Pardon the inconvenience, but I think I'm not going to let you smoothly glide away from your prior comment:
>>> Thinking negatively of other countries is not necessary
>> Judging the same facts differently depending on the flag they exist under is necessary for what is under discussion here.
> Can you give an example where I do and must judge facts differently depending on the flag they exist under?
I would like an answer to this question, rather than just yet another pivot to the construction of a negative theoretical character, and then putting a Nationalist label on the character based on one person's opinion.
> By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'.
This is a figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He literally just made it up. This has nothing to do with Nationalism, it is nothing more than a low-intelligence slur. Ironically, it is an example of the very kind of thinking he believes he is criticizing, and this HN thread is chock full of the same sort of irony. Group-based stereotyping isn't only bad when the grouping is according to race.
> I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
Yet another figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He is describing extreme Nationalist Extremism, not Nationalism.
> Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.
Indeed. I am a Nationalist, but hardly patriotic.
> Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
Yes, but one should also be careful to keep one's imagination under control when doing so, and stick to facts and dictionary definitions, rather than literally making things up. One who is an influential intellectual should be even more careful, lest they turn their followers into propagators of illogical hate, something we see plenty of in this thread, and every time the topic comes up.
This thread is full of people behaving as if Nationalist must hate others - I am merely asking all that do so to back up these claims with evidence and (mainly) logical reasoning. No one can do so, and more interestingly, no one seems to notice they cannot do so, or that it is they that are spreading a message of hate. The irony is delicious.
>>> Thinking negatively of other countries is not necessary
>> Judging the same facts differently depending on the flag they exist under is necessary for what is under discussion here.
> Can you give an example where I do and must judge facts differently depending on the flag they exist under?
I would like an answer to this question, rather than just yet another pivot to the construction of a negative theoretical character, and then putting a Nationalist label on the character based on one person's opinion.
> By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'.
This is a figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He literally just made it up. This has nothing to do with Nationalism, it is nothing more than a low-intelligence slur. Ironically, it is an example of the very kind of thinking he believes he is criticizing, and this HN thread is chock full of the same sort of irony. Group-based stereotyping isn't only bad when the grouping is according to race.
> I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
Yet another figment of Mr. Orwell's imagination. He is describing extreme Nationalist Extremism, not Nationalism.
> Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.
Indeed. I am a Nationalist, but hardly patriotic.
> Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
Yes, but one should also be careful to keep one's imagination under control when doing so, and stick to facts and dictionary definitions, rather than literally making things up. One who is an influential intellectual should be even more careful, lest they turn their followers into propagators of illogical hate, something we see plenty of in this thread, and every time the topic comes up.
This thread is full of people behaving as if Nationalist must hate others - I am merely asking all that do so to back up these claims with evidence and (mainly) logical reasoning. No one can do so, and more interestingly, no one seems to notice they cannot do so, or that it is they that are spreading a message of hate. The irony is delicious.