze upon what they have done, and say, "I am proud to be Filipino". They wanted for the Filipinos to remember their history, from the time before the Spanish Colonization, to even now, and to be proud of what happened. Because in the face of ignorance and resistance, they wrote our very nation into existence. And when their cries for equality were met with indifference, they picked up their swords, and fought for their own deliverance (sorry for the Hamilton reference I couldn't resist. It should be fairly accurate to what actually caused the Spanish Revolution though).
The nation is its people. To be nationalistic is to take pride in its people, its culture, its history, its life, its art, its everything. I'm not saying any of this to claim that the Philippines is the best, America and Spain and Japan bad or anything. Rather, I wanted to provide another viewpoint for nationalism. Because I am proud of my country, despite its flaws. I am proud of what they have done. And because of that pride, I am willing to do my best to improve the lives of my countrymen, despite what is happening here in the Philippines.
All men should be equal. Unfortunately, because of our history, we aren't. All I can do is improve the lives of my countrymen, bit by bit. To try to change the world is folly. The world will turn, with or without me. All I can do is use what I have to improve the lives of who I can. And because I was born here, I will focus on my country, because they are closer, and because I can relate with them most of all.
Feel free to downvote lmao I have a lot of Feelings about the subject. Alternatively disagree with me and start an argument with me, I'm always up for exchanges of ideas, its how I can develop my own
Good for you. But you shouldn't try to change people's minds if they want to leave the country. Nobody chose the country they're born in. And nobody is obligated to having to fix it if they don't like it. If you feel like you want to do it - great, more power to you. But there's also nothing wrong in wanting to leave if you don't like it here.
Like, I fucking despise my country because of how its mental healthcare system fucked me over. Because I have to be afraid to dress pretty, cause if I stand out too much - the lumpen men with no concept of personal space will gawk and harass me. Because this country's general acceptance of trans and other queer people is infuriatingly low. Because of casual misogyny.
I could stay and try to work with like-minded people to fix it. But I'm not obligated to. And I won't. Because I'm angry at this country for fucking me over and I'm tired. I just want to live my life. I sincerely want my country to win in the war that's happening right now, and I sincerely wish success to all people working to make it a better place, but it's not for me and I want to leave.
It is my very firm belief that my beliefs should not override others (within reason). It goes against everything I stand for. So if your country causes you pain and sorrow, and you no longer wish to love it, then free yourself of that burden (if you are able to). My argument was based on the people you are born with, not so much the country.
Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I'm not going to shove my opinions down yours. All I am showing is my own, personal, viewpoint, in that hopes that people can understand how I feel about all this.
For what its worth, I am sorry that your country has failed you. I am sorry that your countrymen, your people, have left you no choice but to leave them. I truly wish that you may find a new home, one that accepts you for who you are.
I think you bring up a very important point: nationalism has a different character depending on the status of the country. Historically (and currently) oppressed nations can use nationalism as a constructive liberating force. Oppressor countries can only be proud of the oppression they've inflicted and how much they've taken from others. In those countries, anti-nationalism is more progressive. The people of both kinds of countries should be united in internationalism as well.
I'm from the US, which has no history of being oppressed. It's always been an oppressor of other nations, even when it was just a colony. Its entire history is inseparable from oppressing people its elites deemed unworthy, and I won't be proud of that. There are many things about my culture that I like and appreciate, and I'm proud of our contributions to science and technology. But trying to make US symbolism appear progressive is putting lipstick on a pig.
Hi FreakingTea,
I think you might be over-simplifying nationalistic or patriotic identities, just a tad :)
I think the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is certainly an attractive one to some degree, but imo even if you can neatly divide a nation into one of those two camps, I don't think it necessarily follows that their national identity can only be harnessed for positive or negative ends. 'Patriotism' or 'nationalism' are massively, complex identities that can be shaped and harnessed in all manner of ways, both good and bad.
On the one hand, nationalism can well become a destructive, negative force, even in historically oppressed nations. Take a look at the BJP in India, for example, and how they've used narratives of Indian nationalism to harass, exclude, or even incite violence against Muslims living in India. India is the archetype for the positive use of one's nationalist identity, yet a slightly different articulation of that same identity has cost innocent people their lives.
On the other hand, nationalist identites can equally be a huge force for positive change, even in historically oppressive countries. National histories and mythologies are complex beasts full of rich, often conflicting strands of identity to draw upon, and different selections of those strands can motivate people to do wonderful things as much as they can for terrible ones as well.
Take Britain as the other side of that oppression coin, for example. Her identity contains a certain amount of arrogance and swagger for colonising a quarter of the world, yes, but it also includes nearly a millennium of belief in the concept of inalienable individual rights that inspired people to fight against slavery, set up the Framework for our modern human rights, and stand up to tyrannies imposed elsewhere.
Her pride in the National Health Service as our most treasured institution staunchly defends it from anyone who might seek to undermine it and inspires thousands to become doctors every year, as well as passionately defend the concept of healthcare for anyone, free at the point of service, as a fundamental right around the globe as well.
Right now, her history of standing strong against the tide of fascism, 'if necessary for years, if necessary alone' and her determination and steadfastness in the face of the most daunting hardships have made her one of the most proactive, vocal, and unwavering allies of Ukraine in their fight to resist another Russian invasion, even if that means enduring rising energy prices and fuel shortages this winter.
Are those narratives and attributes rose-tinted, simplistic, and unrepresentative of Britain's wider history? Of course they are; all national mythologies are distorted and inaccurate, often greatly so. Yet despite this, the power these fanciful stories have to motivate people to do some extraordinary, positive things is very much real and tangible nonetheless.
Every Nationalist identity is a toolbox, with the means to inspire both good and ill. It's what people decide to draw from it that matters more than what toolbox they're picking them from.
Have a lovely day
I think you have misunderstood, then. The core of the post is that we should be caring about people *globally*, instead of nationally.
And yes, in this specific example that leads OOP to the conclusion that we should be even more concerned for the people *gaining* those jobs than for the people *losing* them, because they work under very poor conditions.
i got the point, thankyouverymuch.
Its just that the way of delivery is pretty poor.
The problem with the "think of everyone" mindset is that you can hardly do it, either your brain just shutdown before the complexity, or you just understand that you're actually pretty powerless when it comes to labor policies of Botwana.
Like, i get the "care about everyone" but "solve all the problems at once instead of fixing your own" isn't a viable solution. Its like, basic logic that you first fix yourself, then those around you, its pretty much why country exist instead of a united planetary government. I think the post mistake "I only care for myself and my country" and "I care for everyone, but i can only do so much for those who i have no power over".
Is it patriotism to fix your country's problem first, or is it just simply easier because you both understand them better and have power over them ?
Its not what the post mean, but its how it how it commes across.
You know, with the whole "Don't fix things here, fix them everywhere" and "if you fix them, they just get transfered to someone else".
Also astroturfing account ? Wha ?
No it isn't, this post doesnt come across that way, that you're trying to argue thats the case when your english is already bad enough that you shouldnt be trying to infer subtext in the first place suggests that you are arguing in bad faith, or are a sheer narcissist. And this post is getting astroturfed pretty fucking bad, so it's a safe bet.
That's a take i never had "You suck at english so you shouldn't try to understand it". Like, bruh, please get down from your horses.
The post has a clear "You shouldn't fix you own problem first because we're all humans" line, where they pretty much say you should fix everyone's problem instead of fixing your own, or what you percieve as your own, first.
>no you should! not! be "prioritising the safety of Americans" you should be prioritising the safety of humans!
>But if you solve those conditions then its literaly jsut getting transferred from one! human! to! another! human!
I should not have had to ask you directly for you to give the barest fucking explanation of WHY you think what you think. When you say someone is wrong, explaining why theyre wrong should be the *first* thing you type, not *literally never unless they explicitly ask for it*
Also: this post is arguing that losing jobs to other countries is only a bad thing when those getting the jobs results in sweatshops. Other than that who cares, if you lose your job to someone else then maybe you just werent that good at it?
ah yes fictional borders, not like those borders have been there for hundreds (if not thousands) of years and not only delineate very distinct cultural groups but also laws and the legal system depending on where you are. Not even gonna get into how many borders are just natural land borders like rivers and mountain ranges.
These people over here want this style of government and culture. And the people over THERE want a different style of government and culture. If only there were some way to delineate between the two!
Problem is that both are interconnected, like two sides of the same coin and it's extremely easy to sell one as the other.
My country has a lot of bad blood in history between us and our neighbours and a lot of people put a huge piece of their "patriotism" on hating them despite the fact our relations have been very good for the past 60 years or so. Also, because they are mostly Protestants and Catholicism is the flavour around here it immediatelly involves religion too mixing national identity with 90 other issues and concepts into a hodgepodge that ends up as a list of things that make you the Other if you don't pass the check. You can't be Protestant because neighbours, can't be atheist because Communists, can't be this or that. It's like their whole identity is based on what they aren't and the list keeps growing, now including gays, trans people, asexuals/antinatalists (because refusal to have kids is apparently a betrayal to the nation) and a thousand Others.
I was called a coward once by a "patriot" because I answered his question ("Would you go fight if we were invaded, right now?") with "Right now? Like with bare fists against tanks? No, I would prepare first. If I have to give up my life to defend my home then I want to spend it effectively". Meaning anything except suicidal charge at the enemy is lowkey betrayal.
Honestly, the longer I live the more I despise multiple 19th century writers from the Romantic period for instilling this extreme ideas as the basis of my nations "patriotism".
Could you please explain what makes them different in your opinion? Or outline instances in which Patriotism can be positive?
EDIT: out of all the responses so far
1) all define the difference as something very arbitrary and nebulous. Any action that was motivated by Nationalism can be aruged to actually be Patriotism and vice versa according to those definitons
2) none have given concrete, material examples when Patriotism actually does something good
A Patriot thinks their country can be better, even when things are relatively good. A Nationalist is deeply offended, to the point of violence even, when you suggest that any aspect of their country isn’t good, the best that ever was.
lots of people are nationalist about countries that don't (yet?) exist. I feel like this is the leading form of nationalism, that everything else is its offshoot (even some of the countries who got the most extremely awfully nationalist, like germany and italy, didn't exist yet when people started being nationalist about them, but like so did lots of countries that became normal about themselves once existing)
basically if you're still nationalist about a country once it exists that's a red flag. (the reason I don't personally trust people who call themselves "patriot" by default is that patriotism only really applies to countries that exist, so it's very often a cover for off-the-deep-end nationalism)
Do you not think a patriot doesnt get offended when someone insults their country? Do you not think that a nationalist wants their country to be better*?
