[LinearPhilosopher]

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

[Andorion]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Not sure about the legal part, I think you can legislate a nation into existence, but as for the rest, sticking firmly with Anderson, eh?

[LinearPhilosopher]

Andorion, on 28 August 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Not sure about the legal part, I think you can legislate a nation into existence, but as for the rest, sticking firmly with Anderson, eh?

write a fancy piece of paper, call it constitution. Get a bunch of other pieces of paper to recognise you as a state and voila you have a country. Nation states came about to help administer and organise large groups of people, so we expanded the previous meta narrative that involve principalities, religion, and cities and made an ever larger meta-narrative and to facilitate that administration you have tons of legalities and bureaucracies established.

cant say im familiar with anderson

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 28 August 2016 - 05:07 AM

[Mentalist]

Ukrainian, obv. Although each year spent in Canada I find the idea of going back harder (not in a sense "I won't fit in" (though I probably won't, if I'm being perfectly honest,), but more in a sense of "all that I know how to do is life is not in demand there").

Nevertheless, I keep up with the music (much more so than North American music that I come into contact with occasionally through other people's radios), literature, sports, and, (most of the time), politics and news.

[Abyss]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

I have a bad feeling you two are going to stop guarding a bridge to go drinking in a minute.

[amphibian]

I think the people of the USA really do have a higher level of nationalism that's unusual in that so many have families who specifically moved to be there. There's a certain level of "I bought in and now I gotta rep the brand" multi level marketing going on plus willful and accidental ignorance about the impact and perception of "America".

The concept of America also has these imperialism/colonial overtones in a similar way that the British and Spanish concepts do, in that America also includes what it takes or once had because America is great. I do not think that we need to say USA'ans instead of a broader American/distinguishing between North and South America because very, very few people do this and the ones that care most strongly about being specific are probably going to be way more specific than that and/or not like using the America/Amerigo names.

I need to be clear that very, very nationalist people exist in kind of scary numbers almost anywhere and everywhere across the globe. I don't particularly like this, but it is part of reality and I will do my part to ensure that xenophobia and hostility are less present around me.

[worry]

Should we fight a war to defend anti-nationalism? To unprotect our borders and assert our birthright global citizenship?

[LinearPhilosopher]

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

[worry]

Social constructs aren't fictional simply because they're constructs, any more than a skyscraper is fictional because it's a construct.

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 29 August 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

Social constructs aren't fictional simply because they're constructs, any more than a skyscraper is fictional because it's a construct.

one exists outside the mind, the other doesn't. Take all the humans away you'd still have a giant mass of concrete, steel, tubing, vents etc.

[worry]

"Take all the humans away" -- so it requires a fictional Earth to make your definition of fiction work.

[LinearPhilosopher]

worry, on 30 August 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

"Take all the humans away" -- so it requires a fictional Earth to make your definition of fiction work.

Hardly, it was to illustrate the point. A physical construct has a real existence for lack of a better term. Fiction in a more broad sense refers to a creation of the human mind. A physical construct can be experienced independent of being in the same social context.

Social construct, 100% dependent upon humans minds agreeing upon their existence. We then codify that existence by adding ink on a page in a specific manner and boom there's your social construct. Ink on a page, a collection of ideas commonly shared, usually by means of similar upbringing and constant reinforcement of those ideas until comes a point where one cannot differentiate the idea from reality.

[Malaclypse]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Interesting. I agree on a couple of levels but the reality is that we have to deal with them now. I don't think I will live to see the end of the nation-state but it's a necessary development for our species in my opinion. In any case, this is a poll thread - you just posting here to say that you refuse to vote is assholery by definition. Choose or sod off

[LinearPhilosopher]

Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Interesting. I agree on a couple of levels but the reality is that we have to deal with them now. I don't think I will live to see the end of the nation-state but it's a necessary development for our species in my opinion. In any case, this is a poll thread - you just posting here to say that you refuse to vote is assholery by definition. Choose or sod off

Not disagreeing with some of your conclusion. Neccesary yes, good? who knows, that being said I think its a useful thing to stir the pot every so often.

Also being an asshole has its merits, you should try it sometime

[worry]

Ink on a page has a physical existence though. A contract with signatures on it doesn't require minds agreeing upon its existence. Does it have more in common with a skyscraper or a nod and handshake?

[Malaclypse]

LinearPhilosopher, on 29 August 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Abyss, on 29 August 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Nothing fictional about it. It's a recognized boundary within which a specific set of laws and rules apply.

If you want to go back in time to clans and city-states, sure the idea is relatively 'recent' as human history goes, but it's not a fiction, it's not 'made up' nor in any way unreal any more than the physical limits of a clans' hunting grounds or a city-state's defence and transport system.

boundaries recognised by fancy pieces of paper. Is the ground in canada red whilst the ground in the US green? i think not. Borders are imposition upon the world by means of social constructs. Borders exist in only two places, on paper and in the minds of others. This is without getting into the various scenarios that make the entire thing laughable all together,. Impose fancy borders all you like, doesn't change the fundamental reality. All it is an imposition of the human mind onto the real world that is to often taken as if it was the world.

Neither of your example really flesh your argument either. Physical limits of a tribes hunting ground were just that. But was the ground theirs? hardly.

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit

puts it quite eloquently.THe earth just is, propriety is just another one of these concepts conjured up by society to facilitate our current way of life.

Haha, ok friend, I like the cut of your jib and I can detect that you were almost certainly inebriated when you posted here which explains the complete disconnect from reality, which I also enjoy. However, if you continue in this vein I will do my best to eviscerate you in the friendliest way possible. May I inquire as to the extent of your scholastic training?

[Malaclypse]

LinearPhilosopher, on 30 August 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

Malaclypse, on 30 August 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

nation states are legal fictions, mental and societal constructs. Ergo to identify as part of a nationality in my books is acting in bad faith so no to all

Interesting. I agree on a couple of levels but the reality is that we have to deal with them now. I don't think I will live to see the end of the nation-state but it's a necessary development for our species in my opinion. In any case, this is a poll thread - you just posting here to say that you refuse to vote is assholery by definition. Choose or sod off

Not disagreeing with some of your conclusion. Neccesary yes, good? who knows, that being said I think its a useful thing to stir the pot every so often.

Also being an asshole has its merits, you should try it sometime

Ha! An Innocent! Meat's back on the menu boys!

[Vengeance]

Mal if you want to argue with nico go to your other thread and have at it.

[Mentalist]

huh, due to phone letters being tiny didn't see there was an "eastern Europe" option. I may have picked that. OTOH, we're such incessant shit disturbers that they'd all probably love to kick us out of that club. So I guess "other" fits.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 30 August 2016 - 01:45 AM