Are you against nationalism smooth?

that is the very basis of what ethno-nationalism is

absolutely 👍🏽

What if a country is already diverse

And if they have nationalism

What does diversity have to do with it?

Define "diversity" for heck's sake, if you're going to use the word

No, because what is conservative today is what was progressive yesterday, by it's nature there are conservative thinkers who are for immigration, but are against the rampant unchecked influx of immigration due to the impracticalities and racial tensions it causes

Ethno means a particular group of ethnicity right?

@PerformedShelf "but are against the rampant unchecked influx of immigration due to the impracticalities and racial tensions it causes" this a component of ethno-nationalism

Diversity - different culture, different physical features,different languages and religions existing peacefully in a country or a society

@methdragon so what are you trying to say with regards to diversity and nationalism?

Taking pride in your country and trying to preserve it's cultures is ok

no

so now if someone is opposed to progressivism, they are an ethno-nationalist who should be thrown in jail? i think i'm being confused by layers of sarcasm here.

@Atkins I don't think I ever mentioned "should"s or "jail"

so... no?

The increase in those tensions is simply fact, it takes generations of willing people to integrate into a society, and allowing those issues to rise will be the downfall of actual community

I meant to say if a country is diverse let's say like America and they don't want to have a lot of immigrants I think it's ok

@PerformedShelf I never said it was unjustified or malicious ethno-nationalism, but it simply is.

methdragon did

@methdragon yeah, that's stupid

if you oppose trying to mix people who want to throw Gays off rooftops with people who support gay marriage, without making them all obey a law that says "don't throw people off rooftops", you are now a ethno-nationalist?

It is not ethno-nationalism, because you are not against the immigration that has already occurred, etho-nationalisation would be to remove by force those who are not of a particular nationalyity

@Grenade123 I'm not sure what you're trying to say; I couldn't even parse that message. Could you say it more simply? I'm small brained.

The reason why I am saying is because America as a country values individualism highly and any society that doesn't follow it will not be compatibile and that's it's ok to restrict immigrants

@PerformedShelf I don't think so, it's a different level of ethno-nationalism but still a similar ideal

@methdragon yeah, that's a pretty shit idea in my opinion

How so?

well, for example, the US is an unfounded colonial state in the first place, and thus should be abolished and have no power over who passes through the region or not

You're clearly wrong on that point, an ethno-state is a country with one ethnicity, hence the Aryan race that Hitler wanted to establish as the ruling and rightful ethinicity of Germany. A multi-ethnic country cannot be an ethno-state, and its people cannot be ethno-nationalists

thank christ none of yall will ever have any power

Then this kind of logic should be applied to every country in the world

@methdragon Yes

Do you any country formed peacefully

@methdragon No, all states are unfounded

We should just go back 500 years

Why do you think so?

Because

The concept of US is like you said formed under colonisation

You can't unravel it

@PerformedShelf I think it's reasonable to say "non-retroactive" ethno-nationalism is still that, but I get what you're saying that it's a different phenomenon

@methdragon I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

You are navigating the sea of history with a moral compass that you obtained today

I am trying to say that is not valid solution or an argument

It has nothing to do with ethno-nationalism, and you're refusing to budge on the idea that those who arent against rampant unchecked immigration arent actually racist xenophobic ethno-nationalists

Stating that all modern societies are unfounded and evil is not a valid solution to the argument?

i think that's a great solution

How would you go back?

@methdragon who said anything about going back?

@PerformedShelf I would say that based on how I define the word, I probably wouldn't budge on that lol; ethno-nationalism is the idea that nations should restrict who is allowed to enter the nation based on race or origin, which fits what you're saying

You said this
>well, for example, the US is an unfounded colonial state in the first place, and thus should be abolished and have no power over who passes through the region or not

Yes, I said that

@xmrsmoothx " if one is opposed to the progressivism of multi-racial society and border deregulation, it is ethno-nationalism"

current progressive seems to treat all cultures as equal, and to be against part of another culture, that is at odds with yours, as bad. It also views forcing immigrants, people want to move to your country, to adopt your culture to live there as also bad. There are some countries with a culture that involves seeing gay people as abominations worth of death still. IF you oppose an immigrate trying to throw a gay person off a roof, you are opposing progressive as it currently is standing, because it cannot (currently) separate culture from race (which, ironically, is actually an ethno-nationalist tenant). So, if you are oppose to gays being thrown off roofs, and think hurting people is bad, especially if its because they are gay, then you are now, to some degree, opposed to progressivism. That would, by your statement, make them an ethno-nationalist.

