Election prediction time

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

No it doesn’t, humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. Nations have existed for less than 1% of human history.
 

Tribes of around 100 people are natural to humans, not nations of tens of millions. Favouring nations of that size over humanity as a whole is an extremely manufactured and recent invention. 

So then is the nation as you suggest not just an updated version of the tribe, i.e. not manufactured but a 'natural' progression? 

 

I don't really know what you're arguing. Nations are unnatural so we should go back to living in tribes of 100s? Or we should extend the 'nation' beyond traditional borders, which sounds a bit imperialist. 

[Sampson]

44 minutes ago, bovril said:

So then is the nation as you suggest not just an updated version of the tribe, i.e. not manufactured but a 'natural' progression? 

 

I don't really know what you're arguing. Nations are unnatural so we should go back to living in tribes of 100s? Or we should extend the 'nation' beyond traditional borders, which sounds a bit imperialist. 

I have an inkling you might be sealioning now and ignoring everything I’ve written. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll say it again:

Nations are not just “updated versions of tribes” because they have nothing to do with caring about and protecting the people you know and working together which gives you an evolutionary advantage to getting food and to surviving in a hunter-gatherer society. I find the idea that you should inherently tie yourself to one person you have never met within your imaginary set of lines with an entirely different class, upbringing and living style than someone else you have never met with a similar class, upbringing and living style outside your imaginary set of lines to be entirely manufactured and an extremely recent invention (considering the history of humans as a whole) and detrimental to humanity as a whole. 

 

That “traditional borders” are a relatively extremely new and artificial invention and that we should be extremely conscious of that is my point. Humanity as a whole requires global understanding and solutions to problems being faced in 2024 and caring about short term national issues over global issues is extremely detrimental. 
 

And the fact that we have been able to manufacture the feelings of pride for landmasses spanning tens of thousands of miles with over a billion people suggests we should be able to manufacture pride in humanity as a whole and the earth as a whole, which would be far more beneficial to humanity if not essential to its very survival. 

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I’m almost certain you’re just sealioning now and ignoring everything I’ve written. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll say it again:

Nations are not just “updated versions of tribes” because they have nothing to do with caring about and protecting the people you know and working together which gives you an evolutionary advantage to getting food and to surviving in a hunter-gatherer society. I find the idea that you should inherently tie yourself to one person within your imaginary set of lines with an entirely different class, upbringing and living style than someone with a similar class, upbringing and living style outside your imaginary set of lines to be entirely detrimental to humanity as a whole. 

 

I don't know what sealioning is.

 

I disagree with most of the second paragraph. 

[leicsmac]

Interesting discussion here that has been spoken about on here in the past.

 

22 minutes ago, bovril said:

I don't know what sealioning is.

 

I disagree with most of the second paragraph. 

Fair to say, but I would hope there is agreement with the last paragraph because evolutionary history shows pretty clearly that unity and coordinated action as a species is, in at least some cases, essential to long term survival.

[bovril]

I don't think it's true by the way that people have more in common across class than nationality. For a start a postman from Stoke and a postman from Kawasaki probably wouldn't even be able to communicate. Language and history are my interests though so I am biased. 

[Sampson]

8 minutes ago, bovril said:

I don't think it's true by the way that people have more in common across class than nationality. For a start a postman from Stoke and a postman from Kawasaki probably wouldn't even be able to communicate. Language and history are my interests though so I am biased. 

There’s loads of multi-lingual countries though where people can’t communicate with each other, some with tens or hundreds of languages and it’s 2024, billions of people can speak English. Language has very very little to do with nationhood and culture in 2024 and will only continue to have less and less to do with it.

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

There’s loads of multi-lingual countries though where people can’t communicate with each other, some with tens or hundreds of languages and it’s 2024, billions of people can speak English. Language has very very little to do with nationhood and culture in 2024 and will only continue to have less and less to do with it.

Depends if you see this as a positive development. It's not positive for the English, in my opinion. I have a feeling we're going to find very little on this subject to agree on  

[Sampson]

16 minutes ago, bovril said:

Depends if you see this as a positive development. It's not positive for the English, in my opinion. I have a feeling we're going to find very little on this subject to agree on  

But this has always been the case. Even in England we had Celtic languages and English and it was only through years of prosecution that Celtic died or was forced out. In India or Switzerland or Papua New Guinea you have always had multiple languages. 
 

And most standardisation of language is extremely manmade and modern. Modern German for example has only been standardised in the past few of hundreds of years and those previously speaking Bavarian and Saxon likely would not have been able to understand each other. Then you have languages like Norwegian and Danish that are mutually understandable and branched off from one another relatively recent in human terms. 
 

Talking about language just kind of just emphasises that modern nations are unnatural and manufactured and that this idea they are some natural collection of cultural ideals of a group of people who are naturally more aligned than those in a neighbouring country just falls down as soon as you remotely look into it. 

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[bovril]

12 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But this has always been the case. Even in England we had Celtic languages and English and it was only through years of prosecution that Celtic died or was forced out. In India or Switzerland or Papua New Guinea you have always had multiple languages. 
 

