What is it about politics that makes people go insane?

But Watts, don't you see that your mere definition of terms in describing politics can lead to untold amounts of debate? don't sound so sure of yourself.
Actually, nationalism is more or less defined by poltiics textbooks and courses as a sort of sense of belonging with a group of other individuals who share common traits such as language, culture, philosophy, religion, ehtnicity, race, et cetera and who wish to have some sort of self-determination. A nation does not neccsarily identify with a state, as you have pointed out, as a state is mostly the "machinery of government", a legal and physical entity. A state has defined borders, government, sovreignty and the ability to negotatiate with other states. These two seperate human endeavors have a multiplicity of unique relationships: you can have a nation-state, multinational state, multi-state nation, state-nation and now the theoretical emergence of a market state!

The truth is that unlike sports, music or other topicsof interest, politics determines more than anyhting and has more impact on real life. Politics manages everything from hospitals to roads to schools to the military. Don'tconfuse politcs with government...politics can be very loosely defined as the study of interactions between individuals. It is these interaction which define our lives and how welive them, therefore, the subject is very touchy.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The original poster is looking for reasons why/how politics can get so nasty. Not textbook definitions. Nationalism has been manipulated throughout the ages for political causes and means. Usually through expansionary war. I think that's the absolute height of politics becoming nasty or even insane. War is either rational to it's deadliest peak, or irrational by human nature. Depends on what you think/believe about human nature.

As for reinforcing my point on ideology you didn't try to dispute... well there's a reason why there's rules why we can't have debates about issues like gay marriage. They hardly end up civilized, and they do challenge everyone's so called "conventional wisdom". Diversity is always a threat to that.

We made not be having an acedemic debate heere, however, clarifying terms and having rational arguments to beack your use of terminology contributes to the discussion.

Quote:

Or a State of Anarchy, of Revolution, or of Civil War. Back to the topic.

You're using a different sense of the word.

Quote:

You don't think the moral crusades against rock'n'roll, comic books, video games, "pornographic television" that were political by nature wern't the least bit irrational? Whether in their logic or persecution of action? Is Satan really trying to convert me through rock'n'roll?!

Furthermore you don't think said "areas of interests" had any effect on anybody's 'real' life? Or had massive amounts of influence in politics? I'm going to disagree with you there. Completely. Music, theater, and literature have always been of extreme importance and influence in politics. Despite it's varying message. If you believe that politics is the interaction of individuals governing everyday life, then these areas of interests for individuals do not outweigh each other in my mind.

What I'm pointing out is that everything is the product of human interaction, therefore, politics is onvolved in absolutely everything in a person's life. I don't particularly see your "crusade" point. The so called "moral crusades" against certain cultural products really had very little to do with the items themselves and far more to do with....politics.

Quote:

Maybe progressive liberals are just gluttons for punishment.

"Our government is corrupt and inefficient."
"YEAH!"
"Let's organize and protest!"
"YEAAAAAH!!!"

......later.

"They ignored us...."
""
"Next time they'll surely pay attention!"
"Yay!"

Heh. The political left is still a huge source of amusement.

For someone who decries nationalism, is it rather odd that you focus on America in a more global discussion of politics. What about that large orange protest in Kyiv, hmm?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

I was only giving definition to those terms under the parameters of the subject. I still haven't heard or seen much to contradict my view. Especially with the tensions between Chavez-US, and the Iranian-UN-Nuclear issue. Nationalism is playing a huge role. They're particular nasty issues on a State level.

However, by having ambiguity of terms, your argument is weakend. Just making sure everyone's on the same level here.

Quote:

The protesters themselves were pawns. Who do you really think had more influence? The cadres of European nations, or a couple thousand protesters?

The protests were organized in Ukraine by Ukrainians, and the protests were near-spontaneous.

Who do you think had more power in Moscow when the Cold War ended...a few portestors or the military and economic might of the Soviet state?

How ya doing, buddy?