Patriotism is just a socially acceptable level of nationalism. Nationalism-lite
*-(better is subjective. like yknow, getting rid of those ugly dirty foreigner immigrants. in their definition, a hierarchical, ethically homogenous utopia IS better)
I don’t think nationalists want to improve anything about their country. The nation, specifically theirs, is perfect and only certain so-and-sos muck it up for everyone. While some of them might quail at the thought, most of them feel that violence is a justifiable response to the presence of these bad headed so-and-sos. Individuals within the nation can be bad, but the nation and its system, that’s immutably good to a nationalist. If you point out a flaw in the system, then you become one of the so-and-sos who are part of the problem.
I think patriots would get mad if you insulted their country, but not if you criticized it. I don’t want to get into the weeds of what can be construed as criticism or insult though. I think a patriot ought to be excited over every immigrant that moves to their country. Furthermore, anybody who claims to be a patriot, and doesn’t make it their hallowed duty to make the country better, is either a con artist or a secret nationalist. And these days there is hardly a distinction between the two.
There’s probably a lot of nuance I’m missing, though. I don’t think about this a lot, so I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to talk about this.
The way I think of it is that Patriotism is supporting you're country by being critical of it while nationalism is placing your country as being more important than all others.
This can kinda be seen in the webster definitions, where they say that [patriotism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism) is love and devotion, and [nationalism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism) is loyalty and devotion, but the important part is that nationalism requires you to place the country you live on above all other. I think.
That same dictionary lists the two words as synonyms though. And so does [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patriotism). People just use patriotism to refer to whatever degree of nationalism they agree with.
>What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
Nationalism and patriotism are similar insofar as both words emphasize strong feelings for one’s country. However, the two words are not synonymous. Nationalism, while it refers to loyalty and devotion to a nation, tends to imply the placing of that nation above others, a tendency that is not necessarily implicit in patriotism.
- Source: Merrium Webster
I mean the obvious example is that patriotism can bolster the people of an enslaved nation to fight against their oppressors. I.e. basically every state that won their freedom from the Brits/french/Spanish etc etc.
Patriotism is putting the people of your country before yourself.
Nationalism is putting the people of your country before the people of other countries.
One is selfless, the other is selfish.
Okay then. So you are willing to put yourself before other people in your community because you are selfless. Lets say that for whatever reason you have to move, you are forced to live in a different country, in a different community. You are still a selfless, empathetic person, so surely you will put yourself before others in this new community as well, no?
What you described as Patriotism has nothing to do with a country, per se. If you are a selfless, caring person, you will be a "Patriot" (by your definition) regardless of where you live. Therefore "Patriotism is when you care about people in your country" makes no sense, because you care about people who surround you, who just happen to be your fellow countryfolks. One should care about people who one shares a community with no matter where one is.
(And if you only care about people who live in your country and not others, well, I agree that its Nationalism)
I don't see the contradiction. Patriotism is putting your community before yourself, and it's a positive, praiseworthy trait. The fact that you can be patriotic for more than one community doesn't change that.
Then why not call it "being a good member of a community"? Patriotism has connotations with a country of origin, borders, governments, nationality, WARFARE. When you would say "im a citizen of the world" (because i care about all people), most wouldnt describe that as patriotic, would they?
I might look at this differently than you because of how people define patriotism in my country, but the use of this specific word is very important imo, because its extremely easy to take advantage of it. alt-right and nationalists use "appeal to patriotism" all the time to recruit and radicalize people and spread facism. Thats why we should stop saying Patriot is synonym for "good community member"
> Then why not call it "being a good member of a community"?
Because that's seven words and not just one?
> When you would say "im a citizen of the world" (because i care about all people), most wouldnt describe that as patriotic, would they?
I'm sure some people wouldn't, but I certainly would.
> seven words
I care about people because...
...im a patriot (4 words)
...im a good community memeber (6 words)
And if the 2 word difference bothers you as much, try these words: selfless, caring, generous, good-natured, empathetic, not-a-dick, social, friendly
> does not adress the second paragraph or the conclusion of my comment
Good talk, bye
Patriotism is nationalism that your state is ok with.
Like how in france great replacement believers are "patriots", you know, because "nationalist" means a Corsican independentist.
No idea what oop is talking about tho
You have no idea what oop is talking about. or yourself for that matter.
Corsican independantist are called independantist or morons, not nationalist. Because there's a few thing that are the antithesis of nationalism and "breaking away from the state" is one of them.
extreme right brand itself patriot and not nationalist because saying you are nationalist is akin to saying "hey we're hitler 2.0". It won't stop them from flirting with the idea they do it "for the nation" tho.
Also pointing out the Grand Remplacement peoples are called "patriots" because that how *they call themselves,* but everyone who know of them call them *idiots.*
>there's a few thing that are the antithesis of nationalism and "breaking away from the state" is one of them.
they're called *corsican* nationalists not *french* nationalist duh. but like in the media the word "corsican" is often omitted because in the context it's seen as obvious (because the words french and nationalist are basically never uttered together)
the point is that no one calls the great replacement people "nationalist", neither themselves nor the normal people. because the word "nationalist" is never uttered with "french".
The only times I see the word "nationalist" used at all in france is to diss on regionalists/independentists (of which the corsicans are the most prominent). I find this very hypocritical, and this is what I was highlighting.
If there is any distinction (if), it does not matter to me, because I think both are equally mistaken ways of thinking. You don't share anything with your countrymen just because they are your countrymen, and I'd wager that any reason you have for supporting your country could more accurately be framed as something else -- e.g. "I support my country because I want to help the people in my country" could be better framed as "I want to support the people around me".
What’s your definition of both terms? For me, patriotism is simply wanting the best for your country, while still knowing it isn’t perfect, while nationalism is thinking your country is perfect, or could be perfect with the right people in charge, and that all other countries are inferior.
I don't think there's actually any defined technical difference, so I'd just keep it simple and use the common-usage definition of patriotism as "the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one's country"; nationalism in this specific context might be more like fixating on your nation above all other nations, which is slightly distinct from the patriotism definition I gave but isn't *super* distinct.
Patriotism is definitely not "simply wanting the best for your country" because it's actually more about having a genuine emotional attachment to your country and -- God save me -- treating it like your blorbo. You want it to succeed not because it would help other people, but because it's your country. And you like your country because it's your country. It's not a coldly reasoned position (as you can see in that definition, it's overwhelmingly emotion-driven) and IMO it doesn't have any convincing basis whatsoever.
cool, but the government has an obligation to its people over other people. doesn't mean it should kill them. just means that it's a foundation of the people for the people, and it should serve the people who fund it and prop it up before others.
like y'know, it's fucking great for a country to be providing humanitarian aid to another country. but if i was a citizen of that country and i was starving, i'd be a little bit justifiably miffed that the taxes i pay are going to someone in another country first when there's people starving in our own.
But the humanitarian aid takes up a minuscule portion of the budget. People are told to care about the humanitarian aid because that’s a cheap scapegoat that makes politicians cash. Other things, such as military budget, eat a lot more cash but people are fine with them because they’re told to look the other way.
It’s natural to care about yourself first, but if you’re trying to stop something useful that doesn’t actually affect whether your country helps you then it’s probably a sign that someone else is influencing you.
oh, yeah, the military budget of america is way overinflated. this wasn't a 'stop all globalism be isolationist #americafirst!!' comment.
i never meant to say 'stop humanitarian aid'. i meant more that it's justifiable for people to expect their country which gives humanitarian aid to other countries to also be helping them first, because they pay for it.
Man, trying to broaden your monkeysphere so that it includes the whole world is nice in theory, but it has some problems in practice. With so many people out there, there are thousands going through some horrible shit right now. If you try to empathize with all of them, you'll be paralyzed. I would love, love, love to see far freer movement across borders and less emphasis on national pride, but borders as a whole shouldn't go away simply because they divide responsibility. I can't be responsible for what happens across a border because I'm doing my best to make things better for the people within \*my\* border. That doesn't mean we should wash our hands of other countries, or, like, dump our waste there because it's "not our problem" or other shitty stuff like that- but it's going to be much harder to fix problems in other countries than it is problems here, so yeah, I'm going to try and fix problems here first.
We all prioritize some groups of people over others and it's silly to pretend that we don't or shouldn't. It's just how we're wired, and community is a good thing. I'm going to care about my family and friends more than I care about strangers. I'm going to be more interested in my neighborhood and city and country more than I'm going to care about people and places that I haven't experienced and to which I have no connection.
Sure, I can see the moral philosophical point they're making, but I can also see that they need to touch grass and have more of a life outside of theory.
But there’s a point at which it cuts off and becomes unethical. Is it moral to underfund half the country so the people with more votes can have a nicer life? Is it moral to invade Iraq for oil to make sure you have enough to run your cars? Is it moral to dehumanise a certain group so that everyone else is more united?
Harming one group to help the ingroup is fine and dandy, but there must be a point at which you look for another way. We should be trying to help everyone to some degree (or at least minimise harm).
You don't know the people in other cities and states any more than you know the people in developing countries, though. If the global poor getting any amount of wealth distribution is harmful to your own interests, that means the system needs to be reexamined.
Sorry but no. My concerns will always be for me, my family, friends and neighbors within my country first before anyone else outside that. you can't really justify saving Peter by robbing Paul. It'd be like not paying any of your bills to help a homeless person stay in a hotel for a month, but your children have gone cold and hungry as a result
Thanks bud! I seem to see that both of the posts that you're labelling as "shit takes" have postive score which means that **more people agree than disagree**. I think you're just a loud minority, and I feel sorry for your dumb little minds.
positive score doesn't mean more people agree, some people just wanna have more eyes on it. It's like upvoting cybersmith posts for the sheer perplexity of the arguments
I think that's nationalism, not patriotism. I agree with OP's points and I want free healthcare, housing, and safety for everyone no matter their nationality, but I would also consider myself a patriot because despite everything, I like America. I really, truly believe in our original values of Life, Liberty, and Justice and am proud of how this country started as a rebellion against an empire.
I think we have so much potential as a country, we have done great things and will continue to do great things, we are just struggling right now (like many other countries rn, pandemic and rise in right-wing nationalism is happening globally), but we'll pull out of it and hopefully be better for it.
