Message from @εïз irma εïз
Discord ID: 461596228141056001
"stateless society" is an oxymoron
It's like asking if a society without people is a society
@Der Alte Fritz That's one of my favorite Johnny Rebel songs
@EyeKanSpel No. Just false lmao
Those are literally examples of nations.
"na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."
Since you didn't read it the first time. You can't change the definitions of words.
Political scientists and anthropologists would both agree to that definition and that the examples I gave were nations.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
your definition of nation is right but they arent really a "stateless society"
they are a nation of people living under the state of another group of people
just because the state isnt their own doesnt mean theyre stateless
So they don't have their own state. That means they're a stateless society.
...no, because they still live within the confines of a state
This is just the definition decided by academia.
besides that, as far as i know, all of the ones you listed have their own governing systems for their own group
even if they didnt live under a state that wasnt their own, this government would fill its place
You're disagreeing with definitions made for the purpose of utility on the basis of semantics. Despite being flat out wrong you're pissing up the wrong.
tree
And my connection is fucked right now so I'll be back in a few minutes.
I'm back. Here's why you're wrong:
1) The definition simply disagrees with you.
2) The definition was created for utility, not under any principles. Nations without their *own* states to control do not fully control their destiny: ex. Rohingya, the Kurds, and the Basque in past centuries where they've repeatedly revolted and even recently with ETA.
3) If your definition would be applied, there would be no "stateless nations" at all because the vast majority of the Earth, save a few Pacific islands, is controlled by a state. You would destroy all utility of the term and that's why it exists in the first place.
And it turns out there's actually an entire article on stateless nations on Wikipedia, which I'm sure could outline it nicely for you. I haven't checked but I'm sure all of the examples I've listed are there.
hes saying that all of these nations of people which you have listed live in countries with states you mong
women
hes arguing semantics because you are
I understand exactly what he's saying and I'm saying why he's wrong.
He has to argue semantics on principle of the definition because the definition he arbitrated is incorrect.
But if all you have to say is "lol u mong" then???
ive honestly got no idea what youre trying to argue any more, are you trying to say that these distinct ethnic groups within other countries are all "stateless societies"?
They're stateless nations. My original disagreement was that the Eye dude said a stateless nation doesn't exist because he was under the impression nation necessitated statehood.
Deicze thinks that just because a 'stateless nation' may have their own autonomous or even non-autonomous region within a country as a division that makes them not stateless.
they're only stateless because they're the subjects of a bigger state
Correct.
and he is right
he lives in one of them, mate
Cool. But that doesn't make him right.
Which stateless nation exactly? I bet it's comparable to Rohingya or the Kurds.
Where they're subject to virtual genocide and can't do anything about it, which is the basis of the term. that by being a subject to another state, they are stateless and have no control over their destiny or independence.
sami nation
i think?