Cethin

You’re putting words in my mouth saying that I said American revolutionaries were great people. I never said such a thing, nor would I. Stop reading more into what I said than I actually said please.

They were people willing to lay their lives down for something they thought was worth fighting for. Not out of some ignorance that the status quo is the best option, but because they wanted to make changes to improve things for their community (and their self too, sure). That’s what patriotism is.

I’d argue that it’s necessarily not pristine. You have to be willing to get dirty. You don’t win a war with honor. You win it by killing other people until the other side isn’t fighting anymore. The same is true for any fight (not the killing necessarily, but being willing to do what needs to be done).

I just brought them up as an example of patriotism though. I’m not saying they’re a perfect example, just an example. This isn’t about the US, like you’re making it to be. You’re not arguing against the point. Your entire comment can be boiled down to “American revolutionaries are bad” but it doesn’t say really anything about patriotism.

Anyway, my point is, don’t let nationalists take the term. Maybe you don’t, but most people have positive opinions if the term. It’s easier and more useful to take the term back, because it isn’t necessarily a nationalist term. There are plenty of leftist patriots throughout history and the world. The right is good at using language as a weapon. We should be too, and we shouldn’t back off every time they try to use it.

Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?

Cause that’s what the word means.

The land (and people), but not necessarily the state.

(The term state ahead is really annoying.)

Maybe part of it comes from being in the US, where we have a weird form of double governance of the “state” and “federal” governments. Which state are we loyal too, because they’re both ours? It makes things more malleable. The states could agree to form a totally new federal government if they wanted to.

A patriot may care for whatever arbitrary definition the XVIIIth century put on their identity and be well meaning enough about it. I’m not a patriot. The historical borders of what some consider a nation today have no particular relevance, beyond the fact that they happen to drive some level of administration.

There are multiple definitions of country. Some don’t care about the state that defines the borders. Your country is the land where you were born, not the state necessarily. One example that comes to mind in the US, which spans multiple states, is “Appalachia.” Appalachian people are a broad culture group who live in the Appalachian mountain region, and are distinct from the states they reside, and the larger US obviously. They are countrymen of each other.

I have no particular interest in whitewashing any of that into some supposedly healthy version of patriotism that has very rarely existed in any way.

No, the problem is some other people have changed the term to mean nationalist. For example, in the US, people were called patriots for fighting for the people in the colonies against the state that controlled them (Britain). They didn’t approve of the state and wanted to improve it, so they fought to change it and left the former state that was controlling them. Patriotism doesn’t have to be blind support of a state, and I’d argue that isn’t patriotism, because you aren’t defending it from bad actors/actions.

Regardless, I find that “making their country better” should be a distant second to “making the world better”, and perhaps a close third behind “making the crap you have on hand and the lives of those immediately around you better”.

I find this statement odd. So you think it’s best to start local, right? OK, so next from your immediate community, you should expand out, eventually to country, then to world, right? Isn’t that the logical progression. From more influence to less? Why is your priority jumping all over?

Look, I am not a globalist anarchist.

Funnily enough, I am an Anarchist. I don’t know if I’d call myself a globalist, but probably. I also believe in well structured democratic governments. Those aren’t at odds with each other.

Maybe I was the right age to look at the EU and think that those don’t have to be held to the absurd liberal idea of the nation-state,and that wherever a collective of humans have a common interest there should be governance structured to work with other layers of organization to improve things and enforce rights within that sphere. There is nothing magical about the nation-state layer of government that makes it more spiritually attuned to identity or the needs of the people. It’s all administrative stuff as far as I’m concerned.

I think we’re in agreement. This isn’t counter to what I said. I’d say it’s in unison with it. People should work to improve their governments in any way they can. They should try to reshape it to better represent them. That’s what a patriot would do, not just settle for the status quo and assume they’re the best possible version there can be.

Patriotism is very cool. Nationalism isn’t, which has mostly subverted the term patriot. A patriot stands up when their nation is doing something wrong. They don’t blindly believe they’re the best, they recognize that there’s things they can improve. They fight to make their country better, not to make others worse.

So I’m mixed on this. For one, I know it’d be a horribly bad thing if they do do this. It’d be blatantly the wrong thing to do. However, I think we need something to push people over the edge to make them force real change. If the Trump adm. does this, that would have to be a step too far for almost everyone, right? It could actually put us on the path to fixing things.

Obviously, I don’t want them to do this, but I’m conflicted because I think it could lead us down a (very perilous) path to fix the nation.

What? No. There’s a lot of ways to be in the nation legally without citizenship. That’s what visa are for.

Because being here without citizenship could be criminal, so after the civil trial you have to do whatever needs to be done to stay or leave. It’s not instantly a criminal act, but the consequences could lead to criminal actions if you don’t make the changes required.

I guess the logic is that this is a civil matter, then the consequences of it are criminal. Still, seems silly.

The fact that Harris got as close as she did with so little time proves that she didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because her policies sucked. Run someone who is honest and trying to help the people and I’d bet they do well, man, woman, or otherwise (OK, maybe a trans candidate actually couldn’t win for now).