Abolish is the word I am refuting to

@methdragon "abolish" doesn't mean "rewind"

I understand I could've worded it better

What would be your solution smooth?

People are tribalistic

America and it's values hold individualism high

@xmrsmoothx Maybe you should ascribe to their actual definitions, so as not to inadvertently label anyone who is for controlling immigration as a Nazi? There are millions of people who are absolutely fine with immigration of people from any race or origin who are pragmatic enough to realise that it takes many years for any number of immigrants to integrate properly, and that it might be prudent to restrict immigration after a period of influx.

One Big Tribe

It won't work

@Grenade123 I'm not sure what to tell you other than "progressivism of multi-racial society and border-deregulating " does not mean "accepting all individuals or cultures as exactly identical in worth"

Immigrants who are individualistic can immigrate well

@methdragon violently overthrow all states and establish a workers' society

what workers?

If there is more immigration to america there will be more identity politics

@xmrsmoothx you a socialist or communist?

there are very few these days who are really workers

@PerformedShelf "and that it might be prudent to restrict immigration after a period of influx." is nationalism, if applied to races is ethno-nationalism

it may be pragmatic, but it is still that

That is plain wrong

@methdragon define "socialist" and "communist"

Why do you always ask for definitions?

@Grenade123 the working class

I repeat, an ethno-state is a country with one ethnicity, hence the Aryan race that Hitler wanted to establish as the ruling and rightful ethinicity of Germany. A multi-ethnic country cannot be an ethno-state, and its people cannot be ethno-nationalists

@methdragon oftentimes people use definitions of words that don't mean to them what they mean to me, so I like to make sure we're on the same page

so everyone not a public employee

True

@Grenade123 that's not what working class means

I understand but its funny I am sorry

@PerformedShelf ethno-nationalism isn't necessarily coincident with ethno-state, I would say

the working class was invented back when most people worked in factories

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

now must work in that area is done by machines

instead we have more service-oriented fields.

Communism - a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs

@methdragon more or less yeah

Most people can become CEOs

The standard definition

Yeah I disagree with that

@methdragon not the second definition, that's not what communist means

is it easy? no.

No?

@xmrsmoothx True, I will grant you that, there may be some Ethno-nationalists in any society, but a citizen in a country with multiple ethnicities who is fine with immigration, but is pragmatic about the details is not an etho-nationalist

Then my school's teaching is a lie

@Grenade123 what you're saying is "many people in the working class can change to a different class" which doesn't really affect what I'm saying

@methdragon not surprising

How do your fine communism? Smooth

what it does say, is punish the people who worked hard to get into that class, and reward people for not working hard

@PerformedShelf "but is pragmatic about the details is not an etho-nationalist" I think at the very least they're a nationalist, and if their restrictions are applied to race as well, it's ethno-nationalist

I am for welfare capitalism

@xmrsmoothx tell me, why should i make food for you?

@methdragon communism is a stateless, classless, international society wherein generalized commodity production is abolished

@xmrsmoothx I'm glad you conceded that being a nationalist is not the same as being a Nazi, thank you

@Grenade123 in this instant? you shouldn't

Yeah that will never work

Its an ideal

@methdragon you can believe that if you want, it's certainly a tough thing for people in modern society to conceive of

@PerformedShelf they're certainly different things, sorry if I was confusing in saying so

Excepting people to be not tribalistic is foolishness

I am down to being stateless

How does a non hierarchal society determine the best method of production?

But not communsim

@Beemann define "non-hierarchal society"

Why does the general consensus decided which production should be valued

@methdragon not necessarily, but in general I would say it's likely that unity amongst humanity will come about from a sort of outer-tribalism, that is, the desire to fight against a threat beyond humanity

What if the general consensus doesn't like sapce program

a great natural danger, or extraterrestrials

Well you've got a society with publicly owned land, products and means of production. How are these organized? How does one measure efficiency?

