Nationalism and Culture

[Ares Land]

I don't really have a good answer to these questions really, and in most part I agree with you.

But there's the issue of Popper's paradox of tolerance. What happens when a solid plurality votes for parties or candidates with unconstitutional proposals?

We see this with the far-right in France; essentially the presidential election is a referendum on fascism. It's true in much of Europe really; I think the far-right has a similar distorting effect in the Netherlands or Italy (not to mention Austria.) Even in Germany, parties have to work around the AfD somehow.

Of course, we could argue that 'far right' is relative, and that nationalists deserve representation too. And, I mean, of course they do, but nationalist parties as they exist are a pretty bad joke on the voters, or just protest votes -- what they campaign on is unconstitutional or a good idea for a civil war.

[Travis B.]

I don't really have a good answer to these questions really, and in most part I agree with you.

But there's the issue of Popper's paradox of tolerance. What happens when a solid plurality votes for parties or candidates with unconstitutional proposals?

We see this with the far-right in France; essentially the presidential election is a referendum on fascism. It's true in much of Europe really; I think the far-right has a similar distorting effect in the Netherlands or Italy (not to mention Austria.) Even in Germany, parties have to work around the AfD somehow.

Of course, we could argue that 'far right' is relative, and that nationalists deserve representation too. And, I mean, of course they do, but nationalist parties as they exist are a pretty bad joke on the voters, or just protest votes -- what they campaign on is unconstitutional or a good idea for a civil war.

The solution is what I mentioned - make it so that anti-democratic proposals are illegal to attempt to legislate in the first place, that individuals who attempt to legislate them are subject to criminal prosecution even if they are not successful anyways, and that this is written into the constitution and made very, very difficult to change (so such parties cannot simply eliminate such provisions), requiring supermajority votes from multiple bodies (e.g. the electorate, national legislative bodies, state/provincial legislative bodies, etc.) simultaneously (so one doesn't run into the problems of referenda while simultaneously legislative bodies cannot vote themselves new powers without the direct consent of people).

[MacAnDàil]

The solution is what I mentioned - make it so that anti-democratic proposals are illegal to attempt to legislate in the first place, that individuals who attempt to legislate them are subject to criminal prosecution even if they are not successful anyways, and that this is written into the constitution and made very, very difficult to change (so such parties cannot simply eliminate such provisions), requiring supermajority votes from multiple bodies (e.g. the electorate, national legislative bodies, state/provincial legislative bodies, etc.) simultaneously (so one doesn't run into the problems of referenda while simultaneously legislative bodies cannot vote themselves new powers without the direct consent of people).

That is a good idea. It allows for pre-determined decisions to encourage positive behaviour, like Leechblock for example. It bans the sites you don't want to go on too often, so you can concentrate more.

Already having the constitution with values and rights built in is a good idea. Some might not like hypocrisy and even claim that it's worse than simple vice, but it can be a step towards virtue. It's better in my opinion to claim to be for freedom and equality, and then put into practice a little and then more than to not even claim them as values in the first place.

We see this with the far-right in France; essentially the presidential election is a referendum on fascism. It's true in much of Europe really; I think the far-right has a similar distorting effect in the Netherlands or Italy (not to mention Austria.) Even in Germany, parties have to work around the AfD somehow.

The AfD support is dropping in Germany, though, and it's never been more than 3rd place nationally. And France has only ever had two elections with far-right second rond contenders (for the moment, and there's lots of room for manouver for change during the 2022 campaign). The centre was underestimated before Macron's victory.

Western powers carve the Balkans into contiguous nation-states, making ethnicity and geographical borders match as best they can: "What are you doing? Nation-states are a terrible idea! How can civic institutions be expected to take minority rights seriously? What about exclaves? What about demographic change over time? Boo!"

Western powers conglomerate African and Asian ethnic groups into large states without a clear ethnic identity: "What are you doing? You're ignoring the diversity within these areas! How can people be expected to have faith in or identify with their government? They should each have their own nation-state. Boo!"

You're mixing actions and criticisms from different actors and ages here - what exactly is your point?

Furthermore, what both sets of actions have in common is that they were imposed on these populations by outside actors. Barring a handful of exceptions, nobody asked them what they themselves wanted.

Yes, self-determination should be key.

[rotting bones]

Two, it's absurd to claim that Coke "tastes better than whatever people were drinking before".

On the other hand, there are indigenous tribes who say that Coca-Cola is the best drink ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuF19EAP9E0

It bugs me when people attribute to "capitalism" problems caused simply by density.

It's also common for rhetoric to pretend, for example, that Singapore, being a small country, does well because it sticks together in a way that larger countries can't. In reality, Singapore deploys predatory tax cuts to attract foreign capital to their trade hub, putting them in the same position globally as minorities who angle their way into positions of power in large countries. Ignoring the fact that Singaporeans are members of a global elite helps avert criticisms of capitalism.

Cue rationalism’s tendency towards “spherical cow” theoretical thinking. Decoupling may reduce bias in discussing hot-button issues by removing the social and historical context, but in this case, trying to analyze the “direction” of big history ends up smoothing everything out to a line

On the contrary, I have found rationalists some of the only people online who are not willing to oversimplify things. (I even recall a recent post of Alexander’s where he said that he was uncomfortable quantifying the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns given that he would have to simplify too much.) The idea is supposed to be that if you oversimplify a complex system, then you’re no longer being properly rational about it.