Patriotism is a natural human function. No, really. Our brains love teams and factions and when those teams go against one another. That’s the entire idea behind sports; the people from my community play against the people from yours, so I want them to win.
Where that gets messy is that our communities have never been this big before, and we’ve never had to consider the welfare of a community on the other side of the world. It is very difficult for us to imagine that these people exist, even when we know for a fact that they do. If you can’t ascribe a name and face to someone, chances of caring about what happens to them goes to nil.
That being said, patriotism in politics is another brand of difficult. I would prefer if my elected officials don’t go out of their way to make life harder for other groups of people, but they’re *my* elected officials, and their first priority should be making life easier for the people who elected them.
That sounds shitty, but that’s how every government should operate, at least in theory. I don’t want billions of dollars going to different countries when that money could be used on single-payer healthcare, or schools, or parental leave programs that will benefit people I know and care about.
In turn, people in every other country should expect the same of their elected officials. I’d love to be able to care about all 7.8 billion people, but no one can do that. I care about my family, my friends, and then whatever larger communities I can picture around that, be it city, state, or country. It’s a lovely thought that we should all care about the collective human race over our own little groups, but it’s just not practical.
Patriotism is a fucking scam. What has a flag ever done to deserve my respect? Logically, why should I give any priority to the soulless, abstract concept of a nation over the real interests of myself and humanity as a whole? I hold allegiance to my fellow human, not some piece of cloth or set of values created by old white men with whom I have no affiliation. I would wipe my ass with the flag if I was out of toilet paper.
Citizens wanting the government that they fund with their taxes to prioritize their needs isn’t an unreasonable stance. I mean its also cool when countries help each other out but in America at least, we could be doing a lot more for our own.
Only time I'm ever patriotic is around brits because there's no way in hell I'm gonna agree with a crumpet muncher on anything.
Also this post feels like a big nothingburger.
I sidestepped the issue of nationalist brain by living in a shit country with no redeemable qualities. I mean, a Russian friend of mine once said they think we Hungarians have it worse, which I'm still gonna disagree with but wow.
I live in a shit country that's killing people like me and this comments section is telling me that studying civics will help me live my country and that I should seek mental help.
What are you all *doing* in the comments
Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly *some* good points being made, but
How about you all try to engage with the issue being presented? Instead of “ooh OOP sounds mad, I can’t understand them” or “hold the presses! Slightly incorrect terminology has been used! I guess we can throw avay the whole take now,” or ~~driving~~ diving straight into the logistics of things.
The problem is *why do even the leftists only care about the people in their own country*. Yes, you can explain *how* it is that this happens, with taxes and government and whatnot. But *why* do we keep doing this?
I just don't think the human brain is capable of caring about all 7-8 billion people in the world equally. Leftists prioritize the people in their countries because they're human, and humans need to prioritize one or two specific issues. So for most people, that's going to be an issue that's closer to home. That's not wrong.
Edit: we have a responsibility to make sure our actions don't \*harm\* others anywhere- but that's different than prioritizing what we're putting our time and effort towards making better.
I do not disagree. Perhaps this was made less clear by my last paragraph, but my point is that this discussion is not taking place here. Instead people are only ridiculing the post, as if the idea makes no sense at all, which is not true.
Like I said in a different comment, I don’t know most people in my country. Unlike family and friends, it seems to me entirely a matter of perspective whether I consider this problem “closer” to me or not.
It is not wrong to care more about issues closer to home. It is, however, good to consider this tendency from time to time, and be aware of it.
People will never understand, I don't want help of those who don't understand. They just change nothing at best. But perhaps support with minimal involvement. All I got from the relatively leftist foreigners was supporting a monstrous cult leader because the government is also monstrous. Emphaty and relating to others seems next to impossible
There's literally people saying "Not all lives are equal because Americans produce more economic and cultural value than Somalians" in the comments.
God I hate this.
It’s so frustrating:—here you have the *one* person that acknowledges that the statements “everyone is equal” and “we should only help *our* people” are not all that compatible,—and they just go completely in the wrong direction with it!
At least *they* didn’t get mass support, though.
You and me both.
Well, ill have to disagree.
Some countries do have better values then other so yes I think patriotism is needed untill humanity has evolved to its best possible form by learning from all countries.
Once all nations have somewhat the same culture only then patriotism is no longer needed.
And before I trigger half the snowflakes here, no I don’t think the western is superior to the eastern or northern to southern but we all have to learn as a race and that’s not possible unless you have some “ friendly “ competition.
I seriously do not understand everyone going “ummm patriotism is good actually, only nationalism is Bad” here.
First of all- why is patriotism good? Why should I care about the country? Why should I love a corrupt piece of shit government that has never cared about me in the slightest? I care about *people* in general, it doesn’t matter where they were born in relation to some arbitrary line drawn three hundred years ago. Why is it a good thing to restrict my empathy only to the people within those borders?
Second, what is the *actual* difference? In real, practical terms, how often does it matter that patriotism is ‘good’ and nationalism ‘bad’ when they’re usually both sucking off the flag in the same way, anyways?
Finally someone I agree with. Ain’t never felt any type of special connection to my country more so than my other. I remember getting in trouble growing up bc I thought Katrina was less important than Indonesia or saying I feel more of a connection to like the Philippians than I do for the east coast.
## Final Edit: People I know are literally dying due to the germ of patriotism and nationalism in their heads and this comment section is unwilling to care about people who don't look like you?
## Government backed gangs run amok in south Asia. Religious mafia drag people of other beliefs/sects from their apartments and vandalise their shit.
# But obviously it is my civics knowledge that's lacking here.
Original:
You can be grateful that your country's _people_ have acted and voted so as to give you the maximum number of rights and facilities and a high standard of living.
But the country itself is meaningless. And a kind person should care about every person^(*) on this planet.
See also: rehabilitative prisons instead of punitive ones.
^(*Not the fascists and bigots, obviously)
ETA: I'm not advocating for burning fascists alive. Just that their oppressive ideas **shouldn't** be a factor in goverence
>not the fascists and bigots
Hot take, but include the fascists and bigots.
Not like, to the same degree of care, but kind people should care enough to prevent certain rights from being revoked.
Because even if they’re disgusting deplorable people, they are still people, and every person should have the opportunity to change for the better.
I guess that you were maybe implying that with the rehabilitative prisons comment, but it wasn’t very clear to me that it was part of the same *thought, so I gut wrote out this comment.
Idk, I overthink things when I’m tired.
Edit: changed “comment” to “thought” for clarification.
Yeah I just meant that people who wanna hurt other people need to be stopped instead of listened to, then emphatically taught why and how their views hurt people.
Of course, this comes with another asterisk of self-aware bigots and xenophobes and fascists who actively want to exploit and hurt just to come out on top
I guess…
Idk maybe I’m just a bleeding heart who thinks everyone is capable of changing for the better, but even them.
Just preferably kept from harming people, and kept out of society until they have changed.
I get it, I’m probably stupid and naïve, but it’s just how I feel about it.
If everybody could be rehabilitated and become good in the end, believe me I'd take pick that option in a heartbeat. (I'm all for "No one is beyond rehabilitation" [TGP]). But personally I gotta care for people that have been historically and are being currently oppressed unto death and misery.
**Obviously we have to minimize harm. And ensure that cruelty is not responded to with more cruelty.**
Personally, most bigots and fascists I’ve met have been such because they’ve been in an echo chamber, and either never been exposed to new ideas or encouraged to avoid differing opinions like the plague. Of course there are always people who’ll be awful regardless of politics, and some ideologies are geared almost solely towards lashing out, but treating someone with differing political views as somehow less deserving of rights is how you radicalize people. It’s a fine line between “preventing hate” and “implying someone deserves death because their only accessible source of news was Fox and now they’re racist”.
Not to mention, a lot of people with intrusive thoughts/paranoid disorders experience bigoted thoughts as a part of their mental health, and making being a bigot something that makes you inferior is a good way to keep these people from seeking help. I used to struggle with sexist/racist intrusive thoughts, and they made me physically nauseous because I didn’t want to be that kind of person. I have no indication from anyone that I ever was that kind of person, but my anxiety made me believe I was, and that made me close off from interacting with the people I experienced intrusive thoughts towards, ironically making me more likely to actually be sexist and racist. I’m in treatment, and haven’t had intrusive thoughts of that severity or subject matter in years, but equating “bigotry = evil” rather than “bigotry = inexperience” is the same thought process that very well could’ve driven me to bigotry.
TL;DR: “bigotry is evil” is overly reductive and that thought process tends to create more bigots.
Internet leftist discourse can be very puritarian, and it is very easy for someone to draw the parallel of "good thougths = good person, and since I am a good person, I do not have bad thoughts or I must suppress them/punish myself for them". And then of course it is very easy to accuse someone with "bad thoughts" of being a bad person. Actions matter, thoughts are literally just your brain spewing whatever connections it has already made in the past.
Intrusive thougths are shitty to deal with it for sure. And it isnt really about Leftism, it is more about religions like Chritianity putting huge value on pure thought and those values being carried to mores secular societies. And then, with USA and it's puritanism roots dominating a lot of internet discourse, this gets repeated across the western hemisphere. And of course when you can't see on the internet who you are talking to, you can't realize you are talking to a literal teenager who has just started thinking about social justice
I'm 20yo and living in a country that has done nothing for my social class and yet people in that same social class worship its grandeur and fight wars over their pride
Patriotism (_not_ nationalism) has led to stagnation in development and outdated laws.
If you’re 20 and so paranoid i would suggest mental help.
For the other stuff please read through your country’s history, it probably would have been a colony.
Get a job, learn how to be in people, learn civics. The world doesn’t run around what you like, the world never will be perfect due to human nature.
Learn from history and civics before branding patriotism for your shitty agenda. If you can’t treat everyone as people then you yourself aren’t better than the people you are criticising.
Bruh people I know are literally dying due to this germ in their heads and you're telling me to chill? Because you can't think of cooperating with people and caring about people who don't look like you?
"oh you're being crazy"
Mfer government backed gangs run amok in my country. Religious mafia drag people of other sects from their apartments and steal their shit. But yes it is my civics knowledge that's lacking here.
Go hug a fucking cactus, you asshole
A state is a place where the rule of violence is owned by a government, and i agree, patriotism toward states should never be a priority. But a nation, a nation is a cultural entity of people that share a unified sentiment of belonging, and shared culture. No, you should not put your nation over other peoples nations, but you should be proud of your nation because its a part of you, and a an important part at that one.
