I would say that we will very soon find ourselves in 1984 or perhaps Brazil, with a little bit of The Circle and Her thrown in, but overall it will be more like The Road due to climate change, unless Elysium technology has been developed by then, which is unlikely, but if so, it will certainly be used as depicted in the film.
How can the fascists be prevented from presenting their inhumane, xenophobic ideology as patriotism? How and why would anyone stop people from using a word? How is that supposed to work?
Language is a cultural matter that changes in its use. In this context, (social) media are pretty influential these days. However, the problem is that because a few very influential people can influence what billions of people see, they also have a disproportionately greater influence on the discourse from which the usage and meaning of terms derives. Therefore, it seems to me that the only people who could prevent others from presenting fascist ideology as patriotism are, unfortunately, the same people who ensure that fascist propaganda is presented as patriotic.
An example: Ten years ago, it was unthinkable in Germany to use Nazi slogans in public. People who did so were socially isolated because they were Nazis. Today, however, politicians can stand in front of the camera and quote Goebbels. The reason, in my opinion, is that all this Nazi crap has been pushed so hard by influential media billionaires that it now gives the impression of being a socially acceptable attitude. My point: It can also be an effect created by the media, especially social media: It seems as if you can say these things without running the risk of being socially isolated for your inhuman views – and unfortunately, this has now spilled over into the real world.
What I mean by this is that in order to influence discourse and thus also the usage and meaning of words to some extent, you need to influence the media that people use - and these media platforms are controlled by people like Musk.
But stopping things like flag pledges that I mentioned would make the word less powerful for misuse.
Well, I can see that you disagree and I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on this.
My opinion is that patriotism and nationalism cause far more harm than good. Of course, one can disagree, but I haven’t read a single comment in this entire thread that addresses why patriotism is so important or what positive effects it has.
Only references to the fact that nationalism and patriotism are not the same thing, which is clear to me — still: interestingly, no one has addressed where the difference lies. And no one has addressed the actual statement, namely that both concepts are abused as instruments of power.
That’s a shame.
If people didn’t invoke patriotism so excessively, as they do, for example, in the US with flag pledges in schools, Stars and Stripes air shows at sporting events after the national anthem, that gets played nearly every time, flags everywhere from houses to tv shows, and much much more constant declarations of love for this proud nation, if all that would not happen every day, don’t you think it would be way harder to spread propaganda on this basis?
No, but give them as few opportunities as possible to justify their misdeeds. Patriotism is traditionally the favorite argument of unscrupulous oportunists: they invoke it because it appeals to people and offers them a way out, a way to legitimize morally reprehensible acts—in the sense that you can do whatever you want because it is in the service of the fatherland.
How this works can currently be seen in Israel, for example: here, soldiers commit terrible atrocities and claim that human rights do not apply to enemies of Israel, enemies of their holy fatherland. So they act as ruthlessly as possible because it is supposedly patriotic.
It is important to make it clear that people remain people, even if they have a different nationality. Emphasizing national pride and all that makes this more difficult, because if you always emphasize how proud you are of your country, you inherently emphasize at the same time that people of other nationalities do not belong. For reasonably rational people, it is of course perfectly obvious that this does not imply any judgment of people of other nationalities—on the contrary, many are rightly proud that their country is just and guarantees human rights. The problem, however, is that many people are anything but rational—and some of them are only looking for (spurious) arguments to use against others: patriotism is ideal for this purpose because it is an abstract concept - there is no universal definition of what it means.
That’s why I believe we should emphasize patriotism as little as possible and instead stick to concrete issues—such as emphasizing a fair legal system and so on. This makes it less abstract and offers less potential for abuse.
Decent people.
All I want to say is this: if you insist on portraying patriotism as something good and lose sight of reality in the face of idealism, however desirable, this leads to situations like those in Nazi Germany—and history is currently repeating itself in the US. The reason will always be the same: unfortunately, people are not inherently good, and the bad ones know how to exploit this.
