183
I don't even understand what the argument is supposed to be on the face. Like what do you mean it has a "right to exist"? Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country "has a right to exist"?
Thank you, it's an utterly meaningless concept used only to impose violence on others and claim it's magically a moral thing.
People have rights, abstract concepts like countries do (or at least should) not.
Anarchist detected
I wish I was as cool as an anarchist, I'm all for a central authority.
That central authority will have territorial claims, and have to defend its existence.
It might seem a pedantic difference, but that does not entail that that central authority has rights, or at least not an unconditional right to exist. One could say a group of people have a right to organize in such a way that there is a central authority IF they do not break some set of rules, like that group of people must have a morally sound claim to the territory they're going to administer, they must not use that authority to harm others without justification, so on and so forth. The 'rights' of the authority are entirely dependent on the rights of the people organizing and using it. Simply stating "Israel has a right to exist" is begging the question in a technical sense. It's refusing to engage with the qualifications necessary to morally justify authority and simply stating that that authority is legitimate without justification.
Precisely, thank you. The people who form said country and authority have rights, the concept of the country does not. It may be a bit of a pedantic differentiation on thinking about it, but I think it's important to come to the conclusion that you can justifiedly destroy the concept of a country without infringing on the rights of (and without (fundamentally) needing to harm) effectively 'innocent' people in said country.
Then the argument is usually "no, your country doesn't exist, you just made it up", same thing they use for Palestine. But you can bring up that Israel didn't exist until people decided it did and made it up. Then they'll talk about it being recognized. You can bring up numerous countries that are recognized by some, not others, and eventually the argument becomes "No, it only counts when I, the liberal currently speaking, decide that it counts as a country with a right to exist".
It's an eternal question really isn't it. Hundreds of situations, each unique: Abkhazia, East Turkestan, Kurdistan, Cornwall, Biafra.....
https://hexbear.net/comment/4255525
Ultimately it all comes down to what can be negotiated. It takes power to claim rights.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nothing its just pure idealism. Half of the countries in europe were invented by feudal lords and are just offshots of larger ethnic groups. Its even worse because european jews claim an unbroken line with ALL of the population of roman judea (not everyone was expelled or jewish in the first place) from 2000 years ago, thats just not the reality, they werent just having a temporary hotel stay in europe and then came back and decided to kick out the squaters.
Yes, and we should
Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country "has a right to exist"?
yes and you should do this
edit: but not stop at half you fucking coward
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's weird remains of divine right ideology baked but not explained in the very core of liberalism. Scratched even minimally it is revealed to be just base and original function of emerging state, that is usage of military power.
I keep expecting the edit of Dr Manhattan with the dumptruck ass.
It sure is funny that the nation famously founded on the belief that governments only have legitimacy by the consent of the governed is loudly arguing that states have an inherent and evidently extracorporeal right to exist.
Gotta read between the lines with that shit. What they meant was government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the slaveholder oligarchy. Easy mistake to make
load more comments
(2 replies)
no more half measures walter
Typical nonsense from the looney left. If you followed that logic to its end, no racist etnostate would have the right to exist. Preposterous!
no ~~racist ethno~~ state would have the right to exist.
The internationale will unite the human race
¿por qué no los dos?
For myself I would have to argue that at least for us, Australia and....maybe a few others that aren't currently coming to me right now, at least we gave the indigenous population citizenship and full equal rights (theoretically); some random redneck moron for example can't just waltz up to a native American and murder them and then take their house/demolish their house; if they tried that then the next day at least a whole bunch of leftists will burn that person's home to the ground with them in it.
Obviously a monstrous amount of evil has been done to the indigenous population and frankly nothing short of 
will ever make up for it (and I'm talking about evil not only prior to them getting citizenship, but also after it), but at least today the mass slaughter and expulsions are over, and they've been over for an extremely long time.