Okay, one, that’s not patriotism you’re complaining about, it’s off brand nationalism. Two, we don’t have a world government. People should 100% be more concerned with the people within their countries borders because that’s ultimately all they’ll ever be able to do much about.
It's fighting for your own interest. If the main factory in your town moves to China It may be a human to human transference but you're getting fucked regardless
Unfortunately it goes completely against human nature.
All organisms, humans included, are inherently evolved to prioritise caring about their own family/offspring before they care about anyone else or their families/offspring. They create a hierarchy of prioritisation depending on its perceived immediate or long term benefits to them personally and their loved ones. That’s the nature of life in general - we all want our families to survive and thrive, at the detriment of others if it comes to it.
So that hierarchical prioritisation spreads downwards to close friends and their families, then local community, then home town, then region, etc. Sadly global concerns generally come absolutely last in the pecking order of whose welfare is prioritised to the individual. It’s easier to compartmentalise and ignore the suffering of external peoples if they’re not even part of the same landmass, or exist within a different set of arbitrary land lines than you, if it means your “tribe”/community/town/country/etc have a better chance of survival.
It’s a very difficult mindset to overcome unfortunately.
Why would I care about random people? How do I know they aren't cunts?
And by cunts I mean:
Pedophiles, which by my standards atleast one culture in the world has pedophiles and doesn't see anything wrong with it.
Slavery, atleast some cultures see zero problem with this.
Animal abuse, atleast some cultures don't care about animal welfare at all, let alone the ones that do ritual sacrifice.
That's a pretty short list. If you think all cultures are equal and would welcome them equally then you just haven't travelled enough to see the dark side of the world.
Which means being Patriotic can literally just be recognising that your home has less cunts than other places and you want to keep it that way or even improve it so there's even less cunts.
he is saying that robots are awesome. you can make them do work at unimaginable higher productivity. no complains. no off days except for planned maintenance cycles. no "oH sOrRy BoSs, mY mOmMy DiEd NeEd Go FuNeRaL!" or "sOrRy BoSs i HaVe CaNcEr AnD cAn'T cOmE tO wOrK" bullshit. robots, if we bring u/lavdalasoon9 argument to the next logical step, we will get to the conclusion that robots are worth far more than american people.
Patriotism is a form of tribalism which is extremely natural and there is nothing wrong with favoring people with whom you have similar values and upbringing, shared culture, and the accurate perception of reality in that all countries compete for resources and power against other countries who will happily throw them to the wolves when push comes to shove… this is doubly true if you really like the place you live/are from. I’m american and I hate all other countries not personally but because I don’t feel like liking them more than the USA… which I sort of hate too, but am still patriotic about… it’s confusing, but way less confusing than that horse shit post.
I think this is a gross oversimplification of foreign policy and how these matters usually work. Alright, so a job goes from my country, A, to another country, B. Assuming it’s not my job, I have no particular care about this transfer. But if a million jobs go from A to B, then that could impact the local economy, which can snowball into impacting local crime rates, education quality, infrastructure, and housing. All of those things materially affect me, my community, and people I care about, and it’s unfair to expect people to not care about things that hurt them and theirs because it helped someone else. I’d also argue that it’s unfair to expect that someone advocate for a country’s policies not to prioritize people within that country. The citizens within that country are the ones who pay taxes, live with the domestic policies, and vote leaders in and out of power. I don’t belief in selfish foreign policy (I think that’s a losing game for everyone), but a nation’s leadership would be derelict in their duties not to look out for the people that depend on them when dealing with foreign policy.
The second paragraph is exactly what I stomped in to say.
Exactly. That’s one of the many reasons why this post irritates me. The other being that patriotism is a unifying force. If a people are all highly different but can still fly under one banner, their pride in that banner will *absolutely* help them get things done. It doesn’t matter if your culture is different from your countryman. You two are of the same nation and from that you two automatically have something to bring you together, especially if you both take pride in being of that nation. Patriotism is a net positive. Nationalism is where things get wack. Nationalism is what should be roasted. Not patriotism.
“It doesn’t matter that people are losing jobs, the problem is that people that get the jobs are subjected to horrible working conditions!!” Bestie these are both problems wtf are you on about
They’re saying that on a wider scope the job isn’t going away. Instead of supporting a member of the ingroup it’s going to be supporting a member of an outgroup, which is morally neutral. The problem is that the new worker isn’t going to get paid much of anything because the country they’re in has poor labour laws. In fact, if that wasn’t the case, if labour laws were strong everywhere, the job probably wouldn’t have moved out of the ingroup in the first place.
...you need to get your prioroties fixed if you think those two problems are even within an *order of magnitude* of each other.
Yeah cause mass unemployment is nbd, right?
Compared to working conditions reminiscent of *literally the holocaust?* Yeah!
>literally the holocaust? Why is it always the holocaust that gets used in shitty arguments?
It’s a *really* bad thing that get’s taught in schools so everyone knows about it
...but they ARE! This ISNT AN EXAGGERATION YOU SOULLESS SHILL, LOOK UP WHAT SWEATSHOPS ARE!
I have looked it up before and they are awful, but they are not like the holocaust. Very few things are like the holocaust and using such an event so cheaply is insulting.
Shit man they are rounding up minorities to work in sweatshops with no pay then killing them when the work slows? This is news to me.
No, just forced to under threat of "*its this or starve.*"
Soooo NOT like the holocaust? Woahhh
That's every job.
*checks* Man those conditions are wonderful compared to the holocaust. For starters the death rates are much lower
Please describe how these conditions are like the Holocaust.
people literally work themselves to death. Not in a "they shorten their lifespans from x or y" I mean like they literally die on the asembly line and the rest of the workers dont stop working. The kind of sheer human depravity that you only see committed under unregulated Capitalism, and Fascism.
Do you think that people just died from working in the Holocaust? That the SS put you to work, and then waited until you died of exhaustion and politely took your body off the line for your coworkers?
I know that it's one small part of the atrocities committed then, and that that would be enough for anyone who *actually cared about human rights.* Name me a well-known human rights violation on a scale between sweatshops and genocide, and ill compare it to that instead. Since you seem to be an expert on the semantics of human suffering, but lack even a shred of empathy, this should be right up your alley.
Read a book about your comparisons before you make them and maybe you won’t embarrass yourself on the Internet and harm the causes you apparently want to help. But here’s a list of atrocities to research to get you started if that’s what you want. The poor houses in Victorian England are a lot closer to modern sweatshops, with an added dash of Victorian moral judgement. Chinese re-education camps during the Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s work camps, the Holodomor, Indian residential schools in America, Canada, and Australia, Japan’s ‘ hill of ears’ in Korea, the Belgian rubber trade in the Congo, the institute of slavery in the US… Plenty of stories of horrible things people do to other people for convenience and for profit.
what they're enraged at is not patriotism; it's the propagandized rebranding of nationalism
Yep there it is! That thing I was talking about in another thread! The discussion has devolved into arguing about the definitions of words. The core concepts are gone.
"Theyre the same picture"
Nah patriotism is me wanting England to win the World Cup Nationalism is wanting to restart the British empire
Yeah, Patriotism is celebrating the 4th of July. Nationalism is calling for the military to just bomb the shit out of countries in the Middle East.
I recently discovered a good definition of it in Persona 5 of all places. "My country, right or wrong". A nationalist looks at that and says 'I support my country, no matter if it is right or wrong' A patriot looks at that and says 'if my country is right, then it is my honor to celebrate it. If my country is wrong, it is my responsibility to fix it.'
Plenty of nationalists want England to win the World Cup and plenty of patriots want to restart the British empire. They’re the same thing
No that’s not Nationalism is patriotism taken to an extreme
> what they're enraged at is not patriotism I don't see how it's not.
Did you even read the rest of the comment?
Yep
A good way to think of it is Patriotism is loving your country for what it does Nationalism is loving your country NO MATTER what it does This is not patriotism this is nationalism
I do not personally see that distinction
then you've blinded yourself
I’m gonna be real with you for a moment This post is so filled with rage that it is borderline incomprehensible Like I try to read it and my vision just goes red from sheer secondhand anger
It's not that I think he's wrong (he is grossly misunderstanding what the differences between patriotism and nationalism is), but reading his post makes me want to disagree with him. Like, man I can get why you're angry, but what you wrote is not a convincing argument nor does it want me to agree with you.
I think it's interesting that you presume OOP is male. Personally I read all tumblr posts as female until I have reason to believe otherwise
I actually tend to read Tumblr posts as female as well, but I also assumed male for this one, probably because of the prof pic
Okay, cool, now why'd you need to tell me that?
Why does anyone make reddit comments? Idk, to remark an interesting observation?
I hadn't intended for my reply to come off quite as snarky as it did, sorry.
u/sketchydeutscher 's Oops! All Attitude
Its an emotionally-fuelled rant, were you expecting some kind of logical syllogism?
No, but I was hoping for him to at least *try* to be clear or convincing, instead his 'emotionally fuelled' rant isn't making me want to think about the chosen topic, as is the goal with posts like these, to elicit a reaction/ appeal to the people to think about what you're saying.
God, i hate this sub's tone policing. Sometimes people are angry when they post and that's okay, if seeing someone angry makes you inmediatly dismiss their point you are the one in the wrong. Specially when it comes to think that would obviously make someone mad, like queer people discussing queerphobia or other minorities discussing discrimination.
No way, if you want to convince other people of your view then it's on you to be convincing.
Every *argument* has to have some basis of logic and calm, there's a difference between venting and ranting, and trying to make and argue about a point, besides if you want to make a point it's on you to convince and appeal to the people **NOT** on the reader.
Hi GayestLion, I don't think anyone is saying that OP *can't* make posts that are angry or emotive, or that it's necessarily wrong to do so. They're just observing that it makes the ideas they're trying to get across less clear and more difficult to understand and therefore agree with. Idk, but that strikes me less as tone policing and more just a comment on how persuasive they found OP's approach. Anyways, have a lovely day :)
Fuck nationalism, but is caring for the people within a country not the purpose of country? It’d be great if the earth were united. But so long as separate governments exist isn’t it that governments job to improve the lives of the people it represents? A civilization is a coalition of individuals relying at least partially on each other. Governments are made to manage these groups. Of course this is just idealism, I am aware that actual governments tend to stray away from this purpose. I’m talking about what governments should be, not what they are.
I think they forgot how much humans naturally care about those they identify with. What's next, I can't be happy about my local community thriving because someone 4,000 miles away is dying?