Yeah unless if there is an apocalypse of course not

historically, opposed groups have showed an ability to unify when threatened by an outside threat

yes, which is how the state controls people

Yeah but they are still fighting now

as well as religion, and progressives, everyone

@Beemann there's plenty of different ways, e.g. command economy, AI, or just general cooperation

eventually, post-scarcity production

Muslims and Hindus United to figure against the British but now they are fighting with each other

And it became into Pakistan and India

Command economies don't have a great track record, particularly when it comes to the rights of the citizenry

you need post-scarcity before you can remove merit based ideas

It's only short lived

don't we have someone who was in a command economy?

i believe soul crushing and lacking in things like art and music was how he described it

An AI only works if we base production off of mathematics. Humans are not mathematical creatures generally. They make flawed, emotional decisions

Post - scarcity like star trek?

AI would be the most oppressive entity in existence

Star Trek isn't even communist though fwiw

star trek is essentially a mid-stage socialist society

Yeah

Star Trek is a hierarchal liberal society with private ownership

that's not really accurate

you must have watched the recent sargon video

I've watched Star Trek. People have personal possessions, and gamble

Ok guys it was great chatting with you I have to go now bye bye

People own things "back home" including property

socialist society is not mutually exclusive with property

How do you own the means of production but then allow people to own their own means of production?
How do you move to communal ownership but give your employees wages such that they can bet them on various goings on?
There's not really anything in the way of that all being removed is there?

in a socialist society, workers can own their own means of production

for example, picard's family has a family owned vineyard and stuff

You're doing this backwards

which makes picard the owner of a company, and that makes him no longer part of the working class

@Grenade123 for all we know, it's collectively owned

then its not his

in general though, in the marxist sense star trek is socialist

because of the abolishment of generalized commodity production

if everyone owns it, no one owns it

@Grenade123 that doesn't even make any sense, if me and my wife sign a lease on a house, it's not suddenly unowned

we both own it

if 10 people own something, then none of them own it, as none of them get to decide what to do with it

? ? ?

you do not own a house, you and your wife own a house

but should you and your wife disagree on how something is done with the house, then neither of you get to do anything with it

There should be a second debate channel that allows for related links and pictures to be posted

if you have problems with collective ownership I invite you to read kropotkin, he writes extensively on how it works

I'm off to eat lunch now

wish they'd remove slow mode

@xmrsmoothx do you have a problem with mob rule?

guten Appetit

DM me if you want to argue more, I'm leaving

collective ownership is mob rule

unless your ownership comes at certain percents, but then we have a hierarchy where whoever has the most ownership mostly gets to decide what happens

no real different than we have today

mob rule means those least represented get the shaft

not very progressive

i think it's bad form to simply tell people to "go read (x)"
but Kropotkin has written some seriously good stuff on the subject
collective decisions don't have to be made by simple majority vote, either

if they are not, then you have a minority making a decision for the majority, which is what we have now

also, if you want workers to seize the means of production, then all you are doing is putting the people who own the most robots at the top of the new hierarchy structure. As they can product the most while maintain sole ownership of their property

No the idea of seizing the means of production is that they still wouldn't own shit personally

