Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind your approach, I honestly have no idea how you could come to any other conclusion based on human history...
A considerable part of the reason was my study of World War I a couple of years ago. I had little sympathy for nationalism before. I have none whatsoever now.
Nations do. Extreme example, I know, but jamming KSA and Australia together might not be something I'd particularly like. My nation has a different personality than that of the KSA. It holds and defends different values (flawed as it is). I get that a nation is an artificial construct, but that doesn't mean it is without meaning. Religion is much the same, in my eyes.
I do not defend jamming nations together. I propose letting go of them, not reinforcing their artificial existence.
Religion is somewhat similar to nationalism in that regard, but there are significant differences where diversity of belief is well accepted.
Yes, fair point. However, I meant not so much the origins, as the nature of assuming an unregulated environment would right itself.
Does it look like I believe a nationless social environment will right itself?
I am sorry if I give that impression. I do not expect that to happen. I think instead that we must ever pursue true respect among societies and that nationalism is just one of the more avoidable and unnecessary hurdles in that permanent challenge.
It is not a natural tendency at all. Just a permanent need. We will have our hands full, but at least it will have a honorable goal and it will be worth it.
'Certainty' is not what I seek. I am sure there was a degree of 'certainty' living in Nazi Germany.
Nazy Germany, much like Trump America, are desperate attempts at fixing an sense of uncertainty.
We all owe it to ourselves to pursue better ways before those desperados have their way.
But that's meaningless. I am in fact desperately unaware of how an education system, or a nation's infrastructure could be brought to a place of commonality without extreme issue, and an eventual overwhelming of one system with another.
Education can only work when it acknowledges both the local particularities and the more abrangent world. Commonality is perhaps desirable, but it is a longer term goal if even that. Mutual understanding is a necessary and very worthy prerequisite, and a very significant challenge of its own.
There is no shortcut there. The challenges are enormous, as one should expect in a world with seven billion people and very defficient social and educational systems. At some point there will be either genocidal bloodshed or else impressively ambitious social reach initiatives. More than likely some combination of both.
Are you simply advocating 'survival of the fittest'? Some sort of social Darwinism?
No, I am advocating
its exact opposite, as a matter of fact. We should accept our terrible duty towards each other, up to and including our enemies.
Valued, pursued...dare I say defended?
I don't think so. What would defense mean in that context? What is being defended, and from what?
There are two common meanings of "defense", neither of which quite fits here. There is no point in avoidance of the challenges, and there is no moral justification for military enforcement.
It's very hard to discuss this with you given that you basically refuse to discuss specifics,
Regarding nations? Thanks. I refuse to lend them any significance whatsoever. They are an unwelcome distraction which I will neglect and devalue at every opportunity if I can help it.
We all should aim higher. I don't know that we have any true choice.
and instead just go for motherhood statements. That sounds much more agressive than I mean it to, so I apologize.
It is ok. I am all too aware of how bold a stance I am asking of you.
If it did not disturb you at some point, I would have grounds to doubt that you understood what I mean.
But I commonly see value in your perspective, regardless of whether I agree. Here, I don't believe I am being provided enough detail to see anything at all.
Perhaps we should attempt some concrete examples. We have some Haitian immigrants here in Brazil, who are a source of considerable inner conflict among the so-called "natives" (nearly all of which are immigrants themselves if we go back a half dozen generations or so).
They are very much a stress on the social system. They have trouble with the language, they are lacking in profesional qualifications, our social infrastructure was very questionable to begin with.
Ultimately, however, they are very much a minority and their hardships and the price we pay for them make little contrast with what we faced previously, all the more so when we consider the impact of our demographic growth. For at least some decades now Brazil has suffered from growing social inequalities that are neglected by the right and somewhat romanticized by the left.
Quite simply, we can't afford not to deal with those challenges
right now. And the presence of the Haitians changes very little; it is not like we would otherwise have little trouble with illiteracy and social inequalities. Heck, we do not even have a
word for gentrification, because it never became a significant problem here. Our well-to-do people are just not likely to become that numerous in the foreseeable future.
So it seems to me that any real solution will largely have to exist by being sustained by street level efforts with little expectation of support from legislators and the like. Government officials are only people, never having the means and only rarely the true interest in understanding the complexity and nuance of those serious matters. We should spread education and a sense of mutual responsibility, which will doubtless manifest in taking population control, education, avoidance of recreational drugs and a plethora of other causes seriously. Some of those will be fairly localized, others will not.
As I mentioned, I commonly disagree with Harris on some things, for all that I appear to be defending him here. But I do find his intent to speak very clearly and not dumb down his message noteworthy and commendable. He has also proven willing to respond calmly to criticism. The world could use much, much more of this, regardless of whether I agree with the details of his argument.
I so agree!
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I have no idea how you can believe this.
And yet I definitely do. Borders are an abhorrent, not a help, for anything worth valuing.
I would also describe myself as a centrist, is one with a little bit of a left lean. The 'confusing and questionable' nature of the classification is kinda the point. Identity politics is one of the things we believes is a failure of modern liberalism, and to a degree I think there is some truth in that. Examination of issues is what is important, and where rationality and secular thought should be directing us.
Agreed. The "war of narratives" has grown far too much to confort, and taken a life of its own. We must empty it.
Is it? How so? I have no clue.
I believe he would say, however, that one of the issues with the 'left' is the silencing of dissenting arguments, and the refusal to rationally discuss issues.
Probably. I do not disagree as such, but I think it is dangerous to make blanket statements on this matter for the whole of the "left".
Agree or not, that is of course up to you. Ask supporters of Trump why they voted for him, and you'll get a fairly consistent narrative that agrees with Harris.
I have come to actually doubt it. Trump support seems to be considerably lesser and more chaotic than I thought of a few weeks ago.
As for whatever agreement they might have with Harris, that can probably be best described as "accidental" in any case.
One is at my parents' house, and the other I read sitting in the bookshop 