Talking about language just kind of just emphasises that modern nations are unnatural and manufactured and that this idea they are some natural collection of cultural ideals of a group of people who are naturally more aligned than those in a neighbouring country just falls down as soon as you remotely look into it. 

You're choosing obvious examples to support your argument - fair enough. There are examples on these islands though that I believe disprove your assumption that "language has very very little to do with nationhood and culture in 2024", which I think is a pretty bold claim to make. 

 

In fact I would guess your attitude on this subject has been greatly shaped by your nationality and first language.

Edited 17 July by bovril

[Sampson]

21 minutes ago, bovril said:

You're choosing obvious examples to support your argument - fair enough. There are examples on these islands though that I believe disprove your assumption that "language has very very little to do with nationhood and culture in 2024", which I think is a pretty bold claim to make. 

It’s not a bold claim to make. You are arguing it is “natural” for humans feel patriotic and that nations are natural things, that inherently means it is something that should be universal for all of humanity. If you admit that you’re looking  at it from a purely English perspective then aren’t you disproving your own hypothesis that it’s natural? And English is an official language in many other countries besides England too. So it clearly can’t be language that you feel proud of your nation and inherently have more emotional attachment to someone from Plymouth than Dublin, Vancouver or Lagos if they all have English as their mother tongue. 

 

Of course I’m using obvious examples, because it helps give obvious demonstration to the debate. I don’t get your point here?
 

Language does have very little to do with nationhood in 2024, because nationhood is just a level of governance. The majority of countries in the world have more than 1 recognised language and many have countless regional languages and many languages are spoken in multiple countries and billions of people speak multiple languages. Languages changes, culture changes and culture and language are not the same thing as a nation at all.  That’s why I just can’t get my head round why anyone would be proud of their country and feel more affinity to the people within it regardless of class or anything else. 

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[bovril]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It’s not a bold claim to make. You are arguing it is “natural” for humans feel patriotic and that nations are natural things, that inherently means it is something that should be universal for all of humanity. If you admit that you’re looking  at it from a purely English perspective then aren’t you disproving your own hypothesis that it’s natural? And English is an official language in many other countries besides England too. So it clearly can’t be language that you feel proud of your nation and inherently have more emotional attachment to someone from Plymouth than Dublin, Vancouver or Lagos if they all have English as their mother tongue. 

 

Of course I’m using obvious examples, because it helps give obvious demonstration to the debate. I don’t get your point here?
 

Language does have very little to do with nationhood in 2024. The majority of countries in the world have more than 1 recognised language and many have countless regional languages and many languages are spoken in multiple countries and billions of people speak multiple languages. Languages changes, culture changes.  That’s why I just can’t get my head round why anyone would be proud of their country and feel more affinity to the people within it regardless of class or anything else. 

I didn't say anything about feeling pride.

 

Your central thesis seems to be that nations are constructs and are not only unnecessary but also detrimental to human development. I disagree.

 

The Welsh are not English. They have a distinct culture, history and, perhaps most importantly, a language which they have quite rightly protected. We can argue over semantics but I think that has developed over time and was not merely invented. Those elements are linked of course. I believe that language, nationality and culture are very closely related, you seem not to, which is fine. 

 

That doesn't mean that the English and Welsh can't work together or that we don't have loads of similarities. I just think turning around and saying "actually your national identity is basically manufactured and should be left in the past" (apologies if that's not what you're saying) is slightly arrogant and yes does display quite an Anglo point of view.

 

We have different ways of viewing the world I guess.

Edited 17 July by bovril

[bovril]

And interesting to use the example of Nigeria, Canada et al because I would say the fact our language was spread around the world has weakened our national identity 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

It doesn’t matter whether it had existed for centuries it’s still an unnatural invention. Religion has existed for way longer and has a far bigger influence on shared culture than nationdom but no one would consider it “natural”.

 

I just chose Carlisle because it was near the border.

 

Sure, but Stoke has a similar class structure and history to Leicester as similarly sized post-industrial cities which is my point. That isn’t the comparison you should be making it’s whether you are culturally closer to the multi-millionaire financiers in the city of London who have maids and don’t even know how to shop or the agricultural workers  in rural Somerset who have never left the county than you do people in similar industries with a similar backstories to you in similar cities in Italy. Which I really don’t think anyone does if they actually interact with those people separately 

The two groups you mention, financiers and agricultural workers, are statistically insignificant and immaterial. Of course English people have a lot in common with each other, whether they are in Stoke or in London. More than likely the average English person between 18-65 in either city was at a saloon style pub on Sunday, drinking alcohol and eating ultra-processed junk food from 2pm onwards. Then shouting at a screen at 11 overpaid footballers and one inept manager.

How on earth will Jonny from Bolton have more in common with Marco from Modena than he does Gary from Bexleyheath? Of course he won't. Jonny and Gaz work in suburban SMEs, drink Carling, live in two up two down houses, eat beige food with no flavour and own large umbrellas.

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

Patriotism is complete horseshit, the expectation of blind loyalty to a geographic location simply because of where women broke their waters is ludicrous. 
 