But the trick of it is that it's always dependent on having a system that is reasonably optimized without a feasible metric for optimization

```that's not really accurate```
I agree with @Beemann on the Star Trek issue. Its true that there is money (again) and personal posession.
There was just one line IIRC, where it was said that there was no money and that was Star Trek 4, where Kirk said that Money was abolished a long time ago...

Yeah I had heard about that but I never watched ST4. TNG references wages and betting, people have their own personal possessions and people own land though. The difference is that most possessions are sentimental and most wealth is used experientially

Theres an episode in TNG where they're trapped in a fictional novel and they make reference to the need to acquire currency, and also when Riker is trying to find the fat Ferengi he is told he needs currency and that they don't have any only materials for trade

TNG mentions personal Property, though IIRC not money.

its DS9 where Money is mentioned (again)

Worf mentions a betting pool in an episode in TNG

That isn't really a contradiction.

It stuck out to me because I had been told that money wasn't a thing in Star Trek

both can be true, no currency but some form of money.

or a Point System, whatever

Whenever they bartered in trade situations it was usually in Latinum or Gold

Que
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/currency

Ultimately they have a cash equivalent. I doubt an advanced society is barter-paying their military

I think the whole point they're trying to get across in Star Trek is no-one needs currency because of replicators

You can certainly make big deals on that basis, but not small ones

But they evidently have it

Trade in precious metals isnt the same thing as a currency though, since any currency is usually backed by a precious metal which does not depreceate in value

Money is probably for trading with other races tbh edit: Other organizations

So things have monetary value but nobody really cares about that anymore.

The Ferengi trade mostly in Latinum and Gold, and being the space equivelant of a free market I would suggest that they set that standard

I'm by no means a Star Trek guy though so I am just making a guess.

"Any currency is usually backed by a precious metal"
This hasn't been the case for decades

If I remember correctly the Euro is gold standard still.

If you invest in precious metals when your currency is weak, you sell it for much more when your currency is strong

That's not the same thing as having money *backed* by precious metals

The value of say, USD and the value of gold are not correlated

Sorry, I said the wrong thing to what I meant then

I meant the value of gold is an abstract somewhat fixed thing, whereas currencies are fluid and subject to change

Oh I guess you're right, there aren't any.

gold is not a fixed thing

especially when buying shares of precious metals and not acquiring the metals physically

Well, arguably the worth of gold is only equivelant to that of whatever currency you are using to purchase it

The value of gold changes depending on demand for gold, which is not fixed

Demand relative to supply, of cojrse

I dont know whether to carry on talking from the Star Trek perspective or not, I think the SciFi applications and real life are completely different of course

You guys are forgetting the role of the IMF's special drawing rights in the post-breton woods world.

SDR is backed by a suite of hard assets.

and in the event of critical monetary failure the IMF is poised to bail out any number of financial institutions.

So yeah, since the 'Nixon Shock' the connection between the USD and gold has been severed.

But it isn't as if the international financial community doesn't use gold as a hedge in the event of global economic instability.

It's a bit messed up.

One could actually argue that it isn't the USD that serves as the 'global reserve currency' any longer, but instead the SDR.

The dollar just happens to be the largest reserve percentage in the basket holding that composes the SDR.

Sci Fi isn't meant to be totally divorced from reality. Star Trek is basically "I think if it worked like this, these things would happen"

And then you get goofy shit along the way for fun

I thought we were talking monetary policy.

We were talking about money in star trek. It got a little more detailed

*I am dissapoint*.

I was challenging the notion that ST is socialist, since private property, personal possessions, wages etc exist even despite society being "post scarcity"

I was talking about Ferengi

GPL

best mcguffin

@MachoHamRandySandwich Sorry, but what you said was interesting

The difference is that with production costs basically hitting rock bottom people aren't worried about subsisting or accumulating material goods, except where scarcity is still present (excepting the Ferengi)

Picard explains it in the episode where they find the capsule with the 22nd Century frozen people as:

The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.

The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves...and the rest of humanity.

We need the unions to lobby for a ban on 3D printing and other replicator technologies

I wish future food making was like this https://youtu.be/w2v_lpwjKUw?t=141

They say that and then reference credits and currency repeatedly elsewhere

That's the "issue"

I dont recall any mentions of currency except by the Ferengi, if there were any I would presume DS9 would clarify the most

I think Gene Roddenberry was trying to convey a world where currency is no longer a thing, and that everyone has all their needs met by replicators and other stuff, and that social evolution has led to a ppoint where people give of their services for the sake of doing what it is they love

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_credit
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Money

Right, a lot of those (if not all) were after Gene Rodenberry died I believe

There's TOS ones in there

There are indeed, I somehow missed those lol

Well, it's clear to me that was what he was trying to get at, only the most thorough and forward planning creator would have everything right in the offset

Like it mentions that Roddenberry emphatically pushed a no money rule, and yet
"Later that same year, Uhura was offered a tribble for ten credits by a bartender on Deep Space Station K-7, before receiving one gratis from Cyrano Jones. (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles")"