Historically nationalism is the belief that your culture is superior.
This isn't, but it is not the only thing people mean when they use the word (although I have no doubt in my mind it is what Trump believes). Nationalism can also be used, and indeed, is used this way at least here, to mean something very close to what the word patriotism means to most people on these forums. The idea of some national character as expressed by a common history and shared values that is to be maintained and perpetuated - usually as a state independent from others, makings its own way in the world.
Keep in mind I am against all types of nationalism, even the most benign ones, but it is wrong to use the prescriptivist position here to attempt to say that the word has but one official meaning and all unofficial yet common meanings are invalid. I believe when Chonch is viewing nationalism as not necessarily a bad thing, that's what he means (even if this flies in the face of Trump's own explicit view of nationalism and the place of America in geopolitics).
As dumb as I personally think patriotism is, we shouldn't tolerate any muddying of waters between nationalism and patriotism. To sow confusion between the two notions, like Chonch is apparently doing here, amounts to lessening the gravity and how abhorrent nationalism actually is in the public eye.
Even a descriptivist approach to definitions necessitates that a substantial amount of persons agree with it. We don't have to accept this "definition". It's as dangerous and baseless as the attempts to rebrand racism as "privilege + power", it's an attempt at making actual nationalism more palatable for the average joe.
With him being an American speaking English, I'd have to agree - if this was some proper, consequential, place to talk about ideas. With this being an internet forum, I can (and do) forgive those sorts of variances in definitions of words. I do think his post is entirely pointless though because it's very clear what sort of nationalism Trump was meaning, and it's certainly not what I stated above.
Whether we accept one definition as always valid or not is irrelevant in a debate when we speak of a specific person using a specific definition and what is meant. Given that what Trump means is, in all likelihood, the definition given as a possibility by Merriam-Webster, Chonch's statement - while nominally correct - can be taken to be completely wrong when one uses what Trump means by it (and given the right value system, also be made a problem, not just a factual inaccuracy).
I don't think Chonch is trying to make that type of nationalism more palatable for the average joe (from what I understand due to speaking to him before), but it is clear the people Trump is surrounded by clearly are. There is the issue of understanding what a person means by a word (that which can be clarified by asking for definitions as to avoid semantic arguments), and there is the issue of why the word is being used - to what social or political end. I agree that in the light of the latter this use is problematic, but let us not conflate everyone who comments on what Trump is saying on the surface of things with Trump himself.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad stance per say. I don't believe it wrong to promote the interests of your people, and their culture, so long as you also respect the boundaries of other nations and cultures when sensible. The trouble is this line of thought has a great risk of going flying off the rails into hostility for the sake of "protecting sovereignty" or what have you.
I would argue that this on the other hand is a wholely untrue statement. Mahatma Gandhi, Theodore Roosevelt, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Kemal Atatürk, Nelson Mandela, and Sun Yat-sen
are just a few common names that top my head that most people will recognize; all of them are nationalist leaders of varying degrees and method.
Sure, those men were not always saints, as some of them are at times depicted, yet each succeeded in safeguarding their concept of a nation. Above all else, there is a staggering difference between a Roosevelt and a Hitler.
I will say that the nationalist leaders of the twenty-first century have by and by been largely been bad people. I must admit that I can't think of one modern nationalist leader that would deserve to join the ranks alongside some of those I listed above.
Anyways, I would like to make it clear that Trump is most certainly not one of the types of men I listed above. I'm not trying to make a big thing of this, maybe it's all just semantics, but I simply believe that "fascist" or "nationalist" has really just become a catch all pejorative.
Next up:
Trump: "I'm a fascist"
It also shows his caveman mentality
"nazi did good thing. Great thing. Nazi also did bad thing, but shit happen. Learn from mistake, fire hot like mexico desert"
the only difference is when Trump is out he'll just end up on fox news every day for the next 10 years and gets to go back to his gold palaces. He's attached to the gop forever.
Well we did see Mussolini on tv very shortly after he left office. Lel.
Except this dude's got swag, I mean come, on look at how he comes off, this guy don't giff a fuck and wants people to know, he's being real.
Yo keep the rest of us out of your argument.
I mean, if he knows what nationalism actually means that's a scary admission.
Though I kind of doubt he knows are cares what that word means, and isn't just confusing it for patriot.
Good thing it's been firmly established by conservatives that any political ideology whose name is included in the full form of the word 'Nazism' is functionally equivalent to Nazism itself
ya i was going to make a joke about Italian justice vs american justice but wishing for the president to hang high from his oversized red tie is too macabre.
I was low key hoping no one would type it out in full, you know. The thing with this euphemism is that while I would wish death on any Mussolini type, Trump is not yet an avowed facist so I'm positive he will be alive and well on tv somehow.
I'm not going to kill the president of the united states of America is my only disclaimer here, just in case.
“The president is a nationalist, which is not at all the same thing as a patriot. A nationalist encourages us to be our worst, and then tells us that we are the best. A nationalist, “although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge,” wrote Orwell, tends to be “uninterested in what happens in the real world.” Nationalism is relativist, since the only truth is the resentment we feel when we contemplate others. As the novelist Danilo Kiš put it, nationalism “has no universal values, aesthetic or ethical.” A patriot, by contrast, wants the nation to live up to its ideals, which means asking us to be our best selves. A patriot must be concerned with the real world, which is the only place where his country can be loved and sustained. A patriot has universal values, standards by which he judges his nation, always wishing it well—and wishing that it would do better. A nationalist will say that “it can’t happen here,” which is the first step toward disaster. A patriot says that it could happen here, but that we will stop it."
From Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny
Oh noes, we don't want to let illegal immigrants in, we just became literally worse than Hitler
can you stop strawmanning in every thread. It's dishonest and fools no one.
It's easier to dispute anything you don't like with "strawmanning" rather than having a proper debate
What makes you think anything you've posted merits a proper debate? If you show no interest in arguing in good faith, people aren't going to want to engage you in any lengthy form.
why would I let you change the narrative of the thread with a single dumb dishonest post
this is exactly how the far right wins. ignore what's being said. say something outragious/lie about the points that are being made, and when we correct that lie, keep lying and moving the goal post until youve dumbed down the conversation to pointless semantics.
no, you're a dishonest liar, that's all there is to say.
I do not think he is lying, he might be legitimate in his beliefs.
What the fuck does that have to do with the post you're quoting? Not once does it mention immigration policy.
You literally have to make up imaginary arguments to argue against in order to appear witty. Pathetic.
Arguing in good faith is impossible when any opinions you don't like are disregarded either as insane or evil.
The way you communicate with people of such beliefs and of such opinions is the reason far right wins
thankfully, fascists always meet their deserved ending
https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/mussolini_e_petacci_a_piazzale_loreto_1945.jpg?w=800
Of course, the far right wins because we call out people when they make up strawmen instead of actually arguing...
The reason the far right exists is because a substantial amount of people are retarded enough to be willing to disregard facts as long as it fits their little made up misconceptions of how the world works.
They disregard your point because its an obvious strawman and your retort was mocking the person who called you out on it.
Here's an eerily similar tale Austria can tell us all about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qtei6QiVgQ
Yes, after they fuck everything up.
I don't disregard any "facts" and probably neither do any people of similar beliefs as me. People just can't comprehend that those things you don't like are something that we are content with.
And calling people retarded for their beliefs just because they don't appeal to yours.
Trying to reason with you was a mistake in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
