Opinion of "patriotic" "left-wingers"

[Cranberry]

You are talking about the perception of family. Of course is our perception of family "humane", yet it is bound to a "natural" bonding, said little higher amount of shared DNA. We could argue that it is our perception of a nation that is "humane", yet there is no "natural" level below, some quality that is unique to just this nation. A nation therefore is a considerably more "humane" construct than a family.

Of course do people from the same nations find themselves more home in another part of that same nation than in another nation. This however is not a natural instinct of people, this is something trainable, something learned, because from the day of our birth we have heard "you are a member of this nation, that guy over there belongs to that nation". Of course a nation can be useful as a "social construct" but there is no evidence that a bond of nations, or a Union of regions, or the whole world, or just your  region alone, or your town or city, or your street, or your house, or your room, or the square you're sitting upon at the moment isn't a just as useful "social construct". So, by taking your own argument, it is precisely not silly to suggest that one's country is devoid of meaning. One's bond of nations, one's Union of regions, one's whole world, one's region alone, one's town or city, one's street, one's house, one's room, one's square one is sitting upon at the moment can fulfill exactly the same purpose.

(Funny that you mentioned Innsbruck, that city is just ten minutes away from my home )

[Velasco]

Well, not really. A family is a natural construct - we have parents, siblings, cousins etc that share a certain amount of DNA with us that is a little higher than the amount of DNA we share with people that don't belong to our family. So a family is basically something that shares something in common by nature.

Disagree. Family is a social construct usually involving people with genetic links, but not always. You should notice that the concept of family has evolved through history and is not the same in all cultures. See how Roman emperors 'adopted' their heirs, how many couples are seeking for children in adoption nowadays in developed countries, single-parent families, same sex marriages, etc, etc. On the other hand, the notion of 'extended family' (cousins, aunts, uncles, in-laws, etc) is strong in some countries like those in the Mediterranean Sea, but not as strong in other places. I tend to think that the most natural element involved in family is the link between a (biological) mother and her creature.

Anyway, I agree with you when you say that we have more in common with our respective families than with the rest of our 'nationals' belonging to our 'national culture'. However, being an artificial construct doesn't mean that national cultures or identities are irrelevant, but it should help us to relativise them and try to place such topics -and the great emotional charge usually associated with them- in context.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Sound pretty dumb from the description, but I'm not sure that these strawmen characters exist in the real world.

Well there's everyone that thinks the US has literally no ulterior motives getting involved in conflicts in places like Libya, Ukraine, or building up it's military presence in Southeast Asia. Historically your 'left-wing' supporters of World War I would certainly fall into this category.

What ulterior motives, pray tell, do we have in Libya, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia? Can you point to specific evidence of these ulterior motives beyond "well this benefits the US in some way so obviously that's the only reason"?

[Deus Naturae]

What ulterior motives, pray tell, do we have in Libya, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia? Can you point to specific evidence of these ulterior motives beyond "well this benefits the US in some way so obviously that's the only reason"?

It is impossible to literally know what in is in the head of every political or military leader so I don't see how you expect TNF or anyone else to provide "specific evidence." It is perfectly legitimate to speculate as to the likely ulterior motives of an action, even in the absence of definitive evidence. For example, if a very attractive young woman marries a wealthy geezer, it is perfectly legitimate to speculate that she is after his money, despite the fact that we can't know what is precisely is going on in her head. Or, to use a political example, if a politician vote for subsidies to a certain industry, it is hardly crazy to suggest that he may be after support/donations/gifts from that industry. No one said anything about any ulterior motive being the only reason for anything, so that's a blatant strawman.

[H. Ross Peron]

Sound pretty dumb from the description, but I'm not sure that these strawmen characters exist in the real world.

[Lambsbread]

Patriotism is stupid regardless of ideology.

Patriotism isn't stupid. By the same logic leftists use to denigrate it, we shouldn't love our family members either.

I most certainly am not family with anyone other than the people with whom I share DNA or that I consider to be people with whom I could not live without.

