Nationalism: Is it ok?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Naw, they didn't care about the color of your skin, as long as you were a completely devout catholic completely devoted to the church. Oh and that they didn't want anything you had that they would want to kill you for.

You know you can be racist and a zealot they aren't mutually exclusive.

This is why making boogie men out of people is a bad idea, I mean Hitler was an Anti Semite, a Zealot, Loved Animals and might have been a Josephine Baker fan. It still wouldn't have changed who and what he was moreover.

Along with another erroneous thinking, the enemy of my enemy is my friend nonsense. Catholics and Protestants had a blood hatred, Sunni and Shiite ARE NOT friends because they are both Muslims, Whether it is by race, religion or ideology.

Or even more simple

Alien vs Predator right, which one do you root for before one or the other tries to kill ya.

[Deleted]

If I'm a Tera Nationalist.... United Nations Nationalist does that count as good or bad??

As soon as all the members of the UN start abiding by the principles stated in the universal declaration of human rights.

The UN should have had far stricter membership requirements from day one. Now it's thoroughly rotten.

[Doctor Amadeus]

How was that even racist?

Why wouldn't it be, what was it you said the other day, no true scotsman?

The point is rabid zealotry or devotion to anything including ideology creates these kinds of intolerant conditions. Not all of the Catholic faith were of the same mind either.

[dark666105]

You know you can be racist and a zealot they aren't mutually exclusive.

This is why making boogie men out of people is a bad idea, I mean Hitler was an Anti Semite, a Zealot, Loved Animals and might have been a Josephine Baker fan. It still wouldn't have changed who and what he was moreover.

Along with another erroneous thinking, the enemy of my enemy is my friend nonsense. Catholics and Protestants had a blood hatred, Sunni and Shiite ARE NOT friends because they are both Muslims, Whether it is by race, religion or ideology.

Or even more simple

Alien vs Predator right, which one do you root for before one or the other tries to kill ya.

Well individuals in the inquisition might have been, but I am saying the inquisition itself did not espouse a doctrine of racism. As far as I know.

[Player Twelve]

Why wouldn't it be, what was it you said the other day, no true scotsman?

The point is rabid zealotry or devotion to anything including ideology creates these kinds of intolerant conditions. Not all of the Catholic faith were of the same mind either.

Because it was religious and not racial.

[Ragedaug]

I'm saying the use of "seize" is deliberately inflammatory and misleading.

It implies that the means of production are naturally owned by private persons, and the only way for a group to attain control of them is through taking without compensation. This is wrong on multiple counts;

You are performing some serious mental gymnastics today. I applaud you for your herculean effort to try to win internet points.

1> Private ownership is not the default setting for society. And such involves "seizure" by those private individuals as much as socialism involves "seizure" by the group.

Society doesn't have a "default" setting, so I'm not sure who you are trying to argue with here. Different types of societies have different defaults. Capitalism defaults to private ownership, Socialism defaults to State ownership. As far as individuals seizing ownership from others or from the State...that's illegal, so I'm not following you at all here.

2> There's nothing about socialist theory that requires that ownership be taken away without compensation, even if we're talking about a shift. Nationalising a utility generally involves the State buying that utility.

Since we are talking theory, why would you compensate someone if you are transitioning to a socialist state? What would you compensate them with? Money? So they can still be the richest and most powerful? Things? So they can still have the biggest houses and most expensive cars? Again, I'm not following what compensation makes sense as the State is taking control of all production. As far as real life application, Pure Socialist States have seized control of production with no compensation. So yeah...the theory doesn't make sense, and the real world application backs that up.

3> That private property and ownership of the means of production are two separate things. This is why phrases like "private ownership" are problematic; socialism isn't about the State seizing your house. It may be a mouthful to keep saying "private ownership of the means of production", but that's what we're talking about, not all private ownership.

