Comment by tovej
1 day ago
Did you see that "common ethnic ancestry" is part of what ethnonationalists define a nation through? As part of their central tenet? Do you still claim that I was making that up about ethnonationalism defining nationhood through ethnicity and looking down on other ethnicities?
And you know what, let me concede the "may". Does that somehow make it less extreme? Not really. "Ethnonationalists look down on other ethnicities, and as a consequence _sometimes_ codify their status as subhuman into law, but not always, if they don't have the political power to enforce it." shouldn't really sell anyone on how _moderate_ they are. That just means ethnonationalism has degrees and variation in how it expresses itself in practice, because everything does. The fact that there isn't always an explicit, formal legally codified class of out-group people doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't always define a national ethnos that is superior to others. Because that is quite literally what ethnonationalists do, it's what Hitler did, it's what Netanyahu does, and it's what DHH does.
You know it's funny, because you were clearly unaware of what ethninationalism meant, and had to look it up on wikipedia, because you quote it exactly in your previous reply. So there is a possibility that you're not trolling, that you're just too embarassed to admit that you're wrong. Let me help you with that.
In that same wikipedia article that you cited but did not read, the only explicit examples given are fascism in Europe (including nazis), and white nationalism in the US. It also details the racist nature of ethnonationalism, which is exactly what I've been saying. The whole article supports my argument and undermines yours. Ethnonationalism is an extreme ideology, exemplified by nazis and the KKK, says _your main source_.
You're clearly emotionally worked up, as you keep snarking and throwing insults at me. I have also crossed some lines I don't usually cross, but I feel I can allow myself that once the person on the other side starts hurling random insults. I suggest you log off for a while, or maybe read through that entire article you linked.
> You know it's funny, because you were clearly unaware of what ethninationalism meant, and had to look it up on wikipedia,
I didn't need to look it up just like I didn't need to look up the word "may". It's for you, since you seem to be having difficulty understanding words.
> looking down on other ethnicities
You keep jumping to this conclusion when it's not a thing. Having shared ethnicity != looking down on others.
> Hitler did, it's what Netanyahu does, and it's what DHH does.
Again, quite the jump. Genocide against millions to writing that maybe London should stay British.
> throwing insults
Show one.
This is sad. You're already picking the raisins out of the bun to misrepresent my argument.
I did not claim that sharing an ethnicity means you look down on someone, that's a strawman. The full argument is that defining the in-group elite by a shared ethnicity obviously excludes other ethnicities, in other words looking down on them. So looking down on others is inherent to ethnonationalists.
The wikipedia article goes through this logic, and maybe it's a little longwinded way to get there. You can also read the dictionary definition, which is more straightforward: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethnonationalism
"noun
the belief, theory, or doctrine that shared ancestry is the principal element of a cohesive national identity, and that a government should protect and promote the culture, language, and religion of one group, considered the primary or prestigious people of a nation, over other cultures, languages, or religions that may share that space in a multicultural society."
Re: Hitler, Netanyahu, DHH, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about their ethnonationalism. That they differ in their actions is irrelevant to that point.
> Show one. That's hilarious, there's one just above it: "you seem to be having difficulty understanding words"
Ok, excerpt from the definition in your link:
"over other cultures"
And your words:
> obviously excludes
This is you, jumping to yet another conclusion. Promoting one thing over another means promoting one thing more than another. It does not mean exclusion.
> That's hilarious, there's one just above it: "you seem to be having difficulty understanding words"
Not an insult, just a statement of fact at this point.
Your whole argument hinges on you making assumptions that are not inherent to the definition of words. That the most mild form of something MUST automatically lead to the most extreme form.
This is like me saying that because communists had universal healthcare, universal healthcare must automatically lead to Stalinism. Economics, politics and culture are never black and white, it's always various degrees of everything. The US shares elements of both communism and fascism, in fact, every country on earth does. This does not mean every country is either the USSR or Nazi Germany and about to murder millions...