With regard to the US, my point is simple: patriotism is an abstract idea that is currently being massively abused by fascists to create an unjust state very similar to Nazi Germany, which fortunately came to an end. They are using exactly the same propaganda techniques that the Nazis used in Germany to establish their reign of terror.
If you agree with me that patriotism has been misused for the most horrific atrocities ever committed by humankind, where do you see the value of this concept? Even if one starts from a purely utilitarian ethic, what could ever outweigh that?
The actual Sturmabteilung (SA) and all other Nazi divisions also claimed to be patriots—they killed millions of people under this premise. That is a fact, and that is what I am getting at.
My argument is that terminology is irrelevant; what matters is how both concepts are used in practice: both are employed and explicitly emphasized to persuade people to serve a centralized power, usually against their own interests. This was the case in the Third Reich and is also the case in the US today (and in many other countries as well).
What I’m getting at: Theoretical distinctions are only relevant in theory, but not when you look at practice – and there it makes no difference whether someone calls themselves a nationalist or a patriot if both can be used to suppress dissenters by force.
It would be nice if people who call themselves patriots were good people, but history teaches us that they are usually not.
If patriotism were practiced in this way, it would be desirable, but that is not the case. The current US administration’s portrayal of its criminal actions as patriotic duty should be example enough. This obviously has nothing to do with what you are saying. And yet, it is the reality.
Here’s an example of what I mean: Every ICE employee in the US will claim to be a patriot. I don’t think there’s much more to say about that.
I’m from Germany myself, and I can assure you that every Nazi in the Third Reich also considered himself a patriot.
Your distinction may be relevant in theory, but it is not in practice.
I still think they have the same effect.
That’s tough. I don’t know what I would have said either. Probably that the family member should vote for Sanders so that dental treatment remains affordable for as many people as possible. But I probably wouldn’t have thought of that in that situation.
Yes, obviously, but why?
Edit: Can’t you see how little this is in your interest? How you are being distracted from the important things? And so easily: Things really went downhill for US citizens under Reagan—and he was an actor, and not even a good one at that. Instead of this straw man, citizens could have voted for Carter. Then the reality in the US today would most likely be quite different.
It will always be a mystery to me why US citizens always place so much importance on appearances instead of focusing on the important things.
Here’s an example from the last election campaign: the Democrats were somehow more successful in portraying Trump as “old and strange” than in portraying him as how he really is: corrupt and criminal.
Well, now organized crime rules the US – but somehow it’s still all about how Trump dresses, how he is old and weird. Yes, that’s true, I mean, the guy has been orange since the 90s, but it’s by no means the biggest problem with this administration — not even close.
Then I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place… here there are only unfunny comments from unfunny people like me :)
Yes, it may well be that they have once again released an unfinished, flawed feature far too early.
I’m not saying that it’s necessarily due to the possibly unintended transparency regarding right-wing extremist accounts. It’s just that it apparently led to some accounts being visible as being maintained from abroad, even though they insist so much on “America first” and so on. I just wanted to point out that it’s a strange coincidence that this feature was immediately withdrawn as soon as this apparently became visible to the users.
Of course, there may be other reasons for rolling back this feature, but with Musk, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it with regards to his political allies, since he clearly has an agenda that aligns with this kind of ideology (astroturfing or not).
I can’t judge this myself because I stay as far away from xitter as possible. So I only know what I’ve seen in the media reports – and I don’t think there’s much reliable information out there.
So yes, it’s speculation, but it doesn’t seem impossible at all that the situation is as described in the post. I just wanted to back this up with some other sources that aren’t xitter.
…beep, boop … No, this can’t be real, because it would be stupid and utterly unscrupulous deception of users. So it can’t be real, since X is owned by Elon Musk, the most handsome, responsible, and intelligent person in the world. … boop, boop…
/s
See also:
Internet erupts as MAGA influencers exposed for being based in other countries
and
Elon Musk’s X rolls out feature that shows users’ country of origin – then suddenly removes it
Thank you for this comment. I completely agree with you: I think all it takes is people who act according to their conscience—that results in a community worth living in. That’s all it takes.