Oversimplification routinely outcompetes the truth. Concrete example: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/20 ... -Paper.pdf

In general, if your model is trying to be right about everything all the time, then you'll soon run into the bias-variance tradeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias%E2%8 ... e_tradeoff

[MacAnDàil]

Two, it's absurd to claim that Coke "tastes better than whatever people were drinking before".

On the other hand, there are indigenous tribes who say that Coca-Cola is the best drink ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuF19EAP9E0

Maybe they wouldn't consider the idea without aggressive advertising. And maybe they would realise the actual best drink ever, water, if Coca Cola wasn't stealing it all: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 53026.html

[hwhatting]

And maybe they would realise the actual best drink ever, water

The best drink ever is tea. The discussion is closed now.

[Travis B.]

And maybe they would realise the actual best drink ever, water

The best drink ever is tea. The discussion is closed now.

No, it's not closed - the best drink ever is an Arnold Palmer, i.e. iced black tea plus lemonade (yes I know that the name is now trademarked by the Arizona company, but it was called this before they trademarked it).

[alice]

You're both wrong. This is the best drink ever.

[Travis B.]

You're both wrong. This is the best drink ever.

I'm surprised they don't have something like "antioxidants" (or whatever that is in Portuguese) right on the label...

(Of course maybe the EU has banned claiming your product contains antioxidants, hence the need to imply it with "red fruits vital".)

[Travis B.]

You're both wrong. This is the best drink ever.

I'm surprised they don't have something like "antioxidants" (or whatever that is in Portuguese) right on the label...

(Of course maybe the EU has banned claiming your product contains antioxidants, hence the need to imply it with "red fruits vital".)

Actually, the EU has indicated that the term "antioxidant" is a health claim, effectively banning it.

[Raphael]

I'm not really a fan of the idea that people who have different opinions and preferences than oneself have been manipulated, while people who think like oneself are, of course, correct and manipulation-free.

Oh, and there are many possible candidates for Best Drink Ever, but they all have in common that they have enough flavour of their own to wash out any bad taste or smell you might have hanging in your mouth or nose before drinking them, so water is one of the few drinks that don't qualify.

[MacAnDàil]

The question of best drink ever that I was thinking of was from a health perspective rather than from a taste one. From a taste perspective, it is entirely subjective of course. If I were choosing a drink just based on taste, I might say banana rum or Drambuie or melon ice tea or aztec hot chocolate or anything else that I enjoy (or used to enjoy) drinking (I don't drink alcohol any more). But, as I intended it from a health perspective - which ought to be the most important one -, there is an expert consensus as far as I can tell: water is the one drink you should be drinking several times a day every day.

[Travis B.]

The question of best drink ever that I was thinking of was from a health perspective rather than from a taste one. From a taste perspective, it is entirely subjective of course. If I were choosing a drink just based on taste, I might say banana rum or Drambuie or melon ice tea or aztec hot chocolate or anything else that I enjoy (or used to enjoy) drinking (I don't drink alcohol any more). But, as I intended it from a health perspective - which ought to be the most important one -, there is an expert consensus as far as I can tell: water is the one drink you should be drinking several times a day every day.

That is, assuming you have access to clean water.

[rotting bones]

Regarding the best drink ever: Shouldn't the local divine drink be chocolate or something?

Regarding a guardian council for Western values: It is impossible to have human leaders without putting jealous people in power. If you think leadership is good fun, consider that any leader who believes in a plan must strategize to stay in power to put that plan into action. The only way to stay in power is to keep detractors in line. The only way to keep detractors in line is to behave like a psychopath. The only way to have a leader who doesn't behave like a psychopath is to have one who doesn't care whether they remain in power. If your leader doesn't care about their plan, then it's more likely that they're an opportunist than that they are superhumanly principled to the extent that they don't care what the next leader might do to disempower them or their family.

Regarding simplicity outcompeting complexity: Of course, simplicity can also be improved on: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00999

[MacAnDàil]

That is, assuming you have access to clean water.

Yes, and that is easier when companies such as Coca Cola aren't buying the water up to sell.

[keenir]

There are certainly stateless nations like the Kurds who generally want their own states, and there are those like Indian Tamils who are generally satisfied with being of the old country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the nature/definition of states in this discussion, but don't the Kurds actually have a state of their own in northern Iraq (which can and does get referred to as Kurdistan by others), whether or not they have a seat in the U.N.? So why are they considered stateless?

thank you.

[hwhatting]

There are certainly stateless nations like the Kurds who generally want their own states, and there are those like Indian Tamils who are generally satisfied with being of the old country.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the nature/definition of states in this discussion, but don't the Kurds actually have a state of their own in northern Iraq (which can and does get referred to as Kurdistan by others), whether or not they have a seat in the U.N.? So why are they considered stateless?

The Kurds in Northern Iraq are officially part of Iraq and, while they mostly do ignore the government in Baghdad, they're still depend on it for anything concerning foreign relations, travel documents, consular protection, joining international agreements, etc. And while there is a certain solidarity with Kurds in Syria, Turkey, and Iran, including sheltering PKK freedom fighters / terrorists (pick your preference), they cannot fulfill the functions of a state for them, either. So it's different to, say Taiwan, which while formally recognized as a state (the Republic of China) only by a small number of countries and not a UN member, is still an entity whose documents are recognized by most other states and party to many international agreements and organisations.