I'm a little embarrassed to reference that particular article, but it should provide enough search term fertilizer for you to find other articles on the subject if you're interested.
I for one, am thoroughly tired and fed up with being expected to think of another human being from two hours flight away as some kind of alien.
It's absurd when I can have face-to-face conversations with people on the other side of the world using the device in my pocket. We are already in the midst of a functionally global civilisation only no one believes in it.
Here I am having effortless conversations with other humans from all over the world, yet somehow these same people are arbitrarily, absolute "others" who I might one day be expected to kill on the drum-beat and flag-wave of some demagogue who has managed to whip up the masses.
The biggest disappointment of the past few years is that no one has outmanoeuvred such a played-out ethos as nationalism and the ethnic chauvinism that frequently accompanies it. The biggest surprise is that so many technologists have apparently supported it.
People having self-determinism is the most important feature of having sovereign countries. It's a market of competing ideas. The internet makes it possible for someone in (insert country with less freedom of expression) to see what someone in (insert country with more) has. Making it out as a "some kind of alien" us vs them thing misses the point. People immigrate, and many countries (including my country) let that happen, and they get the benefits of that. It's pretty rare to even hear about the countries that don't allow others to become citizens, although they are pretty major players.
I think a level of global governance is a pretty darn good idea and not because of some well funded push either.
Just can't imagine any people living or dead I'd like to see in charge of the whole globe, particularly any politicians or bureaucrats I'm aware of, so hoping AI improves soon.
I imagine the ideal situation being loose global governance coupled with city/county level governance. That way if people want to wear funny hats or forbid cheese with dye in it or pray to aliens fine. But no slavery, war nor suppression of fundamental rights anywhere on the face of the globe sounds pretty good to me. Along with improved efficiency of trade and resource allocation.
> But no slavery, war nor suppression of fundamental rights anywhere on the face of the globe sounds pretty good to me.
It never just stops there. This is like expecting the vanguard government to give up control after the socialist revolution. There's more than enough history to demonstrate otherwise, and buying into that idea in 2018 is willful blindness.
The smaller and more localized the governments the better IMO. There's a reason the smaller countries have the best governments: US in the 19th century-early 20th century, modern Canada and some of Scandinavia, etc. Federalism with state/provincial governments a minimal federal government and no executive branch.
There is no history of a universal global government and not agreeing with your unsupported opinion isn't even close to "willful blindness".
Why you'd make this kind of a comment I'm not sure. But it's certainly not a response to my comment because it addresses different issues and then claims "this must always be".
As far as small and localized, great, yes, I agree. However, there are issues that affect all of at a global scale. We are becoming increasingly tied together at a global scale and people's preferences probably isn't going to change that. This necessitates some kind of global rule making.
If your point was that humans are corrupt, well, I agree. So not looking for the UN to take over world government, just pointing out some things to consider.
"based" is alt-right slang. It's basically a positive descriptor used for stuff they agree with.
Like most of the alt-right slang, it originally had other meanings, and it's sometimes used in those meanings too... But when the context is politics, it's the descriptor the alt-right uses for itself.
"alt-right" is also slang often used as a negative smear that jives with the preconceptions that people who are unhappy about current US politics have about the other side. Generally used to lump in the extremes ("rational" wiki's main feature).
Personally, when I don't like what someone said, I don't smear them with antisemitism. Buy hey, each to his own.
I have noticed that's a common go-to when anyone points out having sovereign countries is a good thing, maybe they just cant argue it on the merits. I'll leave it here, since it's non-HN stuff.
I never said sovereign states aren't a good idea. I believe they are, but I also believe the nationalistic sentiment is a double edged sword.
But all of this has nothing to do with my comment. The point was, You fire off with unbased claims that are tainted by paranoia. As a joke I referenced similiar type of claims. I guess It was a mistake since it gave you an easy out from actually substinating your claims.
Claiming something is based literally means it's based on something. That something is usually expected to be some fact or some research.
If that something is just your opinion, than it's misleading to use the term based.
The whole point of my original reply to the OP was seeking citations for his claim. Why did you even reply if it was just to add an opinion?
Why are you still on the whole global government thing? It has nothing to do with this discussion.
"based" in that context, like "my friend is pretty based" is slang. Very common in circles that are happy about the election outcome and the current US economy etc. Admittedly it's recent (2016ish) slang in that usage. It's basically like like saying "my friend is well grounded" or more specifically "my friend has self consistent opinions" with a touch of "I agree with my friends opinions". Please don't ask me for a cite, it's too new, and I would rather not link to a hundred thousand reddit posts.
I get how you could miss that "based" was not being used in the context you expected, although the period after it instead of "in" or "on" should be a clue, now you want me to explain GenZ? It's a demographic group. Like GenX.
(edit removed my mistake about who replied to who, it's a great feature of HN to delay replies)
As much as I don't like wikipedia, I give them props for not falling into the trap of using the "nationalistic" term there. It's ill defined, and not suited to gathering data since different people have different opinions on what it means.
I said "I like Gen Z", and then I said basically "there is nothing wrong in general with liking your country (aka being nationalistic)". I do in fact like them because they are (in my opinion) more pro-US than the previous generation. If you need a wiki to believe me about why I think that, then maybe the second and third sentences in the "Political views" helps. Maybe not. Maybe liking the president means the opposite to you. But wikipedia is junk, and I was stating my opinion so it's kinda moot.
I cant glean what you think I haven't responded to. Your orig comment that I replied to was a single word, I offered what I thought about the quote. Specifically, I saw it as dig on the latest trend toward nationalism, and I think that's a good thing. Maybe say more that just "What" if you are asking for something more specific.
What?