• Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
    5,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50765308]This legitimately upsets me.[/QUOTE] That's fine, I can't really help it tbh.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50764909]No, personal anecdote. I doubt this has been polled, but I would be interested if you can find any. However, I don't think I am alone in noting the (largely) one-way movement. This is hardly the reason for my politics, just something I think is interesting.[/QUOTE] It's pretty easy to explain. People naturally become more conservatism as they age because they become more resistant to change which is something that aligns quite well with conservative values. On top of that, if someone's values don't change to keep pace with what's considered progressive (see: being resistant to change) then they're going to be naturally considered more conservative as they age even if their views haven't actually changed.
I think Deadpool was a great movie, but doesn't warrant the praise it gets.
Deadpool getting high praise was partly because of the movie environment it released in. BvS being a flop, and the whole cape genre feeling stale, Deadpool was a nice change of pace. On its own, I believe it's a good film. But in context of the genre cinema that surrounds it, its fantastic.
Deadpool was just okay.
Two for the price of one: 1.The only great movies that were announced this weekend at Comic Con were Kong: Skull Island, Wonder Woman, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. I don't see Justice League coming back from what damage BvS caused. 2. The Transformers fanbase trumps all other fanbases at being the worst and the most despicable, even bronies and Sci-fi fans. I know that bronies get a bad rap because they can be vocal and people like to talk about them, but if you get really into the TF fandom apart from the shows, the movies, and the merchandise, most of us are kind of @ssholes. Say the wrong thing to a TF fan online and they will go ALL CAPS on you and send death threats, in public and they will yell at you and throw fits. I mean they were the ones that coined the terms 'GEEWUN(G1)', 'Ruined Forever!!111', and 'Raped my Childhood' before every other fanbases started using them.
Justice League was fucked as soon as it was confirmed Zack Snyder was the director. He can choreograph a good fight scene but can't pace a movie or write consistent characters worth shit.
I enjoyed Halloween 3: Season of the Witch's concept better than the prior Michael Myers ones
I am very pessimistic about the near future but very optimistic about the distant future.
America's national anthem is not [I]that[/I] great
National Anthems, and patriotism in general is dumb
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50770620]National Anthems, and patriotism in general is dumb[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind -Albert Einstein[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The bird Man;50771009]quotes[/QUOTE] patriotism and nationalism are totally different things
[QUOTE=Blazedol;50771016]patriotism and nationalism are totally different things[/QUOTE] Depends how it's used by context. Of course it has it's differences, but there are major resemblences; they work well togheter. [B]Patriot[/B]: Expresses the emotion of love towards his country in a passive way (identity, self-determination, solidarity) [B]Nationalist:[/B] Strives for independence and the interests and domination of a nation and expresses his love or concern for the country in an active political way, also cultural, historical and ethnical (identity, self-determination, solidarity) So lets share George Orwell's [URL="http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat"]thoughts[/URL] on this.
I am not a nationalist but out of all the countries of the world I would choose to say in Canada because it is the best English-speaking place to live aside from maybe New Zealand. If I were rich though I would move to the USA.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50771099]I am not a nationalist but out of all the countries of the world I would choose to say in Canada because it is the best English-speaking place to live aside from maybe New Zealand. If I were rich though I would move to the USA.[/QUOTE] I feel the same way. I wouldn't mind living in another country, somewhere like England, Ireland, or Scotland. But there are certain benefits to living in Denmark that I would have to be rich to move out
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50770620]National Anthems, and patriotism in general is dumb[/QUOTE] What's wrong with showing pride for the country you live in (as long as it's within reason)? If patriotism didn't exist, America would probably still be a dumpy 13 state colony controlled by England. Bless our forefathers for dumping tea into the Boston harbor.
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;50771474]What's wrong with showing pride for the country you live in (as long as it's within reason)? If patriotism didn't exist, America would probably still be a dumpy 13 state colony controlled by England. Bless our forefathers for dumping tea into the Boston harbor.[/QUOTE] Not quite sure it's just a patriotism thing
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50771099]I am not a nationalist but out of all the countries of the world I would choose to say in Canada because it is the best English-speaking place to live aside from maybe New Zealand. If I were rich though I would move to the USA.[/QUOTE] If I was rich enough I would pay you NOT to move to the USA. [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;50771474]What's wrong with showing pride for the country you live in (as long as it's within reason)? If patriotism didn't exist, America would probably still be a dumpy 13 state colony controlled by England. Bless our forefathers for dumping tea into the Boston harbor.[/QUOTE] It really depends on the kind of patriotism/nationalism you're expressing, really.
