JK Rowling attacked for saying Scottish nationalism 'contains traces of bigotry - Polidicks

Cultures can exist and flourish without nationalism. Nationalism is primarily a justification for the existence of the state.

some form of a state inevitably pops up - from small-scale chiefdoms, to large republics. Because in order for a culture to survive the people within it need to work together. By working together they create some form of a government.

Only if you lack imagination. Whoever sees something other than human beings in us, in him we will likewise not see a human being, but an inhuman monster, and will meet him as an inhuman monster; on the other hand, whoever recognizes us as human beings and protects us against the danger of being treated inhumanly, we will honor as our true protector and patron. So let's stick together and protect the human being in each other; then we find the necessary protection in our sticking together, and in ourselves, the ones who stick together, a community of those who know their human dignity and stick together as "human beings." Our sticking together is the state,; we who stick together are the nation. In our coming together as nation or state we are only human beings. How we behave in other ways as individuals and what self-seeking impulses we may succumb to there belong solely to our private life; our public or state life is a purely human one. Anything inhuman or "egoistic" that clings to us is degraded to a "private matter;' and we meticulously distinguish the state from "civil society" where "egoism" pursues its essence. The true human being is the nation, but the individual is always an egoist. Therefore cast off your individuality or separation in which egoistic inequality and discord dwell, and devote yourself entirely to the true human being, the nation, or the state. Then you will count as human beings and have all that is the human being's; the state, the true human being, will entitle you to all that belongs to it, and give you "human rights"; the human being gives you its rights! Such is the speech of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is nothing other than the thought that the state is all in all, the true human being, and that the human value of the individual consists of being a citizen of the state. He seeks his highest honor in being a good citizen; beyond which he knows nothing higher than, at the highest, the antiquated "being a good Christian." - Max Stirner

Tbh I'm still not over what happened between the English and us in the states you should pay me reparations

That's cute rowling now go back in your hidey hole or else i'm sicking the harry potter nerds on you.

Happy to accept that the bulging folder of xenophobic and anglophobic screenshots I have on my laptop aren’t the whole story. How did she get into my google drive Jokes aside there's a decent case to make for anglophobia not being a nationalist or bigotted thing and more of a general rejection of english culture and law. The idea of a right-hobbesian nanny state constantly hustling its citizens through the most ridiculous taxes makes me shudder. Some of the proposed laws on anti-social activity from the Cameron era made my blood boil at the time. Overall there are many things wrong with how this particular country is handled and its repeated to exports of its toxic worldview. I think England is best used as a counter example regarding law and especially politics. That said I don't believe nationalism can be fixed, and I would much sooner recommend civic anglophobia

You seem to be rejecting positive outcomes based on a spurious association that is based entirely on a name. Your fear of ethnic nationalism is not a valid cause for the existence of centralized government and lack of political representation. There's plenty of examples of Northern European countries that decided they wanted complete autonomy from their neighbors, and their own brand of international representation. They didn't wind up devolving into fascist ethno-states because of it.

Nationalism is a spook, the concept of the nation itself is a spook, the state is a spook and borders are spooks for sure. These are fixed ideas and normative values that most people hold higher than themselves, which motivates their action, and I reject them entirely. Stop believing in spooks, abolish all hierarchies.

Rowling is a rich old idiot anyways, also literally a TERF.

you’re actually insane lol

Why think for yourself when you can just dismiss it as insanity

You’re literally dismissing anything anyone has brought up with quotes from a long dead philospher from a much different age and with a term that is often used as a slur for african americans. i think i’ve earned the right to dismiss your arguments.

I only recognize social constructs for what they are. "Spook" is if anything just a bad translation of the german word "spuk", but is useful for memetic reasons, and its meaning in this context is not anything else than such, "social construct", "hierarchical institution", "fixed idea", "normative value", which all describe the same thing.

why must you embarrass egoism as a philosophy with your partial understanding of stirner

Imagine unironically quoting Stirner lmao

Sorry mate, I just got a little worked up. If I feel like an argument is going nowhere I just try to attack the social construct from the root of it in an often unarticulate manner, it's like a default at this point.

Your attack is equivalent to screaming unintelligibly at people while incapable of hearing, while your audience is in another part of the building. All you did was misrepresent the concept of Spook in a conversation while using it in an ineffective manner making pointless suggestions that address not a single point in this thread nor are at all remotely viable as a call for action. Railing against abstract, sacred concepts when no person seems to have either demonstrated believing them sacred or even mentioned their absolute necessity neither helps get your point across nor addresses anything in the conversation as it is at the moment in this thread. You attack nothing except the ghosts in your head you have substituted for the pragmatic arguments of people you seem to not answer with anything of substance at all (surely even you find this ironic). An idea is only a spook if people deny themselves before it, a person who supports the existence of such concepts because they believe doing so is for their benefit is actually acting in full accordance with egoism, all social concepts are illusory, the only thing that matters is your relation to the concepts. You should consider re-reading Stirner. It is possible to recognize the existence of such spooks while trying to actually effectively undermine them, which isn't even remotely close to what you are doing here right now. Quoting Stirner like he's some religious figure is the greatest irony I have witnessed on this forum to date, thank you for giving me a great laugh.

Well you're spitting fire as usual. I pretty much agree with this and I am ashamed, although I'm obviously not backing down from rejecting nationalism and etc as spooks. Although I'll point out one thing. The purpose with the quote was that Stirner basically said it better than myself. I didn't intend to use his words as some kind of scroll of thruth, but I can see where you're coming from now. I've read The Unique twice (although I did skip the first chapter where he's just tearing down Hegel). Guess I'll give it a third, and more thorough read. Btw, do you know if Landstreicher's translation of Stirner's Critics is up on the net somewhere? Can't find it on libcom at least.

I'd link it to you (it doesn't take much searching to find a proper copy) but I would rather not lose this account at the possibility that doing so would be considered promoting warez (another great irony considering the content of the man's work). In the future, do yourself a favor and try to actually read that which is said to you and answer in regards to that, considering full well both the possibility that whoever it is you are responding to doesn't know where you're coming from, and the possibility that you are misinterpreting their words. Generally, if you are going to say your piece, do so in an effective manner - communication requires two parties after all.