patriotism?

[kochman]

When are you going to stop attacking the person instead of even trying to address the real issues being discussed? You lecturing me or anybody else about partisanship is the epitome of absurdity.

The difference is, he doesn't deny it...
He isn't the Foxnews of the place, claiming to be non-partisan.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm just as "partisan" as anybody in some regards. But it certainly has little to do with how both you and Mobboss frequently try to falsely try to mischaracterize me, as well as most anybody else who disagrees with your far-right nationalistic rhetoric.

Unlike the both of you, I am staunchly anti-authoritarian. Does that mean I am a "partisan" for liberty and other similar basic precepts of this country? Guilty as charged.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Patriotism is simply loyalty to some sort of civic entity. It can be a nation, or it can be a city, a duchy, a kingdom, an empire, etc. One can be a patriot of France, or a patriot of the Habsburg Empire, etc.

Nationalism is a specific modern concept that humans form like-minded communities that are the basis of legitimate governance. Governments drawn from outside the community possess certain mental qualities which make it impossible to govern other communities in fairness and dignity, because they cannot bridge these mental/cultural gaps.

It can be associated with Democracy, Authoritarianism, Socialism or just about any other form of government. Or even a rejection of government. Nationalism, in short, is the idea that France should be governed by the French, and for the French, while Italy should be governed by the Italians, and for the Italians. If this seems common sense to you, this is because nationalism is by far the most widely accepted political ideology on the planet. It was unknown to the world 3 centuries ago, but during the 19th century it spread to just about every corner of the world.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would agree with mild forms of nationalism, as I have already repeatedly stated. But that obviously isn't true with more virulent forms such as that practiced by the neocons and Spain under Franco. They use it to claim they are "good" fighting "evil". That they have moral superiority over their "enemy". The Cold War was an excellent example of excessive nationalistic fervor which crossed many national boundaries.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You didn't actually read my post.

 

[Domen]

Patriotism is simply loyalty to some sort of civic entity. It can be a nation, or it can be a city, a duchy, a kingdom, an empire, etc. One can be a patriot of France, or a patriot of the Habsburg Empire, etc.

That's what I'm trying to explain in this thread for the last few pages of it.

Regarding nationalism - it should be also distinguished from chauvinism.

Nationalism, in short, is the idea that France should be governed by the French, and for the French, while Italy should be governed by the Italians, and for the Italians. If this seems common sense to you, this is because nationalism is by far the most widely accepted political ideology on the planet. It was unknown to the world 3 centuries ago, but during the 19th century it spread to just about every corner of the world.

I totally don't agree that this idea was unknown to the world 3 centuries ago. I can give you examples if you want.

BTW - by "for the French", you don't mean that nationalism is about not allowing other nationalities to live in your country & / or discriminating them, do you? This is not what nationalism is about. But it is indeed about thinking that well-being of the French should be the priority of the government of France.

Every country in the world is to some extent nationalistic. Australia comes to mind as one with very nationalistic government / policy.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Nationalism is a specific modern concept that humans form like-minded communities that are the basis of legitimate governance. Governments drawn from outside the community possess certain mental qualities which make it impossible to govern other communities in fairness and dignity, because they cannot bridge these mental/cultural gaps.

That definition seems too narrow to me. "The culture of Whocaresia is awesome. Only people with the noble Whocaresian blood could have such a culture. Whocaresians deserve to rule over all lesser peoples, who should accept our fair and just rule with gratitude (though only we can rule ourselves properly)" seems like a nationalistic sentiment to me, yet it doesn't completely fit your definition.

 

[Domen]

That definition seems too narrow to me.

To me as well. But it is a good partial definition of nationalism.

Regarding patriotism as loyalty to a city - that would be what is called "local patriotism".

"The culture of Whocaresia is awesome. Only people with the noble Whocaresian blood could have such a culture. Whocaresians deserve to rule over all lesser peoples, who should accept our fair and just rule with gratitude (though only we can rule ourselves properly)" seems like a nationalistic sentiment to me, yet it doesn't completely fit your definition.

Because it is not a nationalistic sentiment. That's why it doesn't fit to his definition.

Your example with Whocaresia is clearly an example of chauvinistic sentiment. Check:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chauvinism

The definition above includes the term "fanatical patriotism".

The Polish dictionary (below) uses the term "radical nationalism":

http://sjp.pwn.pl/lista.php?co=szowinizm

Whether we explain it as radical patriotism or radical nationalism - I think this is of secondary importance.

Chauvinism is simply chauvinism.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You didn't actually read my post.

Only I did.

And you continue to ignore that excessive nationalism is not the same at all as the common variant which you just described. It only becomes an issue when people of one group, or similar groups, feel they and their government are inherently superior to others that it becomes a major problem. Take Manifest Destiny and neo-conservatism, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_nationalism

"Expansionist nationalism" is a radical form of imperialism that incorporates autonomous, patriotic sentiments with a belief in expansionism. It is most closely associated with the likes of Nazism (National-socialism) and American Manifest Destiny and also shares some commonalities with neoconservatism.

 

[Traitorfish]

If there are no such sentiments, you can't manipulate them.

First you have to cause the appearance of such sentiments in minds of people.

...Ok?

But that's what the combined words "ethos of work" mean.

"Ethos" is a set of ideas, but when you say "ethos of work" you think about one particular set of ideas - which consist in admiration / cult of work.