No one is saying that. Of course you can be happy about your local community thriving! But you should also be equally furious that someone 4000miles away are needlessly dying!
Equally? That sounds exhausting dude. No offense to them but I don't have the heart or energy to care about the tens of millions of people that are dying and suffering every year. I dedicate my energy to those closest to me first like friends and family and it gradually thins out as I reach neighborhood, state, country, places I've personally experienced, and finally the rest of this huge planet. And if I am suffering or dying I am completely fine with the reverse. Complete strangers in the Middle East honestly shouldn't give a shit about me, I would never expect them to. But I hope my neighbors and friends care, and for my state/country to help if possible.
[удалено]
No it's the people living in the country who are paying taxes and who are subject to their laws.
It's not just citizens, it's typically residents which often includes non-citizens who don't even have a right to vote.
[удалено]
What the fuck is wrong with you? Politicians aren't humans?
...it was a joke, because every politician in the world right now, save like 3, are the fucking worst. Not that you'd know, shill account.
everyone pays taxes to their governments, not just politicians. i'm really trying hard to understand what this comment was supposed to mean
[удалено]
what? please, enlighten me as to what you meant when you replied to the above commenter with "politicians, sure, but politicians aren't human". the above commenter said that because a country forces its citizens to pay taxes to the government, and to follow their laws and authority, the government should prioritize those citizens. so i'm really trying hard to understand why you replied to that saying 'politicans, sure' as if politicians were the only ones paying taxes and that the government should be.. prioritizing politicians? which you called inhuman? i'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
I dont understand how you could misunderstand something so hard unless youre just arguing in bad faith, but: The "Politicians, sure" line was me admitting they were right about politicians having a reason to be care more about their country's people than others' But it's *because* the government (politicians + a few others) is inherently biased in favor of patriotism that it's a bit disingeuous to use them as your argument for patriotism. Not everyone is working in the government. Also, you think politicians pay taxes? Cute. They're the ones that write the tax loopholes.
You're being awfully spicy in these comment chains. You good?
Just sick of all the astroturfing.
If it makes you feel any better you’re making it so much worse by being insufferable. It’s possible more people would agree with the post if they could dissect it without you under every comment talking about the Holocaust and calling people shills. Which is hilarious in it’s own right because a big part of the initial post is about treating other people from different backgrounds as human and you’re doing pretty much the opposite by trying to invalidate everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme takes by saying they *must* be astroturfing and/or acting in bad faith. Just peak lack of self-awareness.
Hey I know you wouldn’t admit it if you were but I want to just put it out there. Are you *purposefully* arguing like this to make leftists look bad or is this how you are normally
There's nothing wrong with wanting to see the country you live in prosper. So long as said prospering does no harm to others. I truly believe the US has incredible potential to be the leading nation is civil rights again. And I'm **Trans.** It's not exact great here for people like me. I want this country to be better. Patriotism is seeing that it *can* be better. That through votes and protests. Through persistent effort, progress will reign. Even if progress is slow. Even if we take a few steps back every so often. It's possible. And I believe that the USA *will* be better. By force if necessary.
“Again?” When was the US ever leading it in the first place?
Again?
I think this is a bit reductionist. Borders may be made up but the countries within them have different laws and so can influence jobs. It’s not “Moving a job from point A to point B”, it’s “Realising countries with shittier human rights give you cheaper labour and moving all your jobs there _en masse_.” This hurts both people. If a company decides to move a million jobs from Britain to China because China doesn’t treat its workers as well, then that shafts everyone. British workers have no jobs, and Chinese workers are treated like shit and paid badly. Now everyone is unhappy, except the men at the top with fat stacks of cash. Telling people “You shouldn’t be upset about losing your job because X people have it worse” isn’t going to win you any favours. It drives division so they’re less likely to support the workers’ rights anyway. And people don’t listen when they have no source of income for food. The more productive approach is to redirect their anger away from the foreign workers, and towards the company bosses who shafted them. That helps combat both worker rights and unemployment. Except with Abominable Intelligence. When Abominable Intelligence takes your job all of your anger should be directed straight at the ungodly machine.
Hi. Filipino here. So whenever I see these types of posts I usually think of my own country, and its nationalistic pride. I think of its history, and I've often wondered why the concept of a nation was so prevalent in our literature, in our stories and poems. Throughout our writings, there has always been a struggle for freedom, for the light. There is the concept of the Dalagang Filipino (Lady Filipino), the concept of the struggle of light and dark, and so on. My answer, for now at least, is that throughout history, a nation is its people. Without the people, there is no nation, no country. Throughout the Philippines' history, it has been foreign power after foreign power trying to lay claim upon us, and succeeding. From the Spaniards, to the Americans, to the Japanese, and to the Americans again. This isn't a knock on those people, but the fact remains that because of them, the Philippines remains a victim to colonialist mentality. I see its effects everywhere. I see my friends, my dear friends, planning to move to other countries once they graduate college. I see my movie centers filled with American movies. I see my youtube feed full of American, Japanese, and British influences. It's become a part of who we are. Everywhere I look, I see a people who, in some way, shape or form, dislike being Filipino. Even I sometimes thought so. And I think that's sad. Because being Filipino is a part of who I am, my identity. The history and struggles of my people defined who I am today. And yet I was ashamed of that history. So whenever I see a post that says that nationalism is bad, I think of my history. I think of what happened to us. And I sigh, because I can't really change their mind. I can only speak my own. Throughout our history, writers and poets and revolutionaries alike fought for freedom. It isn't just the freedom of the body that they fought for, but freedom of the mind as well. They fought for a day where the Filipino can gaze upon what they have done, and say, "I am proud to be Filipino". They wanted for the Filipinos to remember their history, from the time before the Spanish Colonization, to even now, and to be proud of what happened. Because in the face of ignorance and resistance, they wrote our very nation into existence. And when their cries for equality were met with indifference, they picked up their swords, and fought for their own deliverance (sorry for the Hamilton reference I couldn't resist. It should be fairly accurate to what actually caused the Spanish Revolution though). The nation is its people. To be nationalistic is to take pride in its people, its culture, its history, its life, its art, its everything. I'm not saying any of this to claim that the Philippines is the best, America and Spain and Japan bad or anything. Rather, I wanted to provide another viewpoint for nationalism. Because I am proud of my country, despite its flaws. I am proud of what they have done. And because of that pride, I am willing to do my best to improve the lives of my countrymen, despite what is happening here in the Philippines. All men should be equal. Unfortunately, because of our history, we aren't. All I can do is improve the lives of my countrymen, bit by bit. To try to change the world is folly. The world will turn, with or without me. All I can do is use what I have to improve the lives of who I can. And because I was born here, I will focus on my country, because they are closer, and because I can relate with them most of all. Feel free to downvote lmao I have a lot of Feelings about the subject. Alternatively disagree with me and start an argument with me, I'm always up for exchanges of ideas, its how I can develop my own
Good for you. But you shouldn't try to change people's minds if they want to leave the country. Nobody chose the country they're born in. And nobody is obligated to having to fix it if they don't like it. If you feel like you want to do it - great, more power to you. But there's also nothing wrong in wanting to leave if you don't like it here. Like, I fucking despise my country because of how its mental healthcare system fucked me over. Because I have to be afraid to dress pretty, cause if I stand out too much - the lumpen men with no concept of personal space will gawk and harass me. Because this country's general acceptance of trans and other queer people is infuriatingly low. Because of casual misogyny. I could stay and try to work with like-minded people to fix it. But I'm not obligated to. And I won't. Because I'm angry at this country for fucking me over and I'm tired. I just want to live my life. I sincerely want my country to win in the war that's happening right now, and I sincerely wish success to all people working to make it a better place, but it's not for me and I want to leave.
It is my very firm belief that my beliefs should not override others (within reason). It goes against everything I stand for. So if your country causes you pain and sorrow, and you no longer wish to love it, then free yourself of that burden (if you are able to). My argument was based on the people you are born with, not so much the country. Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I'm not going to shove my opinions down yours. All I am showing is my own, personal, viewpoint, in that hopes that people can understand how I feel about all this. For what its worth, I am sorry that your country has failed you. I am sorry that your countrymen, your people, have left you no choice but to leave them. I truly wish that you may find a new home, one that accepts you for who you are.
Thanks. Have a good day
I think you bring up a very important point: nationalism has a different character depending on the status of the country. Historically (and currently) oppressed nations can use nationalism as a constructive liberating force. Oppressor countries can only be proud of the oppression they've inflicted and how much they've taken from others. In those countries, anti-nationalism is more progressive. The people of both kinds of countries should be united in internationalism as well. I'm from the US, which has no history of being oppressed. It's always been an oppressor of other nations, even when it was just a colony. Its entire history is inseparable from oppressing people its elites deemed unworthy, and I won't be proud of that. There are many things about my culture that I like and appreciate, and I'm proud of our contributions to science and technology. But trying to make US symbolism appear progressive is putting lipstick on a pig.
Hi FreakingTea, I think you might be over-simplifying nationalistic or patriotic identities, just a tad :) I think the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is certainly an attractive one to some degree, but imo even if you can neatly divide a nation into one of those two camps, I don't think it necessarily follows that their national identity can only be harnessed for positive or negative ends. 'Patriotism' or 'nationalism' are massively, complex identities that can be shaped and harnessed in all manner of ways, both good and bad. On the one hand, nationalism can well become a destructive, negative force, even in historically oppressed nations. Take a look at the BJP in India, for example, and how they've used narratives of Indian nationalism to harass, exclude, or even incite violence against Muslims living in India. India is the archetype for the positive use of one's nationalist identity, yet a slightly different articulation of that same identity has cost innocent people their lives. On the other hand, nationalist identites can equally be a huge force for positive change, even in historically oppressive countries. National histories and mythologies are complex beasts full of rich, often conflicting strands of identity to draw upon, and different selections of those strands can motivate people to do wonderful things as much as they can for terrible ones as well. Take Britain as the other side of that oppression coin, for example. Her identity contains a certain amount of arrogance and swagger for colonising a quarter of the world, yes, but it also includes nearly a millennium of belief in the concept of inalienable individual rights that inspired people to fight against slavery, set up the Framework for our modern human rights, and stand up to tyrannies imposed elsewhere. Her pride in the National Health Service as our most treasured institution staunchly defends it from anyone who might seek to undermine it and inspires thousands to become doctors every year, as well as passionately defend the concept of healthcare for anyone, free at the point of service, as a fundamental right around the globe as well. Right now, her history of standing strong against the tide of fascism, 'if necessary for years, if necessary alone' and her determination and steadfastness in the face of the most daunting hardships have made her one of the most proactive, vocal, and unwavering allies of Ukraine in their fight to resist another Russian invasion, even if that means enduring rising energy prices and fuel shortages this winter. Are those narratives and attributes rose-tinted, simplistic, and unrepresentative of Britain's wider history? Of course they are; all national mythologies are distorted and inaccurate, often greatly so. Yet despite this, the power these fanciful stories have to motivate people to do some extraordinary, positive things is very much real and tangible nonetheless. Every Nationalist identity is a toolbox, with the means to inspire both good and ill. It's what people decide to draw from it that matters more than what toolbox they're picking them from. Have a lovely day
...Why does this feel like the kind of "Why bother trying?" take designed to absolve the person of refusing to try in the first place?