Some tit on Twitter was going on about being proud of our shared language. What does that even mean? Especially seeing as the more patriotic people claim to be, the less they are able to construct a sentence in English. 

Except that where women broke their waters defines so much of your life, values, relationship, attitudes, culture, diet, outlook and personality. Forgetting that huge and clearly obvious point

[leicsmac]

Perhaps this is overly utilitarian of me, but for me the crux of this issue comes down to how useful these ideas of cultural and national identity are at actually making the world (or just one corner of it, even) a better place. (And just to define that, "better" = longer, less suffering life for more people than before.)

 

Sometimes they are useful, sometimes they're really not, and the real skill lies in being able to pick the between the two given a given situation.

Edited 17 July by leicsmac

[Sampson]

22 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Except that where women broke their waters defines so much of your life, values, relationship, attitudes, culture, diet, outlook and personality. Forgetting that huge and clearly obvious point

I’m not sure on your point here though.Even if so, what does any of that have to do with patriotism and why is it any reason whatsoever of being proud of your country? 

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[leicsmac]

Though tbh this might merit a thread of its own as I'm not sure how electiony it is...

[Zear0]

Might just go and support Forest, some of you here will understand.

[bovril]

Edward I to the Welsh - sorry lads but nationality is just a construct. Look at me - speak French, born in England, Spanish wife. Mind if I build a castle here, in the spirit of multiculturalism? 

[Sampson]

24 minutes ago, bovril said:

I didn't say anything about feeling pride.

 

Your central thesis seems to be that nations are constructs and are not only unnecessary but also detrimental to human development. I disagree.

 

The Welsh are not English. They have a distinct culture, history and, perhaps most importantly, a language which they have quite rightly protected. We can argue over semantics but I think that has developed over time and was not merely invented. Those elements are linked of course. I believe that language, nationality and culture are very closely related, you seem not to, which is fine. 

 

That doesn't mean that the English and Welsh can't work together or that we don't have loads of similarities. I just think turning around and saying "actually your national identity is basically manufactured and should be left in the past" (apologies if that's not what you're saying) is slightly arrogant and yes does display quite an Anglo point of view.

 

We have different ways of viewing the world I guess.

The definition of patriotism is literally feeling pride in your country. That penultimate paragraph is my point, ultimately humans have to work together and patriotism is so often invoked to drive people apart: There are way more things that define us than our nation and feeling pride in it just feels strange to me and yes I believe it inherently leads people to exclusionism. 

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, bovril said:

Edward I to the Welsh - sorry lads but nationality is just a construct. Look at me - speak French, born in England, Spanish wife. Mind if I build a castle here, in the spirit of multiculturalism? 

Huh? Are you seriously trying to posit multiculturalism to imperialism? What does anything we are talking about have to do with building castles?

Edited 17 July by Sampson

[ramboacdc]

11 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Except that where women broke their waters defines so much of your life, values, relationship, attitudes, culture, diet, outlook and personality. Forgetting that huge and clearly obvious point

Not really. 

My wife could be on a flight to Egypt and her waters break. You are the nationality of the first country you land in. I am English and my wife is half Irish but our kid would now be Egyptian technically. 

Patriotism isn't usually a love of a stretch of land or what defines your life. It is where you are raised that defines it.  Personally I think patriotism is just basically the influence of religion and politics more than a love of whats within your borders. A lot of the "patriots" you meet around the world will have an undercurrent of religion or political lean. 

 

[bovril]

23 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The definition of patriotism is literally feeling pride in your country. That penultimate paragraph is my point, ultimately humans have to work together and patriotism is so often invoked to drive people apart: There are way more things that define us than our nation and feeling pride in it just feels strange to me and yes I believe it inherently leads people to exclusionism. 

I haven't said anything about patriotism if you look back.

 

21 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Huh? Are you seriously trying to posit multiculturalism to imperialism? What does anything we are talking about have to do with building castles?

It was a joke. Although there are some similarities imo...

[bovril]

22 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

Not really. 

My wife could be on a flight to Egypt and her waters break. You are the nationality of the first country you land in. I am English and my wife is half Irish but our kid would now be Egyptian technically. 

Patriotism isn't usually a love of a stretch of land or what defines your life. It is where you are raised that defines it.  Personally I think patriotism is just basically the influence of religion and politics more than a love of whats within your borders. A lot of the "patriots" you meet around the world will have an undercurrent of religion or political lean. 

 

Well technically you're a British citizen. English is an ethnicity which doesn't depend where your mother's waters break (just loving all this talk of waters breaking)

[Stadt]

39 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

Not really. 

My wife could be on a flight to Egypt and her waters break. You are the nationality of the first country you land in. I am English and my wife is half Irish but our kid would now be Egyptian technically. 

Patriotism isn't usually a love of a stretch of land or what defines your life. It is where you are raised that defines it.  Personally I think patriotism is just basically the influence of religion and politics more than a love of whats within your borders. A lot of the "patriots" you meet around the world will have an undercurrent of religion or political lean. 

 

Your kid wouldn't be Egyptian. Very few countries give birthright citizenship.