I read your response to Cranberry's post about family being a natural construct (which he's wrong, as Velasco pointed out, it's a social construct) and to say that just because I share "similar DNA" with my fellow Americans than I would with, say, Iraqis, is moot. I'm German, yet I make no claim to Germany as my homeland. Do I respect the culture? Yes, and that's what I claim to be. A descendant of German culture.

Without getting too preachy here on the subject of countries and whether they should or should not exist, to have pride in a designated spot of land that has been divided up to be "our land" that you just so happened to be born in is stupid. I live in Pennsylvania, yet I have no "Pennsylvania pride." I live in Montgomery County, yet I have no "Montco Pride."

I don't feel compelled to say "YEEEEEEEEAH MURICAAAAA" every time I hear the national anthem. In fact, I feel the national anthem still being played at sporting events is probably the stupidest thing in the realm of sports. That's the only time that people are ever compelled to be patriotic (sans things like 9/11 remembrance day or whatever) to the point that it's almost uncomfortable for everyone. Why do I need to be reminded that I live in America when I attend a Phillies game? Why do I need to sit through the same god damn song every time I watch a football game on TV?

There is no pride for things like state, county, city, etc. on the level that there is pride for America (which is not to say there's no state, county, city pride, there definitely is.) but why? American patriotism is not just pride in country, it's a "we're better than you are" attitude. Which is very toxic.

TL;DR I don't believe having pride in a country is right. Have pride in yourself, have pride in your friends, have pride in the individuals who do good deeds, but not in a country. Because when you do have pride in a country, your attitude is holier than thou (even if you don't mean it to be) and you're almost saying that "hey, there are a lot of good things about America and I like that...but I'm also totally okay with all of the terrible things about America as well" which is much more difficult than just appreciating the individuals who make America great, not the whole country.

Probably really poorly misconstrued, but I have a horrible habit of doing that.

[Flake]

Sound pretty dumb from the description, but I'm not sure that these strawmen characters exist in the real world.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

What ulterior motives, pray tell, do we have in Libya, Ukraine, and Southeast Asia? Can you point to specific evidence of these ulterior motives beyond "well this benefits the US in some way so obviously that's the only reason"?

It is impossible to literally know what in is in the head of every political or military leader so I don't see how you expect TNF or anyone else to provide "specific evidence." It is perfectly legitimate to speculate as to the likely ulterior motives of an action, even in the absence of definitive evidence. For example, if a very attractive young woman marries a wealthy geezer, it is perfectly legitimate to speculate that she is after his money, despite the fact that we can't know what is precisely is going on in her head. Or, to use a political example, if a politician vote for subsidies to a certain industry, it is hardly crazy to suggest that he may be after support/donations/gifts from that industry. No one said anything about any ulterior motive being the only reason for anything, so that's a blatant strawman.

I think a better analogy would be if a very attractive young woman saves a wealthy geezer from a burning building - would you say she did it because he's rich and therefore the young woman is evil?

[SNJ1985]

Patriotism is stupid regardless of ideology.

Patriotism isn't stupid. By the same logic leftists use to denigrate it, we shouldn't love our family members either.

I most certainly am not family with anyone other than the people with whom I share DNA or that I consider to be people with whom I could not live without.

I read your response to Cranberry's post about family being a natural construct (which he's wrong, as Velasco pointed out, it's a social construct) and to say that just because I share "similar DNA" with my fellow Americans than I would with, say, Iraqis, is moot. I'm German, yet I make no claim to Germany as my homeland. Do I respect the culture? Yes, and that's what I claim to be. A descendant of German culture.

Without getting too preachy here on the subject of countries and whether they should or should not exist, to have pride in a designated spot of land that has been divided up to be "our land" that you just so happened to be born in is stupid. I live in Pennsylvania, yet I have no "Pennsylvania pride." I live in Montgomery County, yet I have no "Montco Pride."

