121–130 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
What's left is to determine who is tolerant and who isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very possibly. Even in Texas, a bunch of kids on a youth camping retreat probably aren't heavily armed and ready to do battle. The element of surprise helps, too. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo... (it is probably a safe assumption that a Baptist church in a small town in Texas had at least a couple armed congregants)
The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. It would be great to have no bad guys, but they will always exist, and will not follow the laws no matter what. Laws should be written to enable good guys to protect themselves.
That's some crazy logic. A "good guy" doesn't mean a person capable of making the right decisions in front of a bad guy. Would they be able to deescalate? Would they shoot an innocent bystander? Would they shoot another good guy mistaking them for a bad guy?
The correct path forward is to educate and reduce the amount of guns, not give more out on the off chance a good guy happens to be there where something bad happens, while simultaneously increasing the risk a heated exchange/rage fit/whatever escalates to a gunfight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't help but think that if the actual impact of gun violence (and violence in general) was shown in the media, we'd have a lot less of it to deal with...
How so? Edit: Why downvote? I'm asking for details on the mechanism that would lead to this reduction.
Unfortunately on HN, some won't give a reason, explanation or any evidence of the details you are asking for.
Claims are left without any substance and are left to you or someone else to refute them. Leaving everyone confused.
What a shame to a discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of reasoning of 'finding examples where ethnicity fails to provide the boundary distinction' doesn't make your case. I know about 'Switzlerand', thanks. Which is why I brought up USA/Australia/Brazil etc.. Nobody is going to argue that there are many factors that drive boundaries (aka natural boundaries) merely highlighting some counter examples doesn't deconstruct the fact that ethnicity is the primary mar…
Again, dismissing my points. What about Britanny (breton and Gallo, see my previous post)? What about the Basque country? What about Alsace? What about Savoy then, if it was "mostly a political organization" (that created modern Italy by the way)? What about Occitanie? and Catalonia (Roussillon mostly)? Aquitaine? Do we talk about northern France then, since we saw pretty much All the south is NOT French? Is Normandy…
Given the level of fragmentation you want to get into by highlighting tiny, short-lived political entities that had small populations and exited only for a blip in history ... well, you'll find many of them.
But you're missing the forest through the trees: the borders are unambiguously ethnic, to the point where it's not really even an argument.
'So What about Basque Country'?
Yes - thanks proving my point!
The 'Basque' fit so poorly within the constraints of Spanish borders that there is literally 'terrorism' and a systematic malaise: separatists groups and violence!
It might very well bode better if there was a separate nation state, or some degree of sovereignty there. I don't know, that's besides the point.
And what about Occitane, Catalonia, Alscace? They are, for the most part, ethnic subdivisions that fit more or less within the bigger systems they are in. Some better than others, but almost all of them to some reasonable degree.
But you're arguing against reality to insist that the line between Poland and Germany isn't relatively clear at some point, even if it's not perfect. It fuzzes over a few leagues, but by the time you hit Warsaw or Berlin it's clearly 'a different culture'. Again that there are strong subdivisions in Germany doesn't change the fact because the subdivisions are 'mostly' Germanic.
The Swedes and Finns have very distinct ethnostates, even if they have pockets of Swedes (historically, not just expats) in Finland, and even with distinct 'aboriginal' groups within both.
Again, in the big picture - hard ethnic delineation.
The map of the Roman Empire you provided only reinfornces my case: many of regions form the basis for many nation states today.
The more developed the system, the more likely it would be to have continued existence.
The demarcation point between the old Roman Empire and the Germanic states today is stark - written in politics, language, culture.
Europe didn't end up with a bunch of Switzerland - it ended up mostly with a bunch of Germanys, i.e. the sub-fragmentation is mostly related in some way and the external boundaries forming a kind of ethnic delineation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, dismissing my points. What about Britanny (breton and Gallo, see my previous post)? What about the Basque country? What about Alsace? What about Savoy then, if it was "mostly a political organization" (that created modern Italy by the way)? What about Occitanie? and Catalonia (Roussillon mostly)? Aquitaine? Do we talk about northern France then, since we saw pretty much All the south is NOT French? Is Normandy…
I'm not dismissing your points - I accept there's a lot of ambiguity. Given the level of fragmentation you want to get into by highlighting tiny, short-lived political entities that had small populations and exited only for a blip in history ... well, you'll find many of them. But you're missing the forest through the trees: the borders are unambiguously ethnic, to the point where it's not really even an argument. 'S…
Same in my country, Canada. Quebecois nationalism exist/existed in large part due to the experience of British colonialism and the awful way that the Quebecois and their language were treated and the dumbass way many English Canadians still talk about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the existence of ethnicities is old but the concept of tying them to national borders is very young (modern era, and mostly 19th century and beyond) and the specific interpretation of ethonationalism here (ethno exclusionism within a set of borders) is even younger. I have to work right now so can't work through all the examples listed by another poster below, but will try to come to this thread later. But if you…
So it's very reasonable to point out that there's rarely such thing as 'pure ethnicity' and especially the 'lensing' issue of scale is insightful, and of course that some eras there's more evolution than that others ... ... but none of this upsets the fact that ethnicity is the 'primary weight' in the ultimate definition of borders, other than the borders which are artificial (i.e. political) which is why those tend…
I will note too that your argument here completely falls apart for America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Edit: Why downvote? I'm asking for details on the mechanism that would lead to this reduction.
> Why downvote? Unfortunately on HN, some won't give a reason, explanation or any evidence of the details you are asking for. Claims are left without any substance and are left to you or someone else to refute them. Leaving everyone confused. What a shame to a discussion.
Maybe I'm just posting really unpopular stuff recently, because I've noticed 2-3x the downvotes without explanations the past week as compared to normal.
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
A recent study concluded that Breivik’s influence on right wing terrorism is close to none. But yes, the 22 july attacks is certainly a critical chapter in the overall rise of nationalist movements in the last decade. Link to study: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/cu...
https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/ny-studie_-anders-behring-breiv...
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
1. stop calling it right wing extremism. These guys are mad nationalists, not Ayn Rand (not that I am a fan of Ayn Rand either.)
By calling it by its real name it won't come across as just a variant of conservative or liberal. Because we absolutely detest them and I guess I speak for most of us when I say we don't even want them to vote for us.
2. Encourage serious debate. Dare to meet people.
I wrote about this the other day in the context of climate change:
Climate change believers are awfully fast to reach for the branding iron whenever someone asks an innocent questions.
Meanwhile climate change deniers will patiently smooth talk people and dig out "study" after "study" carefully picked to prove their point.
Same goes for this: the only place you can safely discuss immigration without risking someone sneaking up on you with a red hot "racist" iron is - you probably guessed it - with the racists.
Now why don't we fix this?
Probably because we'd have to admit that there are some serious problems with the way immigration has been practiced.