The very conflation between “my hometown” and “the territory controlled by the government that I pay taxes to” is nationalistic in nature.
Your assumption that I’m seeing the worst meaning in everything is partially incorrect. Pragmatics taught me to look for the implicatures of what is said, but it is not just the worst. And the implicature is there, due to the maxim of quantity. (Note that not even in this case I’m “seeing” the worst meaning, as it wouldn’t be justified by the text.)
Regarding your Uganda example: if someone lives in, say, Texas, why would they care more about the deaths in Maine than the ones in Uganda? This gets specially nasty once you swap “Uganda” with “Coahuila”. I see the exact same thing where I live, by the way, before some assumer starts distorting this into a “y u bashin unired starians? i is so confyuzed…”.
Don’t pretend to be superior about it.
Yet another assumption: that I’m “pretending to be superior” about not feeling attached to a government or the concept of nation. Please distinguish between what’s implied by something said/written vs. what you assume from it. The former is to retrieve information; the later is to make shit up.
The main reason that I’m pointing this out is to highlight a specific right-wing discourse (nationalism) that is so ingrained into society that even us, at the left, give it a free pass. I’m focusing on the discourse, not putting myself on a higher ground.
[EDIT reason: clarifications + trying to be slightly less verbose.]
You often have the same relation to the kid in Uganda and the kid in your hometown. But they are still different.
This comic is probably made by someone American. They made it for a target audience. That’s why it’s specified. Making the message more targeted is an effective tool. It’s called pathos.
Believing people on the left care for everyone on the planet equally while people on the right only care for the nation they tax to is a strange take.
You’re allowed to be proud of your country or people without being a q-anon nuthead nazi.
Believing people on the left care for everyone on the planet equally while people on the right only care for the nation they tax to is a strange take.
Don’t be disingenuous (or worse), you’re distorting what I said. Refer to the first and third paragraphs of the very comment that you’re replying to.
Now, if you really want to pretend that your hometown should “magically” coincide with the territory controlled by your government, by all means, do it. But then let’s call a duck a duck - then you are a nationalist, and should be treated as one.
This comic is probably made by someone American. They made it for a target audience. That’s why it’s specified.
I’m not going to guess the author’s “intention”. I’m focusing on what the character says, on the light of the maxim of quantity (refer to this or this for further info).
If I told you “I have two books”, and I actually have three, you’d correctly point out that I’m saying something untrue, right? Because of that maxim - by saying “I have two books” I’m implying that I have no more than two books.
Now look at what the character says within that context:
[A] “It’s the anniversary of a great tragedy.”
[B] “I know, over a million Americans have died.”
The exact same maxim operates here; the implicature being created is that the tragedy does not include non-Americans dying. It’s probably an accidental implicature, but the very fact that people don’t pay attention to this shit is concerning.
Etymology aside, “pathos” in the meaning typically associated with the usage of the word in English can be easily conveyed without that nationalistic discourse.
You’re allowed to be proud of your country or people without being a q-anon nuthead nazi.
Let us not fool ourselves that the only nationalists out there are the Q-Anon tier Nazi. In that situation you’re still a nationalist, and promoting a harmful discourse.
“Hometown” is not a metaphor. A country is not a hometown.
I don’t see this as radical. Specially since, although I’m labelling it nationalism and saying that it’s bad, there’s no way that I’m seeing it the same as Nazi shit. The Nazi discourse relies on multiple piles of shit pillars, only one of them is nationalism.
I’m also making a distinction between a person voicing a nationalistic discourse and being a nationalist. Once we (all of us) analyse what each one of us says, we notice that we promote a lot of shitty causes, without even realising. That’s also why I’m not putting myself above the author.
The very conflation between “my hometown” and “the territory controlled by the government that I pay taxes to” is nationalistic in nature.
Your assumption that I’m seeing the worst meaning in everything is partially incorrect. Pragmatics taught me to look for the implicatures of what is said, but it is not just the worst. And the implicature is there, due to the maxim of quantity. (Note that not even in this case I’m “seeing” the worst meaning, as it wouldn’t be justified by the text.)
Regarding your Uganda example: if someone lives in, say, Texas, why would they care more about the deaths in Maine than the ones in Uganda? This gets specially nasty once you swap “Uganda” with “Coahuila”. I see the exact same thing where I live, by the way, before some assumer starts distorting this into a “y u bashin unired starians? i is so confyuzed…”.
Yet another assumption: that I’m “pretending to be superior” about not feeling attached to a government or the concept of nation. Please distinguish between what’s implied by something said/written vs. what you assume from it. The former is to retrieve information; the later is to make shit up.
The main reason that I’m pointing this out is to highlight a specific right-wing discourse (nationalism) that is so ingrained into society that even us, at the left, give it a free pass. I’m focusing on the discourse, not putting myself on a higher ground.
[EDIT reason: clarifications + trying to be slightly less verbose.]
You often have the same relation to the kid in Uganda and the kid in your hometown. But they are still different.
This comic is probably made by someone American. They made it for a target audience. That’s why it’s specified. Making the message more targeted is an effective tool. It’s called pathos.
Believing people on the left care for everyone on the planet equally while people on the right only care for the nation they tax to is a strange take.
You’re allowed to be proud of your country or people without being a q-anon nuthead nazi.
Don’t be disingenuous (or worse), you’re distorting what I said. Refer to the first and third paragraphs of the very comment that you’re replying to.
Now, if you really want to pretend that your hometown should “magically” coincide with the territory controlled by your government, by all means, do it. But then let’s call a duck a duck - then you are a nationalist, and should be treated as one.
I’m not going to guess the author’s “intention”. I’m focusing on what the character says, on the light of the maxim of quantity (refer to this or this for further info).
If I told you “I have two books”, and I actually have three, you’d correctly point out that I’m saying something untrue, right? Because of that maxim - by saying “I have two books” I’m implying that I have no more than two books.
Now look at what the character says within that context:
The exact same maxim operates here; the implicature being created is that the tragedy does not include non-Americans dying. It’s probably an accidental implicature, but the very fact that people don’t pay attention to this shit is concerning.
It’s pathos only in the original meaning. Because damn, it’s a really miserable discourse! /s
Etymology aside, “pathos” in the meaning typically associated with the usage of the word in English can be easily conveyed without that nationalistic discourse.
Let us not fool ourselves that the only nationalists out there are the Q-Anon tier Nazi. In that situation you’re still a nationalist, and promoting a harmful discourse.
“Hometown” is not a metaphor. A country is not a hometown.
Absolutely radical.
I don’t see this as radical. Specially since, although I’m labelling it nationalism and saying that it’s bad, there’s no way that I’m seeing it the same as Nazi shit. The Nazi discourse relies on multiple
piles of shitpillars, only one of them is nationalism.I’m also making a distinction between a person voicing a nationalistic discourse and being a nationalist. Once we (all of us) analyse what each one of us says, we notice that we promote a lot of shitty causes, without even realising. That’s also why I’m not putting myself above the author.