[QUOTE=richard9311;50769198] BvS being a flop, and the whole cape genre feeling stale, Deadpool was a nice change of pace. [/QUOTE] ...Despite the fact that it came out a month [I]after[/I] Deadpool? And the last superhero movie before it being the much-liked Antman?
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;50771474]What's wrong with showing pride for the country you live in (as long as it's within reason)? If patriotism didn't exist, America would probably still be a dumpy 13 state colony controlled by England. Bless our forefathers for dumping tea into the Boston harbor.[/QUOTE] Didn't the English not also fuck over the Americans big time back then?
[QUOTE=gokiyono;50771821]Didn't the English not also fuck over the Americans big time back then?[/QUOTE] It was about taxes and political representation
A nation can't exist without some kind of nationalism. I would describe myself as a liberal/civic nationalist and I think that not having this kind of nationalism (both in not having nationalism at all or alternatively having racist ethnic nationalism, or divisive cultural nationalism) caused problems. This is because humans fundamentally want to identify with the people they are surrounded with. It is no accident that people identify more as 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' after people deliberately tried to kill British nationalism, because ultimately instead of moving to a post-national politics people found new identities to use instead. Fundamentally, a government needs nationalism for legitimacy. The democratic process isn't primarily what gives a government legitimacy (though it helps), it is a general acceptance of the right to be governed. This can only be achieved if there is common identity between as many of those being governed as possible. This is impossible without some kind of 'identity politics' given that we can't really care for more than a hundred people (as studies have shown). Instead, we need some kind of higher ideological force to allow for this legitmacy, which is why nationalism is necessary. Without it, we search for other, more divisive identities which instead of unifying people under a government, divide them and cause social problems. Nationalism also roots us in our place in time, which both helps provide stability in our governance and is also strongly desired by very many people (if not yourself), who don't like to see themselves as a lone individual, but instead a person shaped by their surroundings and history. I understand why people are concerned about nationalism due to what it has done when used poorly in the past, with an exclusive rather than inclusive identity. However, I still feel it is necessary for the reasons above. I also somewhat understand that people dislike its 'irrationality', but I don't think that is the point. Life, and politics cannot be explained properly by pure 'reason', and even if you disagree with this point, I think it is reasonable to think that the benefits of it outweigh the costs from a 'rational' standpoint due to the above reasons.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50771896]A nation can't exist without some kind of nationalism. I would describe myself as a liberal/civic nationalist and I think that not having this kind of nationalism (both in not having nationalism at all or alternatively having racist ethnic nationalism, or divisive cultural nationalism) caused problems. This is because humans fundamentally want to identify with the people they are surrounded with. It is no accident that people identify more as 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' after people deliberately tried to kill British nationalism, because ultimately instead of moving to a post-national politics people found new identities to use instead. Fundamentally, a government needs nationalism for legitimacy. The democratic process isn't primarily what gives a government legitimacy (though it helps), it is a general acceptance of the right to be governed. This can only be achieved if there is common identity between as many of those being governed as possible. This is impossible without some kind of 'identity politics' given that we can't really care for more than a hundred people (as studies have shown). Instead, we need some kind of higher ideological force to allow for this legitmacy, which is why nationalism is necessary. Without it, we search for other, more divisive identities which instead of unifying people under a government, divide them and cause social problems. Nationalism also roots us in our place in time, which both helps provide stability in our governance and is also strongly desired by very many people (if not yourself), who don't like to see themselves as a lone individual, but instead a person shaped by their surroundings and history. I understand why people are concerned about nationalism due to what it has done when used poorly in the past, with an exclusive rather than inclusive identity. However, I still feel it is necessary for the reasons above. I also somewhat understand that people dislike its 'irrationality', but I don't think that is the point. Life, and politics cannot be explained properly by pure 'reason', and even if you disagree with this point, I think it is reasonable to think that the benefits of it outweigh the costs from a 'rational' standpoint due to the above reasons.[/QUOTE] So what's stopping us from upholding the same ideology, except this time while taking the entire world in consideration instead of an arbitrarily delimited region of it? It would indeed be an even less divisive identity to consider oneself human rather than French or British. Your argument about people not being able to identify with more than ~100 people applies both to nationalism and a more global point of view. The difference in perception is roughly two orders of magnitude, which at this scale doesn't really change much.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50771933]So what's stopping us from upholding the same ideology, except this time while taking the entire world in consideration instead of an arbitrarily delimited region of it? It would indeed be an even less divisive identity to consider oneself human rather than French or British.[/QUOTE] Because I think people like to identify with their surroundings, and France is considered clearly separate due to hundreds of years of history from Britain, and simply enthusing people with an ideology, in my view, won't change this separateness. If France and Britain had more of a common culture, this would be viable. However, become too expansive and it becomes mushy nothingness. You can see this with the 'European' identity, created in an attempt to aid a federal Europe, which is so broad that very few care for it. The same would happen if you attempted to merge a French and a British identity. In addition, I think supranational bodies have a long history of unpopularity and incompetence. The EU, regardless of it being a mistake for us to leave, was hugely unpopular throughout Europe, had no legitimacy (due to the common identity being too expansive) and was very much ineffective. FIFA and the IOC are some of the worst organisations on the planet. The UN is ineffectual. About the only supranational organisation I think is effective is NATO, but now Trump is trying to set about and destroy it. Nationalism provides an ability to try to (if used properly) unite people. This is important in highly divided times, with extreme inequality, growing religious and ethnic diversity, and with the decline of religion we have lost something like this. In the past, two people could sit in a Church and identify with each other despite perhaps having no cultural bond, no economic bond, and act for the common good. Nationalism in my mind can be used to try and create the same effect.