That's why I've never talked about the State seizing all private ownership. Sure they have done that in many cases, like housing, apartment buildings/complexes etc. The State has taken ownership of those, but I've talked about seizing control of production, meaning, "the State will be everyone's boss". You want to sell something you came up with, without the State being in control, your only option is the black market.

4> The State isn't necessarily involved other than as a management system, as it is in capitalist nations. "Socialism" entails concepts like employee ownership and other forms of group ownership other than State ownership.

There's a big difference between "regulation" and "management". Capitalistic governments regulate. Socialist governments manage/own.
Regulate = You can do whatever you want within the State provided guidelines
Manage = The State tells you what you will be doing.

Does this mean seizing means of production CAN'T happen? Of course not. But it happens in pure capitalist systems, too. What do you think a "hostile takeover" is?

A Hostile Takeover is when you buy enough shares of a company by people willing to engage in free trade with you until you own the majority or a plurality. So it's not actually "hostile". It's just a dramatic phrase people like to use when a company, owned by one party, decides to make the company a public company and lets other parties purchase more than half of the company.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Because it was religious and not racial.

It can be both. Do you really think matters because it doesn't all it takes is for me to come up with a reason not to like you, race would do if religion will.

[Player Twelve]

It can be both. Do you really think matters because it doesn't all it takes is for me to come up with a reason not to like you, race would do if religion will.

If you are attacking people for religious reasons it is literally not racism. It's just religious persecution.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well individuals in the inquisition might have been, but I am saying the inquisition itself did not espouse a doctrine of racism. As far as I know.

Ok I see what you mean, and you are right. No it wasn't explicitly about race at all.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are attacking people for religious reasons it is literally not racism. It's just religious persecution.

It is if that religious practice has rational components in it about yolks and tribes and certain interpretations are observed in favor of others. None of this is ever straightforward.

[Player Twelve]

It is if that religious practice has rational components in it about yolks and tribes and certain interpretations are observed in favor of others. None of this is ever straightforward.

What does having rational components even have to do with it being religious persecution and not racism?

[Najnaj]

Because it was religious and not racial.

The inquisition mostly targeted people of other ethnic backgrounds that had converted to catholicism. I don't even think that today's version of the Inquisition (congregation for the doctrine of the faith) would deny that it was very racially motivated. You have to remember that the inquisition only had jurisdiction over catholics.

[Ragedaug]

My bad lol. He probably could win a medal in being a piece of shit though.

I see what you did there. Since he is such a piece of poop, if they had a contest to see who is the biggest piece of poop, he would be like top 3. 'Cause he's a big piece of poop. Well played sir, bringing out the ol' "piece of poop competition". Well played indeed.

I wanna try one. If there was a Olympic competition judging the people I don't like, he would win like at least the bronze, 'cause of how much I don't like him!!!

(I think I got the hang of it!)

[Player Twelve]

The inquisition mostly targeted people of other ethnic backgrounds that had converted to catholicism. I don't even think that today's version of the Inquisition (congregation for the doctrine of the faith) would deny that it was very racially motivated. You have to remember that the inquisition only had jurisdiction over catholics.

Not really finding anything to support that nor did history classes in school mention any of that, it was to combat heresy.

[Ragedaug]

The inquisition mostly targeted people of other ethnic backgrounds that had converted to catholicism. I don't even think that today's version of the Inquisition (congregation for the doctrine of the faith) would deny that it was very racially motivated. You have to remember that the inquisition only had jurisdiction over catholics.

I think you are thinking of the other inquisition. The famous one we are all talking about primarily focused on people specifically outside the Catholic Church. Like people who would say stuff like, "the Catholic Church is full of BS"...then the inquisition would arrest them for being a heretic.

[igualitarist]

The inquisition mostly targeted people of other ethnic backgrounds that had converted to catholicism. I don't even think that today's version of the Inquisition (congregation for the doctrine of the faith) would deny that it was very racially motivated. You have to remember that the inquisition only had jurisdiction over catholics.

