Allero

Immigration being seen as a weapon has always bewildered me. If people come to your country, commonly running away from famine and war, and you see them as nothing but a weapon, something is seriously wrong. I am aware some countries like Finland are already fairly filled with immigrants, but Europe could use some more cooperation to solve this.

To my perspective, Russian government was not the bad one, it was a rival, as in yet another place being run by shitheads. Funnily enough, 1991-2000 was actually the time when liberties coming from Perestroika were tanked again, the country was destroyed against people's will, and wild privatization combined with corruption has left millions in deep poverty and famine; crime arose. People had their homeland taken away from them before they could react, and they were intentionally kept clueless on what was going on. But it was also the time when Russia had better relations with Europe and the US, which is why this period is seen as "Russia being good".

Removing all governments overnight is not feasible indeed. But we should admit the harms patriotic and, as a radical extension, nationalist models cause to society at large and our global cooperation, we should own up to what it means to hostility, warfare, and breeding idiots who make it worse for all of us. Every time someone tries to instill patriotic feelings within the population, they just want to make us more controllable and divided. We shouldn't let them. And as an extension of that, we should advocate for direct democracy and gradual dissolution of government as a main controlling entity.

This doesn't mean, however, that you can't praise certain decisions made by your government. They can be objectively good!

Guess that's why Europe has built defences against immigrants, and many European countries straight up rejected to accept them? And that's why right-wingers with their anti-immigration policies win over more and more votes?

My point is, this is one of the consequences that comes with national identity. For some, it's just unfair preference of "their" people and things, for others, it's nationalism and xenophobia.

Blocking "disinformation" is also a slippery slope towards autocracy. Y'know, Russia did the same back in the day. I understand that it feels like a necessity amidst hybrid wars, but it's bound to be problematic down the road.

Nope, I'm from Russia.

But then again, where does that not have its place? Are people in Europe, say, universally welcoming to immigrants? Or maybe Asia is not full of xenophobia? Africa, at least?..

There are much better factors of unity than being on a certain plot of land.

We can always do our best to make it closer.

Most people claim this to be Utopian, and then just try to tone it down in others, so their own compliance is not seen to themselves as weakness but rather "wisdom". No - it is a surrender, an act of learned helplessness.

Sure, it's hard to force politicians to abandon the concept of nations, and it's hard to bring a revolt to a population so compliant.

But everyone can make personal steps.

First, admit that patriotism is bullshit. There is no ground to be patriotic, and nothing realistically unites you with your "nation". You have more in common with a person of the same position on the other side of the globe than you have with the president of your very "own" country.

Second, watch your own preferences in people and what you factor in your decision. Maybe you give too much weight to where the person comes from? Is it that you label people in some way based on that characteristic alone?

Third, if you have the opportunity, form an international collective, reach out to specialists within other nations, or if you can't, see if you can build a collective or even just a friend group with the immigrants around you.

Fourth - advocate for people in other countries, learn what they face, what they get to endure. For example - do you know that the deadliest of recent wars was not in Ukraine or Palestine, but in Ethiopia? What do you know about the current situation in Myanmar, aside from the Facebook drama? Did you consider supporting women rights' causes in the Middle East?

Personal action and involvement will not allow you to fall for the traps the state tries to implant in your mind, and you'll be personally responsible for a small, but proud piece of international cooperation - one that should become commonplace to the point when it wouldn't make sense for anyone to draw divisions.

Human life is human life. Human suffering is human suffering - here or on the other side of the globe. The concepts of unity, hope, and cooperation are all universally recognized wherever you are. Why not step in?

We should band together based on mutual respect and common responsibility, and not based on someone telling us who to band with and who not to.

The concept of nation-state doesn't allow us to band with whoever we like, and calls to unite with people born in place X (and commonly against people born in place Y). The concept of state in general oversees and dictates our relationships more broadly.

Multitude of states all fostering loyalty to their rulers doesn't allow many people to look at those of other nations as equals and fellows with shared global goals. Sure, messages of international peace are commonplace, but hey, we should definitely exclude those pesky Chinese/Russians/Americans/Ukrainians/Israelis/Palestinians/whatever!

When we categorize people by nations through the lens of state, we put easy labels that are far from true. If someone's a Russian, he sure supports war in Ukraine. If someone's American, he sure is personally responsible for all the immigrant scare. If someone's born in Israel or China, clearly he's all on board with genocide!

At the same time, state-level patriotism fosters coming to terms with terrible people within the nation. Sure, our billionaires might be at fault in some ways, but it's better than other country's evil and corrupt billionaires! Our rulers are wise leaders, their rulers are cruel autocrats! My neighbor is a terrible person, but at least he's not one of those !

It forces us to make preference to people who may not deserve our support, who might be actively undermining our causes, it leads us to close our eyes on the sufferings of others outside our arbitrary group that doesn't even share our views and goals.

Now, I know it doesn't have to be that extreme, but patriotism is always showing preference to someone or something based on a very arbitrary characteristic, instead of honest and fair consideration. It's an intentionally cultivated fallacy.

On a personal note, I'd rather avoid ad hominem attacks if you'd like to keep a good faith discussion running. And, FYI, I never take any drugs, not even alcohol.

The state should not exist. We are people of Earth, and we should not be divided by someone. Divided, we are powerless to make a global change, and those who divide us reap all the benefits of this bullshit system.

State-level patriotism is always bullshit to begin with.

That's how you're tricked into loyalty based on the most arbitrary reasons.

Be the messenger of humanity and get curious about the Universe. People are brothers, and there's no pride in being born in one plot of land over the other.

written before reading the article; it get the topic from another, more interesting and less imaginary, angle

Do we explore it post-Google or post-anything that would take its place?

Because those are two very different scenarios. There are plenty of Big Tech corps that are willing to take Google's place.

If we actually mean no one does search with targeted advertising and stuff, my bets are on more indie sites popping up, and Fediverse getting stronger as well.

We'll have more link indices, and more relevant search results hosted on different corners of the Internet.

On the negative: unless open-source projects step up their game, usability and quality of web interfaces will suffer dramatically. And without truly massive Fediverse or at least decent webrings, finding basic information and connecting to others might actually get harder.

12 is the most based number in that respect IMO.

But then...hey, we use that for hours!

Huh, I was under the impression the total coal capacity is still growing, not the speed at which new coal plants are built. Thanks for that piece!

ShaggySnacks had a good laugh

True, but the positive dynamics is there.

The country needs a lot of energy, and it does good job making a lot of it renewable/hydro. The coal industry growth is slowing down, while solar roars up

5 years ago, they had one-third of the current solar capacity.