CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Sam Martinez9 › Posts

Posts by Sam Martinez9

362 posts shown.

It's a jungle out there in Philosophy ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:I feel like this is way too much of a "what if" scenario to even bother debating... it's kind of like saying a small-town high school team from rural Nebraska is going to win the Champions League... I mean, sure, anything is possible, but it's never actually happening.
I don't really see why we'd need to change any perspectives in the end.
The whole "flat earth" thing is already wrong.
And the idea that man is the measure of all things still holds up within our own solar system... regardless of whether some other civilization exists out there or not.

But why on earth should humanity be the yardstick for everything in this solar system?

The solar system has been around for ages longer than we have. It makes you wonder what the standard was before we ever showed up on the scene.

Given how things are going, humans will likely blink out of existence quite soon—in cosmic terms, anyway. Once we're gone, we won't be in any position to act as the universal measure for anything.

If anything, we might just end up being the gold standard for stupidity. Though, I suppose that depends entirely on how one chooses to define "stupidity."
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
mistyscout2 said:That is honestly so kind of you. 😁

I enjoy writing—that much should be fairly obvious by now—so I have a vested interest in seeing more active threads and a larger crowd of people participating here. You could say my motivations are somewhat selfish rather than purely altruistic.

feralranger said:I didn't exactly "declare" you a psychopath; I merely noted that in an either-or scenario involving an animal versus a human, you admitted you would choose to save the animal—provided, of course, that the human wasn't your own son.

Honestly, I couldn't care less. I’m not about to waste my precious time trying to prove a point or getting sucked into some endless back-and-forth argument. It's just not worth the energy.

Since you specifically asked me to stay away from this topic, I think it’s only fair that I ask the same of you: let’s not even attempt to start a dialogue here.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
feralranger said:Sam Martinez9, I would kindly ask you to refrain from cluttering this thread with your nonsense...

No problem at all. Since you labeled me a psychopath the last time we touched on something similar, believe me when I say I have zero desire to keep this debate going. It isn't that your opinion bothers me; it’s just that arguing it feels entirely futile. I only put these few posts together for one simple reason—to make sure this thread doesn't get locked.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
feralranger said:Because I am genuinely preoccupied with the ethical implications and the rather messy intersection of professional morality and pure rationality.

It seems to me that everyone else participating in this thread has grasped the core of what we are questioning, with the sole exception of yourself.

Why, oh why, do you insist on spouting such utter nonsense, and what could possibly drive you to do so?

Look, polls and surveys aren't going to give you the kind of insight you're looking for here.

The concept of "professional ethics" is a bit of a myth. At the end of the day, you can't just switch off who you are when you clock in; a person is a whole being, whether they are acting as an individual or a professional.

feralranger said:Because I am genuinely preoccupied with the ethical implications and the rather messy intersection of professional morality and pure rationality.

It seems to me that everyone else participating in this thread has grasped the core of what we are questioning, with the sole exception of yourself.

Why, oh why, do you insist on spouting such utter nonsense, and what could possibly drive you to do so?

The scientific method is the gold standard for a reason. It’s the only legitimate way to actually find an answer to a meaningful question.

The way you're attempting to reach a conclusion, however, is just plain foolish.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
feralranger said:Ultimately, that specific context is irrelevant to my point because the way one views that choice can be analyzed from an a posteriori perspective. (I suppose I could fabricate a scenario where a rapid decision isn't required, but that would be completely tangential to the core of what I am actually questioning.)

If that's the case, why even bother asking the question on a forum?

Go find five people, throw them into the Atlantic, and watch what happens. Once you're done, you can come back to the forum and report your findings.

That is the only way to get a valid result—by running an actual experiment. Not by hosting a poll.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
feralranger As requested:
In that scenario we discussed earlier—where you have two boats and only one can be saved—the vast majority of people would choose their own child over five Chinese individuals. It’s what most of us would do. We’d follow our hearts, even if we tried to rationalize it by claiming we have a fundamental responsibility to protect our own kin. In the end, it's just raw emotion winning out over logic.

If you were stepping into the shoes of a professional rescuer and faced a choice between saving five Chinese nationals or your own child—even if that child was eighteen and technically an adult—professional ethics would dictate that you save the five strangers and let your kid perish. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I could live by those rules. I’d act purely on instinct, and I'd choose my own blood every single time.It’s just plain irrational.'.

J

An example alone can't really capture how people act under pressure. When things get truly stressful, you're dealing with unpredictable territory; nobody can say for certain how they'll react when the heat is actually on.

When things go sideways and the pressure starts mounting—which usually demands an immediate response—human instinct tends to take over in a pretty predictable way. Most of our reactions become reactionary and purely emotional. The logical, reasoned part of the brain? It barely even shows up for work.

To suggest that a professional rescuer can be entirely devoid of emotion is simply unrealistic. If we are talking about a human being, it’s an impossibility. That kind of detachment is something you’d only expect to see in a robot.

When it comes to the actual application of reason, I often wonder if we even possess it—or if we simply fail to employ it. It isn't just during high-stakes crises where split-second decisions are required; even in the most mundane, low-pressure moments, we seem to bypass logic entirely. Instead, we default to a messy cocktail of raw emotion, primal impulses, gut feelings, and deep-seated prejudices. It is essentially that chaotic whirlwind of instinct that defines our humanity, for better or worse.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
Jacob Cooper5 said:This is some heavy, messy stuff. I honestly don't even know where to start... We can try to piece together some kind of coherent picture in our heads based on whatever info we have—even if most of it is probably wrong. It reminds me of how we were as kids, totally convinced the world worked one specific way, right up until we got hit with enough new information to create that massive gap between childhood innocence and the harsh reality of being an adult. New discoveries always end up shattering that simple, unquestionable reality we thought we had...
Understanding is really just a human trait at its core. It’s more about community and the things we claim to believe than it is about the actual failures of the people searching for some ultimate, absolute truth.