Oh damn, you talk like a teacher i had, who once said inquisition burned witches because they hated women.

[Endus]

Society doesn't have a "default" setting, so I'm not sure who you are trying to argue with here. Different types of societies have different defaults. Capitalism defaults to private ownership, Socialism defaults to State ownership. As far as individuals seizing ownership from others or from the State...that's illegal, so I'm not following you at all here.

The part in bold is definitely not true. Some extreme forms of socialism have full State ownership, but most socialist systems do not.

As for why I brought up "seizure"; I was responding to other people, claiming that socialism can only exist by "seizing" the means of production. I was pointing out that's a useless argument, and you seem to agree with me there, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

Since we are talking theory, why would you compensate someone if you are transitioning to a socialist state? What would you compensate them with? Money? So they can still be the richest and most powerful? Things? So they can still have the biggest houses and most expensive cars? Again, I'm not following what compensation makes sense as the State is taking control of all production. As far as real life application, Pure Socialist States have seized control of production with no compensation. So yeah...the theory doesn't make sense, and the real world application backs that up.

Socialism isn't inherently averse to hierarchies of income or wealth. You are, again, arguing against a straw man, rather than socialist theory.

There's a big difference between "regulation" and "management". Capitalistic governments regulate. Socialist governments manage/own.
Regulate = You can do whatever you want within the State provided guidelines
Manage = The State tells you what you will be doing.

That's a nonsensical distinction, and if you want to stick with that, you can swap "management" with "regulatory" in the quoted passage and my meaning doesn't change.

A Hostile Takeover is when you buy enough shares of a company by people willing to engage in free trade with you until you own the majority or a plurality. So it's not actually "hostile". It's just a dramatic phrase people like to use when a company, owned by one party, decides to make the company a public company and lets other parties purchase more than half of the company.

And? It's a "seizure" of control of the company. That was my entire point. That people are using inflammatory words like "seizure" to malign socialism, when the same kind of stuff happens in capitalist systems constantly, and they don't see it as "bad" there.

[Beardless Man]

The people who say yes tend to come from the same people that say that America is a shithole and there's nothing to be proud about this country. Strange how others will build up other locations like Mexico, Asia, or whatever. But my god if America is ever help positively, you're racist, a white "nationalist", and a bigot. But never the less.

Nationalsim is help to different standards and definitions. But it comes to context.
- patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.

But Extreme Nationalism is where everyone is concerned. where you feel superior to others. The similarity is pride. Too much becomes a toxic image and can be dangerous when in zeal or active pursuit of superiority. But to be proud of your country is nothing to be ashamed of. And anyone else who likes to hold up other countries and spit on America depsite reaping all the benefits they'd never get elsewhere. Just shows ignorance and willfully so.

[Mistame]

But here’s the thing if you don’t want people that look different than you to “infiltrate” your country that’s racist.

EDIT: civic nationalism is racist because they don’t consider the other viewpoints of other countries.

It's blatantly clear that you have no idea what racism actually is. Stop typing. It's not your strong suit.

It is if that religious practice has rational components in it about yolks and tribes and certain interpretations are observed in favor of others. None of this is ever straightforward.

Um, what? If there's no belief that a particular group of people is inferior/superior based on skin color then it's literally not "racism".

[Video Games]

It's fine as long as you don't go too down the rabbit hole

[zealo]

The inquisition mostly targeted people of other ethnic backgrounds that had converted to catholicism. I don't even think that today's version of the Inquisition (congregation for the doctrine of the faith) would deny that it was very racially motivated. You have to remember that the inquisition only had jurisdiction over catholics.

Mostly in the sense that a lot of Muslim converts were of the North African variety as a minority group during this time after the various emirates had been kicked out of Iberia. National ethnic identities didn't really start to become a major thing taking precedence over religion in Europe until the Enlightenment which eventually paved the way for nationalism.