Top products from r/DebateDE

I agree that the people aren't always right, but it kind of breaks the social contract. The nazi example is a bit extreme as I feel that anything that causes that much damage to citizens is just, beyond.

Yeah maybe why I'm not attracted to cultural pride is due to my culture being on the ascent. I live in the US and there are some black guys who like to wear kente cloth and ankhs, in a show of cultural pride, and some white guys who get these Norse and Celtic tattoos.

But in the 1950s, neither group did this. Black pride was about being a clean cut professional in the NAACP, reading WEB DuBois, white pride was about being an upstanding suburbanite, a pillar of the community. I think people become jingoistic flag-wavers when they feel threatened. I think true pride comes from within the individual and from helping people, including people in the outgroup. But that's just me.

Moreover, nationalism is weird. It comes from the Westphalian nation-state system based on the balance of power concept of world order. It's weird for me to talk about national distinction when I'm from the central part of a country that has always existed, called middle earth, and speak a dialect called common, and my ethnicity is just distinguished by what we aren't, not what we are.

Being Chinese is more like Romanitas, or the credo of American exceptionalism, than it is about being one of the tribe. Blood and soil applies more to regional identities like being Teochew or Hakka. First of all, theoretically you, a white or a black man, can become Chinese. Second, anyone whose father's father's father is Chinese is 100% Chinese whether he has dark brown skin, blue eyes, kinky hair.

Nationalism is also a very new construct. Europeans used to call their civilization Christendom, like some very religious Muslims probably view the Islamic world the same way. By Romanitas as a cognate for Chinese identity, I am kind of talking about what cohered civilized Europe before it became Christendom. I'm really not a historian and am not really sure of this.

Spoken like a man with no appreciation for the past.

Historical cycles do happen, but you can't model them as simply as an oscillating sine wave. And I wouldn't label the peaks and troughs as Marxist vs. Capitalist extremes; an axis of expansion vs. preservation would be more suitable. And in any case, this sine wave model seems to posit a supreme and transcendent universal Capitalism whereby all possible resources are extracted and exploited in a way that maximizes both utility and desire-production.

https://www.amazon.com/Accelerando-Singularity-Charles-Stross/dp/0441014151

Here is the mobile version of your link

Yea, a bunch studying different things. This conclusion was teased out of a number of different areas of research.

Maybe start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Behind-Politics-Conservatism/dp/0982947933

Current comments are disappointing. As an old-school neoreactionary, I am sad to see that the new crop don't read books.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LY3T4E/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=SA583Y3SWBA8&coliid=I24GK35L4J24MN

is good.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060922826/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=SA583Y3SWBA8&coliid=I7D5YCAIJKHQ

is much more narrow.

http://www.amazon.com/From-Dawn-Decadence-Western-Cultural/dp/0060928832

covers a broader period—so you can put it in context.

Well you're speaking about stereotypes and other nebulous crap. How about showing some data? There is lots of literature surrounding the correlation of IQ and socioeconomic status/income/etc. I suggest you look into it.

And by the way, regarding the stereotype in China that "people don't stay rich for more than 3 generations:" well, I think you're wrong. Again, there's been a lot of research into historical levels of social mobility and generally what we find is that these levels tend to stay very low, both throughout history and between cultures. Here's some relevant reading