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.

@Reeves !Musicbot

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?

👌 😂 👌

yes

Minority does not necessarily imply stateless nation. Sami, being indigenous, are kind of a grey area. Stateless nation semi-implies that at one point they were a state.

That's why it's a grey area.

we were a state

🤔

The Sami were?

yes

havent been for centuries

but we were

uhhhh which state

As far as I know the Sami are indigenous people that never organized themselves into a state but I may be wrong.