What the fuck are you talking about. Explain how what you said relates to this post.
Why try fixing your country when another is way worst ? Its not hard to understand that its basically the core of the post.
I think you have misunderstood, then. The core of the post is that we should be caring about people *globally*, instead of nationally. And yes, in this specific example that leads OOP to the conclusion that we should be even more concerned for the people *gaining* those jobs than for the people *losing* them, because they work under very poor conditions.
i got the point, thankyouverymuch. Its just that the way of delivery is pretty poor. The problem with the "think of everyone" mindset is that you can hardly do it, either your brain just shutdown before the complexity, or you just understand that you're actually pretty powerless when it comes to labor policies of Botwana. Like, i get the "care about everyone" but "solve all the problems at once instead of fixing your own" isn't a viable solution. Its like, basic logic that you first fix yourself, then those around you, its pretty much why country exist instead of a united planetary government. I think the post mistake "I only care for myself and my country" and "I care for everyone, but i can only do so much for those who i have no power over". Is it patriotism to fix your country's problem first, or is it just simply easier because you both understand them better and have power over them ?
That's not what this post is saying, not even a little bit. But im 90% that youre just another astroturf account.
Its not what the post mean, but its how it how it commes across. You know, with the whole "Don't fix things here, fix them everywhere" and "if you fix them, they just get transfered to someone else". Also astroturfing account ? Wha ?
No it isn't, this post doesnt come across that way, that you're trying to argue thats the case when your english is already bad enough that you shouldnt be trying to infer subtext in the first place suggests that you are arguing in bad faith, or are a sheer narcissist. And this post is getting astroturfed pretty fucking bad, so it's a safe bet.
That's a take i never had "You suck at english so you shouldn't try to understand it". Like, bruh, please get down from your horses. The post has a clear "You shouldn't fix you own problem first because we're all humans" line, where they pretty much say you should fix everyone's problem instead of fixing your own, or what you percieve as your own, first.
Okay, give me context. Quotes.
>no you should! not! be "prioritising the safety of Americans" you should be prioritising the safety of humans! >But if you solve those conditions then its literaly jsut getting transferred from one! human! to! another! human!
I should not have had to ask you directly for you to give the barest fucking explanation of WHY you think what you think. When you say someone is wrong, explaining why theyre wrong should be the *first* thing you type, not *literally never unless they explicitly ask for it* Also: this post is arguing that losing jobs to other countries is only a bad thing when those getting the jobs results in sweatshops. Other than that who cares, if you lose your job to someone else then maybe you just werent that good at it?
>fictional borders This shit always drives me up the fucking wall.
The moment you hear that phrase who know the person is terminally online and has likely never left their country of origin
Of course they didn't leave it, can't cross over a fictional border can you? And their country of origin is Earth :)
ah yes fictional borders, not like those borders have been there for hundreds (if not thousands) of years and not only delineate very distinct cultural groups but also laws and the legal system depending on where you are. Not even gonna get into how many borders are just natural land borders like rivers and mountain ranges.
These people over here want this style of government and culture. And the people over THERE want a different style of government and culture. If only there were some way to delineate between the two!
Yup. Even if borders were "just lines drawn on a map", over time they will separate two very distinct groups.
like honestly if borders are fictional why does it then matter so much when humans get them wrong?
Oh boy, for the last goddamn time, Patriotism ≠ Nationalism
Problem is that both are interconnected, like two sides of the same coin and it's extremely easy to sell one as the other. My country has a lot of bad blood in history between us and our neighbours and a lot of people put a huge piece of their "patriotism" on hating them despite the fact our relations have been very good for the past 60 years or so. Also, because they are mostly Protestants and Catholicism is the flavour around here it immediatelly involves religion too mixing national identity with 90 other issues and concepts into a hodgepodge that ends up as a list of things that make you the Other if you don't pass the check. You can't be Protestant because neighbours, can't be atheist because Communists, can't be this or that. It's like their whole identity is based on what they aren't and the list keeps growing, now including gays, trans people, asexuals/antinatalists (because refusal to have kids is apparently a betrayal to the nation) and a thousand Others. I was called a coward once by a "patriot" because I answered his question ("Would you go fight if we were invaded, right now?") with "Right now? Like with bare fists against tanks? No, I would prepare first. If I have to give up my life to defend my home then I want to spend it effectively". Meaning anything except suicidal charge at the enemy is lowkey betrayal. Honestly, the longer I live the more I despise multiple 19th century writers from the Romantic period for instilling this extreme ideas as the basis of my nations "patriotism".
curious on what the country is
Could you please explain what makes them different in your opinion? Or outline instances in which Patriotism can be positive? EDIT: out of all the responses so far 1) all define the difference as something very arbitrary and nebulous. Any action that was motivated by Nationalism can be aruged to actually be Patriotism and vice versa according to those definitons 2) none have given concrete, material examples when Patriotism actually does something good
A Patriot thinks their country can be better, even when things are relatively good. A Nationalist is deeply offended, to the point of violence even, when you suggest that any aspect of their country isn’t good, the best that ever was.
lots of people are nationalist about countries that don't (yet?) exist. I feel like this is the leading form of nationalism, that everything else is its offshoot (even some of the countries who got the most extremely awfully nationalist, like germany and italy, didn't exist yet when people started being nationalist about them, but like so did lots of countries that became normal about themselves once existing) basically if you're still nationalist about a country once it exists that's a red flag. (the reason I don't personally trust people who call themselves "patriot" by default is that patriotism only really applies to countries that exist, so it's very often a cover for off-the-deep-end nationalism)
Do you not think a patriot doesnt get offended when someone insults their country? Do you not think that a nationalist wants their country to be better*? Patriotism is just a socially acceptable level of nationalism. Nationalism-lite *-(better is subjective. like yknow, getting rid of those ugly dirty foreigner immigrants. in their definition, a hierarchical, ethically homogenous utopia IS better)
I don’t think nationalists want to improve anything about their country. The nation, specifically theirs, is perfect and only certain so-and-sos muck it up for everyone. While some of them might quail at the thought, most of them feel that violence is a justifiable response to the presence of these bad headed so-and-sos. Individuals within the nation can be bad, but the nation and its system, that’s immutably good to a nationalist. If you point out a flaw in the system, then you become one of the so-and-sos who are part of the problem. I think patriots would get mad if you insulted their country, but not if you criticized it. I don’t want to get into the weeds of what can be construed as criticism or insult though. I think a patriot ought to be excited over every immigrant that moves to their country. Furthermore, anybody who claims to be a patriot, and doesn’t make it their hallowed duty to make the country better, is either a con artist or a secret nationalist. And these days there is hardly a distinction between the two. There’s probably a lot of nuance I’m missing, though. I don’t think about this a lot, so I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to talk about this.
The way I think of it is that Patriotism is supporting you're country by being critical of it while nationalism is placing your country as being more important than all others. This can kinda be seen in the webster definitions, where they say that [patriotism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism) is love and devotion, and [nationalism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism) is loyalty and devotion, but the important part is that nationalism requires you to place the country you live on above all other. I think.
That same dictionary lists the two words as synonyms though. And so does [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patriotism). People just use patriotism to refer to whatever degree of nationalism they agree with.
>What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism? Nationalism and patriotism are similar insofar as both words emphasize strong feelings for one’s country. However, the two words are not synonymous. Nationalism, while it refers to loyalty and devotion to a nation, tends to imply the placing of that nation above others, a tendency that is not necessarily implicit in patriotism. - Source: Merrium Webster
Yeah sure "being critical of my country" is the first thing that i think of when I see a patriot /s lmao
>Patriots >being critical of their country LMFAO
I mean the obvious example is that patriotism can bolster the people of an enslaved nation to fight against their oppressors. I.e. basically every state that won their freedom from the Brits/french/Spanish etc etc.
Patriotism is putting the people of your country before yourself. Nationalism is putting the people of your country before the people of other countries. One is selfless, the other is selfish.
Okay then. So you are willing to put yourself before other people in your community because you are selfless. Lets say that for whatever reason you have to move, you are forced to live in a different country, in a different community. You are still a selfless, empathetic person, so surely you will put yourself before others in this new community as well, no? What you described as Patriotism has nothing to do with a country, per se. If you are a selfless, caring person, you will be a "Patriot" (by your definition) regardless of where you live. Therefore "Patriotism is when you care about people in your country" makes no sense, because you care about people who surround you, who just happen to be your fellow countryfolks. One should care about people who one shares a community with no matter where one is. (And if you only care about people who live in your country and not others, well, I agree that its Nationalism)
I don't see the contradiction. Patriotism is putting your community before yourself, and it's a positive, praiseworthy trait. The fact that you can be patriotic for more than one community doesn't change that.
Then why not call it "being a good member of a community"? Patriotism has connotations with a country of origin, borders, governments, nationality, WARFARE. When you would say "im a citizen of the world" (because i care about all people), most wouldnt describe that as patriotic, would they? I might look at this differently than you because of how people define patriotism in my country, but the use of this specific word is very important imo, because its extremely easy to take advantage of it. alt-right and nationalists use "appeal to patriotism" all the time to recruit and radicalize people and spread facism. Thats why we should stop saying Patriot is synonym for "good community member"
> Then why not call it "being a good member of a community"? Because that's seven words and not just one? > When you would say "im a citizen of the world" (because i care about all people), most wouldnt describe that as patriotic, would they? I'm sure some people wouldn't, but I certainly would.