Should white people pack up and go back to Europe? Ideally yes, but nothing short of an unprecedented, powerful new colonizing force (or unprecedented decolonizing force) is going to be able to pull that off; the native American nations have been given the short end of the stick absolutely; I won't pretend we've been fair to native Americans at all, but Gazans (and Palestinians in general) are still treated as this terrifying uncompromising force by Isn'traelis (which is ironic because Palestinians have been leagues more prepared to compromise given a ridiculously unfair situation than Isn'traelis ever were). I've read what Isn'traelis think, and I've seen how they're portrayed by some of their politicians (who by the way were former terrorists) like pirate captain Moshe Dayan who keep promising the zionist population that the people in places like Gaza are always waiting for an opportune moment to strike and kill them all. Isn'traelis also justify the killing of children by reasoning that once they're older they'll just be terrorists, which also makes me wonder if perhaps they view the entire adult population as terrorists.
Ridiculously the easiest solution to Isn'trael that I wholeheartedly believe even the Arab world would've accepted (I don't mean the governments, I mean the people) is that had the Palestinian population been granted full citizenship and equal rights (no matter how theoretically), they may have started with a grudging acceptance of Israel and then finally a full acceptance. History is full of muslim nations and christian nations invading one another without slaughtering the entire population of the nations they invaded, and I'm assuming they came to some middle ground after a time. I'm reminded of a bizarre story of a muslim area that was invaded by the crusaders (at least the Frankish) where the Frank in the story was on a first name basis with the shop owner (the bizarreness was in another aspect of the story and I'm not mentioning it unless people really want to know; it's really genuinely bizarre).
Of course Israel was born during a time of extremely violent nationalism and seems to have been frozen in time; adverts from South Africa prior to the end of apartheid also looked just as grim.
We haven't been good to the native American population (and it's impossible to be; we're colonizers, by the very nature of colonization it's impossible to be kind to your victims; kindness would have us leaving America back to Europe and engaging in reparations we could never hope to complete), and the least we've done still isn't good enough, but if the least we did for the native Americans was granted to the Palestinian people, every person involved in it would be getting a Nobel peace prize.
Can't speak to Australia but here in 
the indigenous people only have "equal rights" (in reality they don't as they are still victims of genocide) because after multiple centuries of genocide they still persisted, and their militancy demanded full rights. They in no way had equal rights for the entirety of the colonial project, they couldn't even vote until the 60s, hundreds of years after the genocide began. I don't think this is anything worth bragging about, we are just at a later stage of the genocidal project than 
Yeah, seriously. I read
some random redneck moron for example can't just waltz up to a native American and murder them and then take their house/demolish their house;
and let out a pained chuckle because I'm pretty sure shit like that or close to it happens all the time. There's an initiative in Kkkanada calling for greater investigation and actually giving a shit about missing & murdered indigenous women. There was a thing a few years ago about the RCMP killing dogs in indigenous communities.
Death to this pathetic fucking failstate btw. Australia is just as bad afaik.
Sending whites back to europe also is a complicated process, will the millions of oh my "grandpa is irish but my mother's side family is swedish and german" americans go to Sweden, Ireland or Germany. Can you really shove 40 million americans into ireland, with no space left for them? no connection to the cultures and languages spoken there. The countries would be mini united states in no time, the population that did not become settlers essentially marginalized. Especially with a former colonized country like Ireland, why should they suffer the rulings of another country, when it wasnt a irish government that ordered the settlement of the americas.
The idea of large scale relocation of white populations from the americas into europe (especially from the big settler states) is pure ideology, it is way too late.
load more comments
(4 replies)
There are ways to dismantle settler colonial states without forcing all the settlers to move back. It’s about the state apparatus not the people
load more comments
(1 replies)
lips on mic
That is correct.
All state apparata must go, starting with Isræl 
Akchually if you're using Latin grammar, the plural of apparatus is also apparatus (apparatūs). 4th declension is just goofy like that.
The -a plural is for nouns that end in -um. Like medium/media.
All my homies hate the 4th declension
This is giving me a negative affect
It's all good just remember: Latin is nerd shit for nerds and it literally doesn't matter.
The USA? What's that? Is it tasty?
BET
Yes.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
183 points (98.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13441 readers
829 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS