Patriots would be there waving a giant flag saying we’re the best house ever, despite not actually being involved in building the house or having anything to do with the state of it outside of living in it.
Patriotism and nationalism has zero place in society.
We need to build a shared culture so that we can work together.
My house will become the best house should be a message we all can get around. Otherwise, why should I work with you to build society?
If you don't like shared work or shared culture to begin with, it's a bit problematic in that your own political ideologies are destined to die. At the very minimum, your ideology must be self sustaining.
The house in this case is a metaphor for the politicians, laws, community, etc.
You want people to take pride and improve all that. You want friendly competition there. And part of it would be, "We are the best house because we help other houses improve"
It's a stepping stone to, "We are a commune" ie "We all share this world and should take pride and improve it for everybody" - It's easier to take pride in and improve your own home first so you get to the point of, "Others should get to share in this and we have so much, let's help others make their homes as great as ours"
Good luck building up a coalition of people who will cooperate with you.
And worse: good luck politically defeating those who are smart enough to use basic psychology to coordinate the masses. Its not evil to do so, its just practicality. We know how people act and how they think. Its not so hard to then use psychology and sociology to build up our own coalitions.
As Terry Pratchett wrote in The Hogfather : We tell little likes like Santa Clause because we're training children to believe in the big lies like Truth and Justice. And only when we all believe in that stuff can it possibly work. "We're the best country in the world" is part of that, its a little lie that helps smooth over problems and helps us work together. And in my experience, its effective at it.
You know, I'm not particularly intelligent. If I (and you apparently) understood that nations are a manipulation of the masses, everyone can. Thus we could create a coalition against nationalism and patriotism quite easily, but schools and medias are spreading their propaganda.
Patriotism and nationalism has zero place in society.
Not true. Patriotism is wanting and seeking the best for your country. Because our society relies on those physical divides, patriotism would actually improve society. Nationalism is deciding that whatever your country is doing already is the best simply by virtue of self-identification. There is no desire for improvement outside of an individual perception so it, functionally, can never offer any improvement for society.
One is potentially beneficial. The other is cancerous.
Only in that they want to move it to a more extreme version of what they already perceive it to be. They are not looking to change it based on any meaningful measure. Nationalists are almost always conservatives.
Ok so let's entertain the opposite of patriotism and talk about self distane what is going to drive you to fix the crumbling rotting foundation or leaky roof because who cares if this crummy house rots and collapses on me if you don't care about your county then you won't have the drive to maintain it sure some might but those people who don't need motivation to do things are rare and far between if the world is hopeless then what hope is there of fixing it
People with no or low self-worth are way more likely to neglect their health than those with high self-worth. Pride is a huge motivator for taking care of your health.
The levels of obesity and diabetes among the Pima Indians of Arizona have long been recognised to be high. A small study tested the efficacy of lifestyle interventions. Two groups were identified. The Pima action group had a familiar mix of interventions on nutrition and physical activity. The Pima pride group looked remarkably like a control group for a health education trial—they received printed leaflets about activity and nutrition—but in addition they had regular discussions with local leaders on Pima culture and history. At the end of 12 months, much was going in the wrong direction for the action group, but the pride group had either less deterioration of risk factors or improvements. Compared with the action group the pride group looked favourable on weight, waist circumference, and blood glucose and insulin levels two hours after a glucose load.3 A tentative conclusion was that increasing pride in their identity had a more favourable impact on health behaviours and risk than focusing on how to change diet and exercise.
People often don't take care of things they aren't proud of. It doesn't matter if it's clearly in their best interest to.
Patriotism also sucks, because it implements a bias that can then be exploited, and brings very little to the table.
State-level patriotism also makes you complicit in the division of people by countries and nations, as opposed to classes and other valid groups of people.
And there is no valid reason to have some special relation to your country. It is natural to feel ties with the place you were born or the place you spent a lot of time in, this is human psychology, but your country is nothing but a piece of land that was marked by somebody as belonging to some virtual entity.
We should ditch state-level patriotism as a concept and treat local-level patriotism as a natural bias. We should strive to help people of all places and origins, and come together as one.
Moreover, the entire concept of ownership is really just "you'll face violence from other people if you try to take that away, one way or another". That's it.
Universe doesn't care who owns what, those are just objects in space.
Sometimes this concept is helpful; you probably want the police to step in if someone breaks into your house (universe couldn't care less). Sometimes it's extremely dangerous, like when country leaders threaten others with nuclear war.
In either case, we should seriously revamp our relationships with land and property - that is for certain. Current ways are not sustainable and may lead to a disaster.
Patriotism also sucks, because it implements a bias that can then be exploited, and brings very little to the table.
patriotism is a very personal thing, by the very definition of it. You simply cannot apply it outside of yourself. If you are outwardly patriotic. You have already fucked up.
I would argue there is a valid reason to have some form of special relation to your country, your country is simply, not any other existing country. If you live in estonia, you have a fully digital government. If you live in america you have one of the foundational democratic governments of modern society, as well as a particular cultural history (though turbulent, rather remarkable) as well as a particularly unusual geography and land usage. If you live in europe, you live in a moderately to high density populated area, that is highly socialized, and cooperative. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The fundamental problem here is thinking that europe is worse than america, simply because it's different. What you're applying here is a soviet level utilitarian "collective" identity.
Though i agree with the state level patriotism, that's fucking weird, stop doing that.
You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one’s country, not to its institutions or its office-holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags—that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declares “that all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient.”
Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth’s political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay, does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is the duty of the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.
Mark Twain, "A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court"
But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile. - Patrick O'Brien
The difference is much simpler. Patriotism for internal conflicts, nationalism for external conflicts. Both for manufactured Boogeymen fueled by malicious propaganda.
top 50 comments