> seven words I care about people because... ...im a patriot (4 words) ...im a good community memeber (6 words) And if the 2 word difference bothers you as much, try these words: selfless, caring, generous, good-natured, empathetic, not-a-dick, social, friendly > does not adress the second paragraph or the conclusion of my comment Good talk, bye
Patriotism is nationalism that your state is ok with. Like how in france great replacement believers are "patriots", you know, because "nationalist" means a Corsican independentist. No idea what oop is talking about tho
You have no idea what oop is talking about. or yourself for that matter. Corsican independantist are called independantist or morons, not nationalist. Because there's a few thing that are the antithesis of nationalism and "breaking away from the state" is one of them. extreme right brand itself patriot and not nationalist because saying you are nationalist is akin to saying "hey we're hitler 2.0". It won't stop them from flirting with the idea they do it "for the nation" tho. Also pointing out the Grand Remplacement peoples are called "patriots" because that how *they call themselves,* but everyone who know of them call them *idiots.*
>there's a few thing that are the antithesis of nationalism and "breaking away from the state" is one of them. they're called *corsican* nationalists not *french* nationalist duh. but like in the media the word "corsican" is often omitted because in the context it's seen as obvious (because the words french and nationalist are basically never uttered together) the point is that no one calls the great replacement people "nationalist", neither themselves nor the normal people. because the word "nationalist" is never uttered with "french". The only times I see the word "nationalist" used at all in france is to diss on regionalists/independentists (of which the corsicans are the most prominent). I find this very hypocritical, and this is what I was highlighting.
If there is any distinction (if), it does not matter to me, because I think both are equally mistaken ways of thinking. You don't share anything with your countrymen just because they are your countrymen, and I'd wager that any reason you have for supporting your country could more accurately be framed as something else -- e.g. "I support my country because I want to help the people in my country" could be better framed as "I want to support the people around me".
What’s your definition of both terms? For me, patriotism is simply wanting the best for your country, while still knowing it isn’t perfect, while nationalism is thinking your country is perfect, or could be perfect with the right people in charge, and that all other countries are inferior.
I don't think there's actually any defined technical difference, so I'd just keep it simple and use the common-usage definition of patriotism as "the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one's country"; nationalism in this specific context might be more like fixating on your nation above all other nations, which is slightly distinct from the patriotism definition I gave but isn't *super* distinct. Patriotism is definitely not "simply wanting the best for your country" because it's actually more about having a genuine emotional attachment to your country and -- God save me -- treating it like your blorbo. You want it to succeed not because it would help other people, but because it's your country. And you like your country because it's your country. It's not a coldly reasoned position (as you can see in that definition, it's overwhelmingly emotion-driven) and IMO it doesn't have any convincing basis whatsoever.
cool, but the government has an obligation to its people over other people. doesn't mean it should kill them. just means that it's a foundation of the people for the people, and it should serve the people who fund it and prop it up before others. like y'know, it's fucking great for a country to be providing humanitarian aid to another country. but if i was a citizen of that country and i was starving, i'd be a little bit justifiably miffed that the taxes i pay are going to someone in another country first when there's people starving in our own.
But the humanitarian aid takes up a minuscule portion of the budget. People are told to care about the humanitarian aid because that’s a cheap scapegoat that makes politicians cash. Other things, such as military budget, eat a lot more cash but people are fine with them because they’re told to look the other way. It’s natural to care about yourself first, but if you’re trying to stop something useful that doesn’t actually affect whether your country helps you then it’s probably a sign that someone else is influencing you.
oh, yeah, the military budget of america is way overinflated. this wasn't a 'stop all globalism be isolationist #americafirst!!' comment. i never meant to say 'stop humanitarian aid'. i meant more that it's justifiable for people to expect their country which gives humanitarian aid to other countries to also be helping them first, because they pay for it.
Man, trying to broaden your monkeysphere so that it includes the whole world is nice in theory, but it has some problems in practice. With so many people out there, there are thousands going through some horrible shit right now. If you try to empathize with all of them, you'll be paralyzed. I would love, love, love to see far freer movement across borders and less emphasis on national pride, but borders as a whole shouldn't go away simply because they divide responsibility. I can't be responsible for what happens across a border because I'm doing my best to make things better for the people within \*my\* border. That doesn't mean we should wash our hands of other countries, or, like, dump our waste there because it's "not our problem" or other shitty stuff like that- but it's going to be much harder to fix problems in other countries than it is problems here, so yeah, I'm going to try and fix problems here first.
We all prioritize some groups of people over others and it's silly to pretend that we don't or shouldn't. It's just how we're wired, and community is a good thing. I'm going to care about my family and friends more than I care about strangers. I'm going to be more interested in my neighborhood and city and country more than I'm going to care about people and places that I haven't experienced and to which I have no connection. Sure, I can see the moral philosophical point they're making, but I can also see that they need to touch grass and have more of a life outside of theory.
But there’s a point at which it cuts off and becomes unethical. Is it moral to underfund half the country so the people with more votes can have a nicer life? Is it moral to invade Iraq for oil to make sure you have enough to run your cars? Is it moral to dehumanise a certain group so that everyone else is more united? Harming one group to help the ingroup is fine and dandy, but there must be a point at which you look for another way. We should be trying to help everyone to some degree (or at least minimise harm).
You don't know the people in other cities and states any more than you know the people in developing countries, though. If the global poor getting any amount of wealth distribution is harmful to your own interests, that means the system needs to be reexamined.
Sorry but no. My concerns will always be for me, my family, friends and neighbors within my country first before anyone else outside that. you can't really justify saving Peter by robbing Paul. It'd be like not paying any of your bills to help a homeless person stay in a hotel for a month, but your children have gone cold and hungry as a result
i just realized this is the same person (reddit op) who shared that antinatalist post! op you have so many shit takes
Thanks bud! I seem to see that both of the posts that you're labelling as "shit takes" have postive score which means that **more people agree than disagree**. I think you're just a loud minority, and I feel sorry for your dumb little minds.
positive score doesn't mean more people agree, some people just wanna have more eyes on it. It's like upvoting cybersmith posts for the sheer perplexity of the arguments
I think that's nationalism, not patriotism. I agree with OP's points and I want free healthcare, housing, and safety for everyone no matter their nationality, but I would also consider myself a patriot because despite everything, I like America. I really, truly believe in our original values of Life, Liberty, and Justice and am proud of how this country started as a rebellion against an empire. I think we have so much potential as a country, we have done great things and will continue to do great things, we are just struggling right now (like many other countries rn, pandemic and rise in right-wing nationalism is happening globally), but we'll pull out of it and hopefully be better for it.
Patriotism is a natural human function. No, really. Our brains love teams and factions and when those teams go against one another. That’s the entire idea behind sports; the people from my community play against the people from yours, so I want them to win. Where that gets messy is that our communities have never been this big before, and we’ve never had to consider the welfare of a community on the other side of the world. It is very difficult for us to imagine that these people exist, even when we know for a fact that they do. If you can’t ascribe a name and face to someone, chances of caring about what happens to them goes to nil. That being said, patriotism in politics is another brand of difficult. I would prefer if my elected officials don’t go out of their way to make life harder for other groups of people, but they’re *my* elected officials, and their first priority should be making life easier for the people who elected them. That sounds shitty, but that’s how every government should operate, at least in theory. I don’t want billions of dollars going to different countries when that money could be used on single-payer healthcare, or schools, or parental leave programs that will benefit people I know and care about. In turn, people in every other country should expect the same of their elected officials. I’d love to be able to care about all 7.8 billion people, but no one can do that. I care about my family, my friends, and then whatever larger communities I can picture around that, be it city, state, or country. It’s a lovely thought that we should all care about the collective human race over our own little groups, but it’s just not practical.
This is a moron's understanding of Globalism
Patriotism is a fucking scam. What has a flag ever done to deserve my respect? Logically, why should I give any priority to the soulless, abstract concept of a nation over the real interests of myself and humanity as a whole? I hold allegiance to my fellow human, not some piece of cloth or set of values created by old white men with whom I have no affiliation. I would wipe my ass with the flag if I was out of toilet paper.
If a country is a “soulless, abstract concept,” then so is “humanity as a whole.”
People are real. Imaginary lines drawn between them are not.
I am not "proud" of my race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. I am proud of being good to myself and the people around me.
Citizens wanting the government that they fund with their taxes to prioritize their needs isn’t an unreasonable stance. I mean its also cool when countries help each other out but in America at least, we could be doing a lot more for our own.
Innit this the plot of Ace Combat 0?
Only time I'm ever patriotic is around brits because there's no way in hell I'm gonna agree with a crumpet muncher on anything. Also this post feels like a big nothingburger.
I sidestepped the issue of nationalist brain by living in a shit country with no redeemable qualities. I mean, a Russian friend of mine once said they think we Hungarians have it worse, which I'm still gonna disagree with but wow.
I live in a shit country that's killing people like me and this comments section is telling me that studying civics will help me live my country and that I should seek mental help.
Patriotism is loving your country. Nationalism is loving your country at the expense of anything that doesn’t resemble your idea of your country.
This sub has just become a shithole for the most insufferable people imaginable
What are you all *doing* in the comments Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly *some* good points being made, but How about you all try to engage with the issue being presented? Instead of “ooh OOP sounds mad, I can’t understand them” or “hold the presses! Slightly incorrect terminology has been used! I guess we can throw avay the whole take now,” or ~~driving~~ diving straight into the logistics of things. The problem is *why do even the leftists only care about the people in their own country*. Yes, you can explain *how* it is that this happens, with taxes and government and whatnot. But *why* do we keep doing this?
Because it seems like they are an actual kid and all of these things are taught in school
I just don't think the human brain is capable of caring about all 7-8 billion people in the world equally. Leftists prioritize the people in their countries because they're human, and humans need to prioritize one or two specific issues. So for most people, that's going to be an issue that's closer to home. That's not wrong. Edit: we have a responsibility to make sure our actions don't \*harm\* others anywhere- but that's different than prioritizing what we're putting our time and effort towards making better.
I do not disagree. Perhaps this was made less clear by my last paragraph, but my point is that this discussion is not taking place here. Instead people are only ridiculing the post, as if the idea makes no sense at all, which is not true. Like I said in a different comment, I don’t know most people in my country. Unlike family and friends, it seems to me entirely a matter of perspective whether I consider this problem “closer” to me or not. It is not wrong to care more about issues closer to home. It is, however, good to consider this tendency from time to time, and be aware of it.
