No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
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.
That'd be great if it didn't disagree with all available evidence. For all of history patriots have been either cannon fodder or abusive tyrants. On a long enough trajectory, almost inevitably nationalists and eventually imperialists.
One could argue that, much like some flavors of political utopia, internationalism has the advantage of never having been implemented in any practical sense, so they have less of a challenge proving their positive impact, but I'll take it anyway.
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".
Look, I am not a globalist anarchist. I believe in well structured, effective democratic governments. 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 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?
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.
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.
Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?
Cause that's what the word means.
I get it, particularly in countries where the nation state has overlapped more or less perfectly for a long time it's hard to shed the emotional attachment, but there's no need for it.
See, the reason I go from small to international is precisely that the nation state takes care of itself. The world has agreed that it's the natural resting place of sovereignty and every other scale of governance or administration os derived from it. I don't like that much. I don't resent it, but I also don't give it immediate precedence over any other scale of government.
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. If anything, it's the level where the most people decide to infringe on each other's business just because they feel they have a right to ownership over that national identity. 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.
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.
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.
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.