The people saying those two lost because they’re women are ignorant. They lost because they were shitty candidates. More men have lost than women, and no one says it’s because they were men. It’s just an easy excuse to ignore that people don’t like corporate ass kissers who fuck over the average person to help the rich.

We can’t look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.

They told their soldiers about the easy victory.

Do you think they didn’t know about the Ukraine fortifications built since 2014? Have you seen their faces when they announced the ‘operation’? They had to take Grozny. Why should Kyiv fall in 3 days?

You don’t send your best troops into a position they can’t get out of if you don’t expect results. Sure, after the collapse of the government there’s still going to be some fighting, but they thought they could take out the government in one swift blow.

Have you looked at the book? This conflict is in the making for a long time. Putin tried to win over Germany with cheap gas to become part of the West and avoid the conflict but Merkel betrayed him and just took the gas without changing the original goals.

Yes, it’s been coming for a long time. Obviously. If it wasn’t Ukraine it’d be something else. Russia was always going to push something to the point where other nations wouldn’t let them anymore. It’s not like Ukraine is the first sovereign nation they’ve invaded. It also wouldn’t have been the last. Germany has not “taken” their gas though. They are still purchasing it, which is dumb because it increases they amount the need to spend in Ukraine, but it is what it is. If only they hadn’t shut down those nuclear reactors a few years ago…

I never said the US doesn’t benefit from the war, though they wouldn’t if Russia’s invasion went to plan. Russia thought they could walk in and take over. They clearly thought they could take it all and would gain a lot from owning it; a port in the black sea and the breadbasket of Europe.

Cui bono? That’s more complicated than just “who’s benefitting now.”

Also, again, Putin wanted to cement a legacy. He benefits most if they were successful.

However, now basically everyone except Russia gains from it. China, North Korea, and Iran get to have Russia owe them a lot (We’ll see how that debt is repaid, though I know there’s some particular land China at least wants, but also they love their soft power). Europe gets a significantly weaker Russia threatening them. The US gets to further extend its power. A whole lot of nations get to test weapons (and secretly gain experience) with a new type of warfare.

We can’t look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.

In that light, aren’t Nato’s actions forcing Russia’s hands?

Forcing? No. They’re choosing what they’re doing. There’s plenty of other options for them. In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?

If you’re going to make the “buffer zone” argument, see how that’s decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid. Who would suspect invading a sovereign nation would make other nations less likely to join an alliance against you?

Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe. They are their largest trade partner after all. However, Putin wanted to leave a legacy of “restoring the former boarders of the USSR” so he’s destroying the nation he’s supposed to protect to have his legacy that he won’t get anyway.

That’s not even remotely close to what I said. Try again, and don’t straw man. I engaged with you, and you repeat easily disprovable nonsense straight from Russian media without any reason to believe it. No proof or logic for why it makes sense.

Alright, you’re just being a Russian mouthpiece.

Oh, Russia was promised NATO wouldn’t expand? Not so much.

The entire rest of your comment is similar Russian drivel. I’m not going to spend any more time with this because your opinion is not founded in logic. “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” You have a chip on your shoulder and it’s hindering your understanding.

As I think it was a professor of mine said, international politics is about power, not good. States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful. None of them are good. Some of them are just temporarily doing more evil to gain power than others. Once you look at the world with this point of view, it makes much more sense (though some leaders are just stupid, crazy, or self-obsessed).

First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia.

Wrong. There’s no requirement for spending as a part of NATO. There’s also no requirement for the US to do anything. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.

Second of all, Russia doesn’t have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries.

They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the “restore the former borders of the Soviet union” reason is reason enough, ignoring the resources or anything else. Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter? It doesn’t have to be smart to happen.

And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don’t need further military expenditure as deterrent.

I don’t know what you people who keep bringing up nukes think they’re for. You can’t use them. Using them will only ensure you lose, because everyone turns against you. They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes, and also to deter nations from creating a last stand situation where you have already lost so there’s nothing to lose in using nukes. You can’t win a war with nukes.

Third, even if you forget all I’ve said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.

Forget or dispute? You’re implying your logic is faultless. Anyway, sure. They can. They don’t though. I advocate that they do. I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force. I don’t want them to be reliant on the US, like they currently are. However, that necessarily requires most EU nations to increase their military spending, which you’re apparently against. You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs. Sorry. That can’t happen.

You’re confusing NATO with the UN.

The end of NATO doesn’t mean any of that. We have bases in non-NATO countries too, so obviously that isn’t because of NATO. It does mean Russia has almost free reign to invade more countries. If Russia can cause issues without being part of an alliance like NATO, why do you think the US can’t when it’s not part of NATO?

Were his parents not married? The statement above doesn’t say that, just that she had him prior to her current marriage. People can be married multiple times.

Yes, but not mouse movements. It’ll be things like then clicking on videos and page views. That can be automated easily.

Sure, but I don’t know how they’d get that data. Every tap likely isn’t stored. Still, I could write a script to fake it, and build a device to to it. It’s evidence, but it isn’t particularly strong.