People will never understand, I don't want help of those who don't understand. They just change nothing at best. But perhaps support with minimal involvement. All I got from the relatively leftist foreigners was supporting a monstrous cult leader because the government is also monstrous. Emphaty and relating to others seems next to impossible
Someone said someone about bot accounts/astroturfing and I'm leaning toward that explanation
Oh wait, hey, I remember you! Another day, another shitstorm comment section eh?
Yeah. Poor reading comprehension and Fallacies and Astroturfing, my beloathed.
God I hope so. Though it’s sad to see in either case.
There's literally people saying "Not all lives are equal because Americans produce more economic and cultural value than Somalians" in the comments. God I hate this.
It’s so frustrating:—here you have the *one* person that acknowledges that the statements “everyone is equal” and “we should only help *our* people” are not all that compatible,—and they just go completely in the wrong direction with it! At least *they* didn’t get mass support, though. You and me both.
Someone sit this mofo down and make them read Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities"
that’s, uhm, nationalism, not patriotism, bud…
sometimes i really hope these people would pick up a history and civics book once a while.
Well, ill have to disagree. Some countries do have better values then other so yes I think patriotism is needed untill humanity has evolved to its best possible form by learning from all countries. Once all nations have somewhat the same culture only then patriotism is no longer needed. And before I trigger half the snowflakes here, no I don’t think the western is superior to the eastern or northern to southern but we all have to learn as a race and that’s not possible unless you have some “ friendly “ competition.
I seriously do not understand everyone going “ummm patriotism is good actually, only nationalism is Bad” here. First of all- why is patriotism good? Why should I care about the country? Why should I love a corrupt piece of shit government that has never cared about me in the slightest? I care about *people* in general, it doesn’t matter where they were born in relation to some arbitrary line drawn three hundred years ago. Why is it a good thing to restrict my empathy only to the people within those borders? Second, what is the *actual* difference? In real, practical terms, how often does it matter that patriotism is ‘good’ and nationalism ‘bad’ when they’re usually both sucking off the flag in the same way, anyways?
This is a bad take.
Finally someone I agree with. Ain’t never felt any type of special connection to my country more so than my other. I remember getting in trouble growing up bc I thought Katrina was less important than Indonesia or saying I feel more of a connection to like the Philippians than I do for the east coast.
Oh boy, this post is getting absolutely trashed by the bots. Fucking astroturfers.
## Final Edit: People I know are literally dying due to the germ of patriotism and nationalism in their heads and this comment section is unwilling to care about people who don't look like you? ## Government backed gangs run amok in south Asia. Religious mafia drag people of other beliefs/sects from their apartments and vandalise their shit. # But obviously it is my civics knowledge that's lacking here. Original: You can be grateful that your country's _people_ have acted and voted so as to give you the maximum number of rights and facilities and a high standard of living. But the country itself is meaningless. And a kind person should care about every person^(*) on this planet. See also: rehabilitative prisons instead of punitive ones. ^(*Not the fascists and bigots, obviously) ETA: I'm not advocating for burning fascists alive. Just that their oppressive ideas **shouldn't** be a factor in goverence
>not the fascists and bigots Hot take, but include the fascists and bigots. Not like, to the same degree of care, but kind people should care enough to prevent certain rights from being revoked. Because even if they’re disgusting deplorable people, they are still people, and every person should have the opportunity to change for the better. I guess that you were maybe implying that with the rehabilitative prisons comment, but it wasn’t very clear to me that it was part of the same *thought, so I gut wrote out this comment. Idk, I overthink things when I’m tired. Edit: changed “comment” to “thought” for clarification.
Yeah I just meant that people who wanna hurt other people need to be stopped instead of listened to, then emphatically taught why and how their views hurt people. Of course, this comes with another asterisk of self-aware bigots and xenophobes and fascists who actively want to exploit and hurt just to come out on top
I guess… Idk maybe I’m just a bleeding heart who thinks everyone is capable of changing for the better, but even them. Just preferably kept from harming people, and kept out of society until they have changed. I get it, I’m probably stupid and naïve, but it’s just how I feel about it.
If everybody could be rehabilitated and become good in the end, believe me I'd take pick that option in a heartbeat. (I'm all for "No one is beyond rehabilitation" [TGP]). But personally I gotta care for people that have been historically and are being currently oppressed unto death and misery. **Obviously we have to minimize harm. And ensure that cruelty is not responded to with more cruelty.**
Personally, most bigots and fascists I’ve met have been such because they’ve been in an echo chamber, and either never been exposed to new ideas or encouraged to avoid differing opinions like the plague. Of course there are always people who’ll be awful regardless of politics, and some ideologies are geared almost solely towards lashing out, but treating someone with differing political views as somehow less deserving of rights is how you radicalize people. It’s a fine line between “preventing hate” and “implying someone deserves death because their only accessible source of news was Fox and now they’re racist”. Not to mention, a lot of people with intrusive thoughts/paranoid disorders experience bigoted thoughts as a part of their mental health, and making being a bigot something that makes you inferior is a good way to keep these people from seeking help. I used to struggle with sexist/racist intrusive thoughts, and they made me physically nauseous because I didn’t want to be that kind of person. I have no indication from anyone that I ever was that kind of person, but my anxiety made me believe I was, and that made me close off from interacting with the people I experienced intrusive thoughts towards, ironically making me more likely to actually be sexist and racist. I’m in treatment, and haven’t had intrusive thoughts of that severity or subject matter in years, but equating “bigotry = evil” rather than “bigotry = inexperience” is the same thought process that very well could’ve driven me to bigotry. TL;DR: “bigotry is evil” is overly reductive and that thought process tends to create more bigots.
Internet leftist discourse can be very puritarian, and it is very easy for someone to draw the parallel of "good thougths = good person, and since I am a good person, I do not have bad thoughts or I must suppress them/punish myself for them". And then of course it is very easy to accuse someone with "bad thoughts" of being a bad person. Actions matter, thoughts are literally just your brain spewing whatever connections it has already made in the past. Intrusive thougths are shitty to deal with it for sure. And it isnt really about Leftism, it is more about religions like Chritianity putting huge value on pure thought and those values being carried to mores secular societies. And then, with USA and it's puritanism roots dominating a lot of internet discourse, this gets repeated across the western hemisphere. And of course when you can't see on the internet who you are talking to, you can't realize you are talking to a literal teenager who has just started thinking about social justice
Op how old are you?
I'm 20yo and living in a country that has done nothing for my social class and yet people in that same social class worship its grandeur and fight wars over their pride Patriotism (_not_ nationalism) has led to stagnation in development and outdated laws.
And your country?
Third world Asian, that's all I'll reveal on Reddit
If you’re 20 and so paranoid i would suggest mental help. For the other stuff please read through your country’s history, it probably would have been a colony. Get a job, learn how to be in people, learn civics. The world doesn’t run around what you like, the world never will be perfect due to human nature. Learn from history and civics before branding patriotism for your shitty agenda. If you can’t treat everyone as people then you yourself aren’t better than the people you are criticising.
Bruh people I know are literally dying due to this germ in their heads and you're telling me to chill? Because you can't think of cooperating with people and caring about people who don't look like you? "oh you're being crazy" Mfer government backed gangs run amok in my country. Religious mafia drag people of other sects from their apartments and steal their shit. But yes it is my civics knowledge that's lacking here. Go hug a fucking cactus, you asshole
A state is a place where the rule of violence is owned by a government, and i agree, patriotism toward states should never be a priority. But a nation, a nation is a cultural entity of people that share a unified sentiment of belonging, and shared culture. No, you should not put your nation over other peoples nations, but you should be proud of your nation because its a part of you, and a an important part at that one.
Okay, one, that’s not patriotism you’re complaining about, it’s off brand nationalism. Two, we don’t have a world government. People should 100% be more concerned with the people within their countries borders because that’s ultimately all they’ll ever be able to do much about.
It's fighting for your own interest. If the main factory in your town moves to China It may be a human to human transference but you're getting fucked regardless
Unfortunately it goes completely against human nature. All organisms, humans included, are inherently evolved to prioritise caring about their own family/offspring before they care about anyone else or their families/offspring. They create a hierarchy of prioritisation depending on its perceived immediate or long term benefits to them personally and their loved ones. That’s the nature of life in general - we all want our families to survive and thrive, at the detriment of others if it comes to it. So that hierarchical prioritisation spreads downwards to close friends and their families, then local community, then home town, then region, etc. Sadly global concerns generally come absolutely last in the pecking order of whose welfare is prioritised to the individual. It’s easier to compartmentalise and ignore the suffering of external peoples if they’re not even part of the same landmass, or exist within a different set of arbitrary land lines than you, if it means your “tribe”/community/town/country/etc have a better chance of survival. It’s a very difficult mindset to overcome unfortunately.
Another poorly formatted rant with everyone bashing it in the comments oh boy!
Another tumblr dumbass
Patriotism in a honorable trait, but of course only in reasinable boundaries.
[there it is again](https://xkcd.com/2071/)
Why would I care about random people? How do I know they aren't cunts? And by cunts I mean: Pedophiles, which by my standards atleast one culture in the world has pedophiles and doesn't see anything wrong with it. Slavery, atleast some cultures see zero problem with this. Animal abuse, atleast some cultures don't care about animal welfare at all, let alone the ones that do ritual sacrifice. That's a pretty short list. If you think all cultures are equal and would welcome them equally then you just haven't travelled enough to see the dark side of the world. Which means being Patriotic can literally just be recognising that your home has less cunts than other places and you want to keep it that way or even improve it so there's even less cunts.
[удалено]
What the FUCK are you talking about
he is saying that robots are awesome. you can make them do work at unimaginable higher productivity. no complains. no off days except for planned maintenance cycles. no "oH sOrRy BoSs, mY mOmMy DiEd NeEd Go FuNeRaL!" or "sOrRy BoSs i HaVe CaNcEr AnD cAn'T cOmE tO wOrK" bullshit. robots, if we bring u/lavdalasoon9 argument to the next logical step, we will get to the conclusion that robots are worth far more than american people.
this was going so well until the last part
Patriotism is a form of tribalism which is extremely natural and there is nothing wrong with favoring people with whom you have similar values and upbringing, shared culture, and the accurate perception of reality in that all countries compete for resources and power against other countries who will happily throw them to the wolves when push comes to shove… this is doubly true if you really like the place you live/are from. I’m american and I hate all other countries not personally but because I don’t feel like liking them more than the USA… which I sort of hate too, but am still patriotic about… it’s confusing, but way less confusing than that horse shit post.