As someone who hasn't been able to afford Overwatch since it came out I'm stick of seeing Overwatch memes and jokes involving the characters My opinion of it has been soured just because I haven't been able to play it and seeing all the injokes of the community flood absolutely everywhere on the internet has made it worse
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50771957]Because I think people like to identify with their surroundings, and France is considered clearly separate due to hundreds of years of history from Britain, and simply enthusing people with an ideology, in my view, won't change this separateness. If France and Britain had more of a common culture, this would be viable. However, become too expansive and it becomes mushy nothingness. You can see this with the 'European' identity, created in an attempt to aid a federal Europe, which is so broad that very few care for it. The same would happen if you attempted to merge a French and a British identity.[/QUOTE] The French and the Brits aren't that different, other than your lack of culinary culture and driving on the wrong side of the road, it's pretty much standard western culture. As for the European identify, I think you'll find that the people who are more involved in European matters, such as exchange students or young people overall, being more involved in multiculturalism. [Quote]In addition, I think supranational bodies have a long history of unpopularity and incompetence. The EU, regardless of it being a mistake for us to leave, was hugely unpopular throughout Europe, had no legitimacy (due to the common identity being too expansive) and was very much ineffective. FIFA and the IOC are some of the worst organisations on the planet. The UN is ineffectual. About the only supranational organisation I think is effective is NATO, but now Trump is trying to set about and destroy it.[/QUOTE] One could easily claim that the reason such organizations are inefficient is precisely because nationalism is too prevalent. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides, considering the current situation your government is in, I wouldn't say incompetence is exclusive to supranational organizations. It seems to be a staple of governments at large really. [QUOTE]Nationalism provides an ability to try to (if used properly) unite people. This is important in highly divided times, with extreme inequality, growing religious and ethnic diversity, and with the decline of religion we have lost something like this. In the past, two people could sit in a Church and identify with each other despite perhaps having no cultural bond, no economic bond, and act for the common good. Nationalism in my mind can be used to try and create the same effect.[/QUOTE] I don't really see the point of uniting people if it's done by dividing them between nationalities. International cooperation is a critical matter if we are to solve the issues this century is bringing. Every country only acting in their own self interest is the last thing we need really.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50772044]The French and the Brits aren't that different, other than your lack of culinary culture and driving on the wrong side of the road, it's pretty much standard western culture. As for the European identify, I think you'll find that the people who are more involved in European matters, such as exchange students or young people overall, being more involved in multiculturalism.[/quote] I think that if I went to live in France I would feel very foreign indeed, and you would do the same if you lived in Britain, especially so if you lived literally anywhere outside of London. This is between, as you said, two countries which are fairly similar. This can be multiplied many times if you are talking about more different countries. The same even applies to if I went to live in America or Australia. These countries are culturally distinct and will not be united by appeals to an overly broad ideology, no matter how much you try. Ultimately, most people aren't going to be going to work abroad or going on Erasmus programs at university. The Remain campaign mistakenly appealed to this in Britain during the referendum, seemingly without realising the vast, vast majority of people will never do either of these and as such don't give a shit about them. A proper national identity shouldn't require a high social class to be part of, as the European identity very much does and always will do in my view. [QUOTE=_Axel;50772044]One could easily claim that the reason such organizations are inefficient is precisely because nationalism is too prevalent. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides, considering the current situation your government is in, I wouldn't say incompetence is exclusive to supranational organizations. It seems to be a staple of governments at large really.[/quote] The difference is that national governments go through bouts of incompetence, whilst retaining the legitimacy of those they govern and as such retaining a very high degree of stability if they are democratic (Britain has not had regime change for hundreds of years) due to the combined legitimacy of nationalism and democracy. International bodies are terminally and permanently incompetent because they have no legitimacy, people don't want them and they have no unifying reason to act together and be effective. Their democratic purpose is also undermined as part of their lack of legitimacy (as democracy isn't just reliant, as I said, on the process itself) and as such are much less effective and in my view will be much less stable if they ever try to assert themselves. [QUOTE=_Axel;50772044]I don't really see the point of uniting people if it's done by dividing them between nationalities. International cooperation is a critical matter if we are to solve the issues this century is bringing. Every country only acting in their own self interest is the last thing we need really.