The reason for my (lack of) hostility towards Benji

[Jack]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

[benjimanbreeg]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

You mean you disagree with me?

[MLA]

I don't understand the lack of hostility towards Benji.   

[Jack]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

You mean you disagree with me?

Why would I agree to ignore part of the definition of what is a nation?

[benjimanbreeg]

I don't understand the lack of hostility towards Benji.   

?

[benjimanbreeg]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

You mean you disagree with me?

Why would I agree to ignore part of the definition of what is a nation?

You are ignoring it though. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nation

[Jack]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

You mean you disagree with me?

Why would I agree to ignore part of the definition of what is a nation?

You are ignoring it though. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nation

You're the one ignoring the difference between the definition of nation and the meaning of a nation.

Nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a social concept with no uncontroversial definition,[1] but that is most commonly used to designate larger groups or collectives of people with common characteristics attributed to them—including language, traditions, customs (mores), habits (habitus), and ethnicity. A nation, by comparison, is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

Social science also defines nations by means of political autonomy and civic nationalism is a social construct dating back to 1700s. If preferring to pick and chose what defines a nation, no worries.

[benjimanbreeg]

I'm referring to the dictionary definition of nation.  Not so interested in what someone's wrote on Wikipedia or what 'scientists' have to say about it.  You just have personal feelings invested in this, so probably best to to argue about it. 

[Jack]

Any other dictionary link for the word nation also clearly defines nations in terms of political unity and autonomy outside of ethinicity. Though going by that one link alone, the word 'or' is very important in that definition, and citizens ex-colony nations do share unity through a common history, inhabiting a particular country or territory. How is it possible to criticize Americans as a group based on American history, and at the same time not considering them as sharing a history? Unless of course, there's an answer to how many generation it takes for a nation of citizens to be considered by definition as sharing unity through a common history.

Not so interested in what someone's wrote on Wikipedia or what 'scientists' have to say about it.

Okay.

[Jack]

I already acknowledged plastic nationalism.

This entire side of the globe are considered an ex-settler colony nations. Is this just about US European settlers and the Indians, or are Mexicans really just Spaniards, Brazilians are really just Portuguese, Canidans really just French and Brittish, and so on?

Basically yep.

That's just silly.

You mean you disagree with me?

Okay then, wont be so dismissive. The concept of nationalism began in England in the early 1700s with people identifying with a country, and began as rooted in patriotism, then the American and French revolutions of the 1700s further promoted the first sociological understanding of nationalism to be both patriotism and political autonomy. The term originates in German romanticism and the person who originated the term nationalism, defined it in terms of language, placing importance on political nationality, and patriotism. Two sociological schools of thought later developed, one which maintains nationalism can only exist in modern society by means of unity through political rule and economic structure, and the other based in unity through ethnic evolution by means of group survival and environmental influence. If one were to defer to the evolutionary based philosophy of nationalism which pre-dates modern society, then it must also be accepted it stands to reason there is no longer any such thing as genuine nationalism, because the advent of modern political rule and economics defeats the concept, thus the evolutionary concept of nationalism has evolved into racial separatism and xenophobia, with maybe the exception of existing clan groups type nations. If going to poo poo social sciences, it's only fair to poo poo both schools of thought because neither outdates the other, and those very schools of thought are the origin of terms like civic nationalism and racial nationalism, which are concepts which also neither outdate each other.

[Jack]

You just have personal feelings invested in this, so probably best to to argue about it. 

This is the problem with my persona; am not arguing with you, but discussing. Not at all angry and have no interest in trying to change your mind. Any personal investment is only related to the laws and societal values within my own country. Wouldn't you say the same about your own stance? Would guess my personal preference for a sociological philosophy doesn't have much impact on how it relates to your world. We might as well be disagreeing about metaphysics. You probably have some personal feelings invested in the topic too. Do you want to talk about this from a personal feelings perspective?

[odeon]

What false narrative?

The false narrative is that a handful of criminals somehow represent the mentality of a nation.

Let Pappy answer himself.  Where does it say that the whole nation hates Muslims?  I just used the article to show that 9/11 stemmed the modern day Muslim hating, didn't say the whole country or world hates them but the US is definitely the worst for that i'd say, even though it's like half of the country is "liberal" and "left wing".  I do think Europe is catching up though, just look at the rise in votes for plastic nationalist parties.

Can post whatever I want, and Pappy is free to answer you if he wishes. The article refers to hate crime as a miasma, which implies an general oppressive stench in the air, stating specific instances of murderous hate crime have sent a message which has convinced millions of people their values are defendable at all costs, and portrays nations as speaking a language of violence which manifests as acts of violence and governments are slow to condemn those who do it. That's a lot more eloquent than saying it's pervasive, but the message is still there. You didn't specifically say the world or a country hates muslims, but you did say the average man on the street thinks of them mainly as terrorist. Have gotten the impression Nationalism and Patriotism don't mean the same thing in the US as other countries; they're not really synonymous with racism or separatism, so not viewed as a negative thing and there's a lot of it. So sometimes think people mistake national pride and patriotism in Americans as something it isn't. Understand why you used the article, and agree, in the US 9/11 is the reason for the increase in muslim victimization, but don't necessarily believe it stands out different or worse, or even much more likely, than any other minority victimization. Wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a problem in the UK than the US, because the US has long been ethnically diverse and multicultural, but European countries have a long history of being difficult for outsiders to gain permanent access or citizenship and now that's changed.

The only genuine nationalism in the US comes from the Native Americans.   I'd also say that Africans have more right to the country over Europeans.  I'm not exactly sure what the US has to be proud about.  Really?  Trump's success seems to have come from his anti-Muslim stance.  And look at all the wars involving the US against the Muslim world which around half the country supports.  Also the way viewers were crying and clapping at the end of "American Sniper" around the country.  The people of the US have always been coerced into hating/being scared of their main 'enemies".

How many generations do you think is the absolute minimum for genuine nationalism?

Perhaps you should ask that to "African Americans".

I'm asking you.

If a dog's born in a stable does it become a horse?

If there are more dogs than horses, shouldn't the place be more than a stable?

['andersom']

Horses and dogs don't procreate together.

["couldbecousin"]

Horses and dogs don't procreate together.

  Somewhere on the internet, they do.  It's Rule #34.

['andersom']

Horses and dogs don't procreate together.

  Somewhere on the internet, they do.  It's Rule #34.

That's about sex or porn, not about getting babies.