I don't feel compelled to say "YEEEEEEEEAH MURICAAAAA" every time I hear the national anthem. In fact, I feel the national anthem still being played at sporting events is probably the stupidest thing in the realm of sports. That's the only time that people are ever compelled to be patriotic (sans things like 9/11 remembrance day or whatever) to the point that it's almost uncomfortable for everyone. Why do I need to be reminded that I live in America when I attend a Phillies game? Why do I need to sit through the same god damn song every time I watch a football game on TV?

There is no pride for things like state, county, city, etc. on the level that there is pride for America (which is not to say there's no state, county, city pride, there definitely is.) but why? American patriotism is not just pride in country, it's a "we're better than you are" attitude. Which is very toxic.

TL;DR I don't believe having pride in a country is right. Have pride in yourself, have pride in your friends, have pride in the individuals who do good deeds, but not in a country. Because when you do have pride in a country, your attitude is holier than thou (even if you don't mean it to be) and you're almost saying that "hey, there are a lot of good things about America and I like that...but I'm also totally okay with all of the terrible things about America as well" which is much more difficult than just appreciating the individuals who make America great, not the whole country.

Probably really poorly misconstrued, but I have a horrible habit of doing that.

Well, I certainly don't believe the United States is the greatest country in the world or that it has no flaws; far from it, in fact. I don't think any country can claim that, although it can certainly be said that some are better than others. You can love your country without thinking it is superior to all others or that there isn't anything wrong with it; and I most definitely do not think that loving one's country is the same thing as loving its government or agreeing with every decision it makes - if anything, one who loves this country should utterly despise its current government.

I actually consider myself a patriot with regards to all of the Western world; I care just as much about Britain, France or Germany as I do about this country. While there are certainly differences between countries within the Western world, I think we are ultimately similar enough that we can think of ourselves as having some kind of familial bond.

Of course, my Savior Jesus Christ always comes first in my life; He is much more important to me than anyone or anything else, including my country.

[RogueBeaver]

Sound pretty dumb from the description, but I'm not sure that these strawmen characters exist in the real world.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Although patriotism is far more benevolent than its evil cousin nationalism, it seems to be apparent that a lot of "patriots" are far to embedded to the nation-state, as if the modern nation state set-up is the only comprehensible way for the world's population to be organised.

If you are truly left-wing you care about equality, and equality is meaningless without global equality. What good is a welfare state and labour rights in the West if it comes at the expense of sweatshop workers and overworked farmers in the rest of the world?


But blaming Libya on patriotism is silly.

[The Mikado]

I don't know if you can really correlate support for the military intervention in Libya with "patriotism" as much as a fundamental belief in the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.  If you think that it exists, you'd likely support Libya, if not you don't.  It's not a fundamentally different affair than the intervention in Kosovo in 1998, for example.  The UN Security Council sanctioned it, NATO sanctioned it, everything was in order, the Libyan rebels requested NATO aid, it was purely a judgement call as to whether or not it was worthwhile, and the administration (like the French, British, and even minor NATO allies like Denmark and Norway) agreed that it was.  The then-existing Sarkozy administration in France took the helm on Libya anyway, not the Obama Administration.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know if you can really correlate support for the military intervention in Libya with "patriotism" as much as a fundamental belief in the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.  If you think that it exists, you'd likely support Libya, if not you don't.  It's not a fundamentally different affair than the intervention in Kosovo in 1998, for example.  The UN Security Council sanctioned it, NATO sanctioned it, everything was in order, the Libyan rebels requested NATO aid, it was purely a judgement call as to whether or not it was worthwhile, and the administration (like the French, British, and even minor NATO allies like Denmark and Norway) agreed that it was.  The then-existing Sarkozy administration in France took the helm on Libya anyway, not the Obama Administration.

One of the few good things Sarkozy ever did.

[SWE]

Accidentally voted FF, but obviously horrible.

[Comrade Funk]

Less annoying than the left-wing teenagers who have never paid a meaningful tax in their life.

As far as the poll HP, okay? On to the next badly questioned/biased poll.