[/QUOTE] When did I say we needed to end international cooperation or act entirely in our own interest? I agree completely that we need to cooperate. I don't agree we all need to act only in our own interest - in fact, I strongly advocate against this idea in my personal foreign policy. We should act on behalf of the people in our countries, and this very often does involve non-self interested action like international aid and humanitarian intervention, which are usually both strongly supported by ordinary people in polling. But desiring international trade and trying to solve international issues like climate change do not necessitate, in my view, doing away with nationalism and nation states.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50770434]I am very pessimistic about the near future but very optimistic about the distant future.[/QUOTE] Depends on what you define as near-future and distant future I feel pessimistic about the next few centuries, but not the thousands of years that will follow on after it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50772117]I think that if I went to live in France I would feel very foreign indeed, and you would do the same if you lived in Britain, especially so if you lived literally anywhere outside of London. This is between, as you said, two countries which are fairly similar. This can be multiplied many times if you are talking about more different countries. The same even applies to if I went to live in America or Australia. These countries are culturally distinct and will not be united by appeals to an overly broad ideology, no matter how much you try.[/QUOTE] Depending on the region of France you live in, you'll also have quite different cultures. Yet most of them don't cry for independence. The reason Britain and France are separate entities is way more historical and political than it is cultural. If cultural integrity was something the common people held to such a high esteem, we wouldn't have seen the Americanization of the world we've been observing for fifty years. I think your point of view makes you conflate the political and the cultural more than you ought to. [Quote]Ultimately, most people aren't going to be going to work abroad or going on Erasmus programs at university. The Remain campaign mistakenly appealed to this in Britain during the referendum, seemingly without realising the vast, vast majority of people will never do either of these and as such don't give a shit about them. A proper national identity shouldn't require a high social class to be part of, as the European identity very much does and always will do in my view.[/quote] You don't really need to be of high social class to partake in things like the Erasmus program, especially in the more socialist countries. And regardless, the current generation is more exposed to multiculturalism than those that came before, so yes, to them the European identity is going to be more relevant. [Quote]The difference is that national governments go through bouts of incompetence, whilst retaining the legitimacy of those they govern and as such retaining a very high degree of stability if they are democratic (Britain has not had regime change for hundreds of years) due to the combined legitimacy of nationalism and democracy. International bodies are terminally and permanently incompetent because they have no legitimacy, people don't want them and they have no unifying reason to act together and be effective.[/QUOTE] Your whole argument is based on the idea that the people don't want supranational organizations because they don't feel represented by them. But the reason they don't feel represented to begin with is because they subscribe to nationalistic ideals. As I said, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cultural differences are already present within the borders of any given nation. The only reason people identify with their nation is because they're part of that arbitrarily defined plot of land and its political system, not because of cultural affiliation. Also, no unifying reason? You're saying the various countries reaping benefits from working together isn't unifying? I don't really follow. [Quote]When did I say we needed to end international cooperation or act entirely in our own interest? I agree completely that we need to cooperate. I don't agree we all need to act only in our own interest - in fact, I strongly advocate against this idea in my personal foreign policy. We should act on behalf of the people in our countries, and this very often does involve non-self interested action like international aid and humanitarian intervention, which are usually both strongly supported by ordinary people in polling. But desiring international trade and trying to solve international issues like climate change do not necessitate, in my view, doing away with nationalism and nation states.[/QUOTE] Well, for starters, being part of a unifying organization helps a great deal in terms of cooperation. So yeah, unity does help a lot in that matter. Nationalism isn't really rooted in anything concrete other than supporting the status quo or being afraid of change. I mean, given your rhetoric I could be lead to believe you would support the independence of a nation's subset if it felt culturally different. But I doubt that would align with your wish for greater unity. What makes you think the current size of nations is the best one? What specifically would prevent a bigger nation from succeeding while at the same time keep current nation afloat despite cultural divides?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.