You don't think about ideas which consist in despising work & hating it - but such feelings are also "ethos of work" - simply a different one.

So don't nitpick, please.

It's not nitpicking to point out when you use a word contrary to how it is formally or commonly used. Exhausting, yes, but not nitpicking.

In this case, an "ethos" is a value-system, the concept to which "ethics" pertains. An ethos is an ethical system, and vice versa.

Patriotism is a kind of "ethos of homeland / nation" which propagates a certain set of ideals - "you should love your homeland / nation" and such.

No, patriotism is the love itself, not the exhortation to love. The latter would be an ethical position, because it describes an attitude to how one should live ones life.

Ok - so replace "use" by another verb which you think that can describe exploitation of immaterial entities to various purposes.

Which entities, to which purposes? As I said, "use" makes sense in some contexts- I use the metric system, for example- just not in this context.

 

[Domen]

No, patriotism is the love itself, not the exhortation to love.

And ethos is not the exhortation to a set of ideas but a set of ideas itself.

So saying that patriotism is a kind of ethos of homeland is correct.

Anti-patriotism is also a kind of ethos of homeland - a different one.

 

[Traitorfish]

And ethos is not the exhortation to a set of ideas but a set of ideas itself.

So saying that patriotism is a kind of ethos of homeland is correct.

Well, yes, but love is not an idea, it is an intentional relationship. One might have a patriotic ethos that is a set of ideas which exhort one to such a relationship, but that seems to me distinct from the relationship itself.

Anti-patriotism is also a kind of ethos of homeland - a different one.

Arguably so.

 

[Ajidica]

So no - that was by no means tolerance, Mr. Apologist of the Roman Imperialism.

So because I pointed out the Romans had a habit of adding foreign gods to their Pantheon (and for the most part not caring who you worshipped as long as you accepted Caesar as a god) I am now an apologist?
My, what a strange people you poles are.

 

[MobBoss]

When are you going to stop attacking the person instead of even trying to address the real issues being discussed? You lecturing me or anybody else about partisanship is the epitome of absurdity.

I never tried to claim I was non-partisan. Why do you view this benign viewpoint of your posts as an attack on you? Almost everyone that posts in these forums is partisan to different degrees. I dont think myself or you is any different.

I'm just as "partisan" as anybody in some regards. But it certainly has little to do with how both you and Mobboss frequently try to falsely try to mischaracterize me, as well as most anybody else who disagrees with your far-right nationalistic rhetoric.

Now see, there you go. You label others here as far right nationalists. All I said was your comments are partisan (which you just admitted). Who's attacking who then?

Unlike the both of you, I am staunchly anti-authoritarian. Does that mean I am a "partisan" for liberty and other similar basic precepts of this country? Guilty as charged.

I think it makes you partisan for what you think is liberty. I dont think many would agree with you on your various definitions that you use, however.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think you are confusing "personal opinion" and even "bias" with "partisan":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(political)

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

Again, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a socialist. I'm not even a liberal. I am a strongly libertarian independent centrist who happens to have many opposing opinions to your own, as I do with any other staunch far-right authoritarian.

And yes, I think you are clearly "partisan".

I also think just about everybody knows what "liberty" means, even me. For those who don't, it is politically the opposite of authoritarian, as in "libertarian".

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Aaaaaaand cue complaining about how Formaldehyde is using Wikipedia.

 

[Domen]

So because I pointed out the Romans had a habit of adding foreign gods to their Pantheon (and for the most part not caring who you worshipped as long as you accepted Caesar as a god) I am now an apologist?

Don't take everything so seriously. That was a bit sarcastic remark.

 

[MobBoss]

I think you are confusing "personal opinion" and even "bias" with "partisan"

Nope. In fact, I would say your personal opinion is largely biased AND partisan.

I'm not saying that as a negative, its just my observation.

Again, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a socialist. I'm not even a liberal. I am a strongly libertarian independent centrist who happens to have many opposing opinions to your own, as I do with any other staunch far-right authoritarian.

But for someone that claims to be a libertarian, you do seem often supportive of the democrats and how they have expanded government. You claim to be libertarian, but certainly seem solely anti-conservative, while embracing decidedly leftist and non-libertarian ideals.

Ergo, I know this is what you profess and think you are, but your comments and opinions dont really track that way.

And yes, I think you are clearly "partisan".

Pardon me if I dont fly off the handle like you did earlier at the comment.

I also think just about everybody knows what "liberty" means, even me. For those who don't, it is politically the opposite of authoritarian, as in "libertarian".

Then why are so many arguing with you here about your presumed definition of it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope. In fact, I would say your personal opinion is largely biased AND partisan.

Even after I pointed out what the word "partisan" actually means? Merely because I disagree with your clearly partisan approach to most political issues doesn't make me a Democrat.

You have shown again you really don't know anything about my actual opinions which I have even stated numerous times in this forum, much less have any basis to complain about how I correctly use words which you apparently don't even understand.

 

[Traitorfish]

To be fair, it is not unreasonable that somebody would have a hard time seeing the difference between being fervently pro-Democrat, and being fervently anti-Republican such a manner as to invariably end up rooting for the Democrats. It's like how GhostWriter is fervently anti-Democrat in such a manner as to invariably end up rooting for the Republicans, but even though he maintains the pretence of being in some ill-defined sense independent, everybody just assumes he's a Republican, because he is in practice indistinguishable from one.