No you don’t want to talk about it because it completely undermines your point. When you make a logical argument the logic of said argument is certainly not a different topic.
That “Slava Ukraini” is a “teeny bit” of nationalism
That a “teeny bit” of nationalism is ok.
So, to answer both points:
I don’t think that it’s a “teeny bit” of nationalism to reproduce an ultranationalist parole. If Germany gets a new Chancellor and we all exclaim “Heil Merz!” to wish him the best to lead the nation, I don’t think that would be accepted. Not even if Germany was invaded.
I disagree that a “teeny bit” of nationalism is ok. I think that this point was a derailment of the topic. I was talking about reusing paroles with a fascist background. Not nationalism. You canwt argue about Ukrainian nationalism on .world, because everyone will accuse you of being Putin’s bottom bitch.
I disagree with nationalism and I think it’s beside the point, which is why I didn’t want to get into it.
Bu, if you insinst:
Nationalism is the belief that the interests of the national state align with your personal interests. I think that belief is wrong (at least in a dapitalist nation). One example in how it is wrong is that it dilutes/negates class antagonisms. E.g.: if you “buy canadian”, you’re actually helping the Canadian bourgeoisie.
Nationalism is also the reason why people believe in killing and/or dying for their nation in a war. I don’t agree with nationalism. Not even a “tiny bit”.
Well sure, buying Canadian helps the Canadian bourgeoisie. But the point is that it sends a message to Trump. We have to buy food from somewhere – so surely it’s better to buy Canadian?
Not what this is about, homie.
I’d call that a tiny bit of nationalism though.
And it’s not what I’m talking about.
If your logic can’t be applied to more than one scenario then your logic is flawed.
I’m not claiming that it’s not applicable. I don’t want to talk about a different topic.
No you don’t want to talk about it because it completely undermines your point. When you make a logical argument the logic of said argument is certainly not a different topic.
There were two points intsoduced:
So, to answer both points:
I don’t mean to drag this out, but when you said you disagree, what was it that I said that you disagreed with?
I disagree with nationalism and I think it’s beside the point, which is why I didn’t want to get into it.
Bu, if you insinst: Nationalism is the belief that the interests of the national state align with your personal interests. I think that belief is wrong (at least in a dapitalist nation). One example in how it is wrong is that it dilutes/negates class antagonisms. E.g.: if you “buy canadian”, you’re actually helping the Canadian bourgeoisie.
Nationalism is also the reason why people believe in killing and/or dying for their nation in a war. I don’t agree with nationalism. Not even a “tiny bit”.
Well sure, buying Canadian helps the Canadian bourgeoisie. But the point is that it sends a message to Trump. We have to buy food from somewhere – so surely it’s better to buy Canadian?