What exactly is meant by Code of Conduct?
It seems in need of being spelled out much more clearly than in "the Code" itself.
In particular, the CoC calls for:
This Code of Conduct helps us build a community that is rooted in kindness, collaboration, and mutual respect.
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.
How is that compatible with people active on this exchange promoting the principle of 'nationalism'? Or people here not 'tolerating' calling out nationalism as the form of inherent hatred that it is? Are the intolerant requesting tolerance?
Bigotry: strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion:
nationalist: a person who strongly believes their country is better than others:
From what I understand, Nationalism is irrational, primordial, hatred and war-mongering? Is it not?
As the definition of nationalism includes prejudice, the CoC excludes nationalism.
Reading a few authors that should be completely compatible with the principles of the CoC makes me think so:
Nationalism appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to replace by a collective or group responsibility.
(a) Nationalism, in the form of the historicist idea that the state is the incarnation of the Spirit (or now, of the Blood) of the state-creating nation (or race); one chosen nation (now, the chosen race) is destined for world domination. (b) The state as the natural enemy of all other states must assert its existence in war. (c) The state is exempt from any kind of moral obligation; history, that is, historical success, is the sole judge; collective utility is the sole principle of personal conduct; propagandist lying and distortion of the truth is permissible. (d) The ‘ethical’ idea of war (total and collectivist), particularly of young nations against older ones; war, fate and fame as most desirable goods. (e) The creative rôle of the Great Man, the world-historical personality, the man of deep knowledge and great passion (now, the principle of leadership). (f) The ideal of the heroic life (‘live dangerously’) and of the ‘heroic man’ as opposed to the petty bourgeois and his life of shallow mediocrity.
The attempt to find some ‘natural’ boundaries for states, and accordingly, to look upon the state as a ‘natural’ unit, leads to the principle of the national state and to the romantic fictions of nationalism, racialism, and tribalism. But this principle is not ‘natural’, and the idea that there exist natural units like nations, or linguistic or racial groups, is entirely fictitious. Here, if anywhere, we should learn from history; for since the dawn of history, men have been continually mixed, unified, broken up, and mixed again; and this cannot be undone, even if it were desirable.
There is a second point in which the analogy between civil and international peace breaks down. The state must protect the individual citizen, its units or atoms; but the international organization also must ultimately protect human individuals, and not its units or atoms, i.e. states or nations.
The complete renunciation of the principle of the national state (a principle which owes its popularity solely to the fact that it appeals to tribal instincts and that it is the cheapest and surest method by which a politician who has nothing better to offer can make his way), and the recognition of the necessarily conventional demarcation of all states, together with the further insight that human individuals and not states or nations must be the ultimate concern even of international organizations, will help us to realize clearly, and to get over, the difficulties arising from the breakdown of our fundamental analogy.
Karl Raimund Popper: "The Open Society and Its Enemies", Princeton University Press: Princeton, Oxford, 2013.
It seems quite clear that the principles of the Code of Conduct here are incompatible with defending any form of nationalism?
The erroneous picture is as follows: those who had heralded the decline of nationalism, had underestimated the power and hold of the dark atavistic forces in human nature. They over estimated the power of reason.
The truth is, on the contrary, that there is nothing natural or universal about possessing a 'nationality'; and the supposition that a valid political criterion can only be set up in terms of it, far from being a natural or universal one, is historically an oddity.
… nationalism is logically contingent, i.e. that it has none of the naturalness attributed to it, that it does not spring from some universal root […] it is sociologically contingent, and possesses no necessary roots even specifically in our own time. […] ' Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. ' An accidental invention of certain thinkers: we might well have been without it.
Ernest Gellner: "Thought and Change", 1978
Do I need to go on?
How is this in conflict with calling out nationalism and its proponents as irrational?
Doing so seems to me at the very heart of the CoC?
This is prompted by a recent edit that deleted the following, even balanced, description, while referencing them as clashing with the CoC:
This is a problem of nationalism. Not just Macedonian or Greek nationalism, but in general.
Incompatible world views and irreconcilable positions, that's patriotic nationalism.
Nationalism is another antonym to rationalism.
Now consider how long this ulcerating boil of nationalist hatred is waiting to explode:
Is the above offending Greeks, Macedonians, regardless of their race, gender, religion? Or is 'nationalism' a religion? Perhaps nationalism is a sexual orientation?
It should be obvious that I feel offended by people defending nationalism and it alienates me if defending 'nationalism' should be compatible with the CoC.
Seeing that it is not just me characterising 'nationalism' in this way, a less vague and more ius positum approach for this problem might be a better way. Seems to me that 'nationalism' (not even 'nationalists'!) cannot be offended? What happens if sexists and racists and antisemites feel offended? If the outcome of this is that eg Popper's position and analysis should be censored here…
Note that the solution offered in a related post is just shifting the burden into a quote. Either the phrase or statement is offending anyone or not. And putting self-evident phrases into quotes gets often criticised here for "auh, so many words I have to read", "so lengthy". This "when in doubt" is imprecise weasel-wording opening the gate for arbitrariness and in this case allowing "nationalist" content but disallowing well founded paraphrases of respected scholars on that topic criticising it and implying that nationalism itself clashes – well, should clash – with CoC in the first place.
This doesn't need a somehow relativistic respect but a universalist solution. As the network seems to think this is mainly a problem here, it should also spelled out here. And there seems to be a cultural issue of definitions at work that needs spelling out.
As evidence one might read the following comment, made by the exact same user who prompted this post by editing:
Your views are closer to Stalinist than the people you keep constantly slandering as "far right" and "white nationalist" are to those labels. (note the concerted effort here to marginalize anyone who thinks that having a national identity isn't awful, despite the latter likely being 90% of earths population)
Whether people just do not know or just do not want to know that a "national identity" and a "nationalist identity" are different concepts, have a strange desire to feel insulted out of ignorance, who knows?
Is promoting 'nationalism' agreeable under the Code of Conduct?