Retardé S wrote:
I think the conflict is also cultural and not as centralized in politics as it seems all the time. I don't think the common folk has a deep understanding of government, where it is and where it should go. I just think that hollywood constantly tells people what to think about important issues and a lot of the times the concepts they spew are truly short sighted ideas and distorted realities. Leftist government align themselves with those talking points hoping to take a hold on popularity and it's blowing up in their face. It also happens the other way around and it just became too much. You can't tell people what or how to think.
Not saying that racial nationalism doesn't exist, but the blowback against leftist governments and culture is not always due to opposing social justice or immigration, we're in a pretty diverse and accepting society as is and the vast majority of white people treat you well
. I suspect it's more about the how than the what.
"it's more about the how than the what", I totally just sounded like a white california mom right there.
If we are talking about Canada, I absolutely agree that it is a vastly tolerant society. One of the very highest immigration rates in thr world and one where integration has worked well (less so in Quebec). Anywho, compared to most everywhere else in the world, we’re near leeaders on this front -amongst a select group that has their shit together on this thing. That said, I think immigration is a wider issue that “cultural clash”. I think it needs to be rational -in terms of pros and cons. Did some reserach recently, have some conclusions I don’t particularly consider on firm ground. Love to discuss and get input, but that’s another subject and people get longasspost(tm) weary.
My posts here weren’t about a particular “nationalist racism” problem. They are really just conceptual. What is an ethnicity/peoples/race as that is a central organizing principal for the humans (its their social unit) at a collective level above the immidiate family. It kinda takes kinship notions and stretches them to wide groups (now numbering hundreds of millions). The kinship assumption underpinning it becomes limiting, in my view, especially when there isn’t any kinship at any meaningful level for these large groups. That was sorta the initial discussion with nick -do we have to take an unquestioned notion of an ethnie as the basis for establishing borders of a modern polity. To get to it though, it seems like we’ve had to go through a mountain of exchanges clarifying the concept -what it is, what it isn’t- so that, once we are clear on its nature, we can discuss how it applies to different models.
I’m not that convinced at all that “ethnicity” shouldn’t matter and we can switch to a more “rational” boundaries of political polities. I think it’s a “natural” (ie. deep seated) “reflex”. I have to be super careful because I don’t think I’m in the majority in the manner in which I view things. I heavily discount what I consider “non rational” elements. I’m sorta an accountant in spirit as we all know. That’s not everybody or even most people. Emotions may guide others more. They guide me too, of course, but I have a weird overriding desire to conform to reasoned analysis. If something “doesn’t make sense” to me “rationally”, I’ll toss it. Doesn’t mean I’m right. My premises and assumptions can certainly be wrong. Doesn’t mean that’s the right way to live, either. That’s me, may not be others. Others may need and want more/other considerations. More intuitive, more emotions/passions based. That’s fine and beyond something over which I have any control.
So, when I think “yeah, we can move beyond ethnicity as an organizing principle” it seems obvious to me. “Yeah, we can move past religion and adopt a purely physicalist view of the universe” also makes natural sense to me. But I’m likely in the minority.
So when I think “yeah, we can construct social units rationally and discuss what should be considered as valid criteria to to give weight in the building of our construct” I may, very well, be grossly underestimating that others won’t feel that way. They “feel this” and don’t want to be rationally argued out of it. In fact, trying to do so can backfire. At the same time, can’t help but feel that Brexit is retarded and opine on that.
I’m conscious I have to temper my instincts as they won’t be widely shared necessarily. But here, you know, I just like to discuss with other smart mens. Flesh out ideas. Get to the end and think “you sure about that dog, feelings of kinship run deep for many and the fact that ethnicity is hardly kinship in any real sense it is in the popular psyche. So your federating with Sweden and whatnot makes sense in your mind, but you’re going to blow it up with your deconstructing and reconstructing shit”. I take Nick’s input seriously. I further juggle with it, reflect on it and absolutely wound mind discussing it further. By myself, I’m stuck with my own blinspots.
On what you are saying, which is similar to Nick’s (you two of courae have a similar take on this. Happy for you to expand on it. What exactly is this “people like to think on their own”? Practically speaking. I wouldn’t mind some examples to better grasp what you have in mind. Also wouldn’t mind understand what you have in mind as a “better way” to conduct public discourse. If you feel like, of course. There’s always the dog containment thread that’s evidently working wonderfully well. :-)