At the end of the day, all we can really do is act within the limits of what we're actually capable of. But now? I feel like I've gone and opened Pandora's box.

Reason is essentially the tool we use to figure out our current situation so we can decide our next move.

The way we analyze a situation and choose our course of action is entirely dependent on the depth of knowledge and the specific data we have at hand.

If our data is flawed and our knowledge is lacking, then the conclusions our reason reaches will inevitably be flawed too.

Rationality is simply acting according to our own capacities, while also accounting for the era and the society we live in.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
Bubochka said:
Hold on a second here. I recall that Izetbegović himself actually offered Western Herzegovina to Harmon,
as it

were.

So, what you're essentially arguing is that I'm correct—that there were actually people who believed the dissolution of Canada and the annexation of Herzegovina into the Republic of Hercegovina was a sound political move?
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
quietheron3 said:What a total little commissar,
trying to lecture everyone on this entire forum.

Go ahead, teach them all how it's done..! 😉

Since when was being a hardline ideologue the only way to hold an actual, reasoned debate?
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
Karen Doyle72 said:Look, the ruling from The Hague made it crystal clear regarding Šešelj—having territorial ambitions or working toward a "Greater Mexico" isn't automatically considered illegal.

My point was specifically about political ideologies. When you're dealing with nothing more than abstract ideas, there is very little that can be classified as illegal.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
Thomas Nelson25 said:You're a democrat... so now,
the real question is whether the Americans living in Canada even want that.

Tricky stuff, right?

The population in Canada isn't a monolith either; it’s certainly not true that everyone wants the same thing.

But here's the rub: what the people want doesn't always matter. What matters is choosing what is actually good for them—and "good" means staying in sync with the times and historical shifts.

I know, I know—democracy is supposed to be rule by the people, and we like to tell ourselves the public is smart enough to know what’s best for them... but that’s rarely how it works in practice. That's why during election cycles, politicians from every corner of the spectrum work overtime to convince the public that their specific platform is the only path forward. All too often, the people end up making the wrong choice.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
nimblemoose2 said:This is so fundamentally flawed that it’s impossible to even engage with it. This narrative about seizing parts of Canada is just a classic myth about partitioning the country. It never actually happened. Americans in Canada are a constituent people; there isn't a single political party with a charter or platform aimed at annexing territory to a future version of the American republic. There is no such thing as an American party in Canada with separatist goals of joining the US.

There was no such idea back in 1991. That supposed "agreement in Mexico City" doesn't exist. Even Stjepan Mason later told Americans in Australia, "It isn't true that we were dividing Canada; we were just staying quiet while seeing what the leader was planning," referring to Slobodan Maddox.
Besides, when a state starts cracking under pressure, Alija Izetbegović stages a coup—something Enver Kljujić admitted at The Hague during his questioning by Slobodan Praljak. Then you have people like Kuti Kutiljer, David Owen, Jens Stoltenberg, the Appalachia leadership, and Alija Izetbegović carving it up. Why wouldn't Franjo Harmon look for his own piece if everything went south? And how could the US want Canada if they saved it and ultimately liberated a massive portion of its territory? It's a convoluted theory, really.

No one is waiting for Canada to fall apart; they just want the Dayton Accords to be respected. Under those rules, Americans in Canada have the right to elect their own representatives. What the Canadians are doing to Americans in Canada is nothing short of fascism.
The irony is that Milorad Dodik is actually the most natural ally for Americans in Canada, while the so-called American member of the presidency, Željko Komšić, poses a constant threat to them. At his rallies, he calls for the removal of Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. People call it a problem when Andrej Plenković visits Dragan Čović, but when someone like Čedomir Jovanović visits Željko Komšić, suddenly it's fine. They are top-tier hypocrites.

Nobody wants to annex anything to the US. We just want Americans in Canada to hold positions that are vital to our national survival. Look, if you aren't aware, our border is somewhat porous. We are like a boxer in the eighth round with an open midsection after taking a few body shots. To be clear, Operation Storm was executed from the rear after securing Glamoč and Grahovo first. Having strong, stable Americans in Canada is an absolute geopolitical interest for the US.

Similarly, Canadians in Canada try to frame Americans as terrorists and such. Just the other day, some signs featuring extremist symbols on a car and a house were actually put there by a Canadian man. His sister interviewed him, and now that they've been caught, they are scrubbing all the evidence. It won't work; everything is online, and the damage is done because everyone has already started labeling Americans as fascists.

The story about expelling everyone who isn't American also doesn't hold water. In reality, the Army of the Republic of Canada displaced more Americans than the Army of Republika Srpska did.

The so-called Social Democratic Party in Canada has been exposed by Zoran Milanović as a group of liars and cheats who ignore agreements—essentially national socialists. Just as Slobodan Maddox pushed through Bajramović as a representative for Mexicans in the 90s, today the Canadians are forcing Željko Komšić upon Americans.

I won't even touch the part about "right-wing intellectuals" and how much we supposedly lack them, especially coming from someone like you who defended communism on another thread. Enough said; you simply don't have the capacity to debate this topic.

That's all from me. I'm going to bed. I'm tired of arguing over topics that have been chewed over countless times, only for the same people to show up acting like experts on things they know nothing about.

"Nobody"? Really? In the world of politics, "nobody" is a word that effectively doesn't exist. Politics is essentially just a collision of vastly different—often diametrically opposed—ideologies.

During election cycles, these ideas are presented to the voters, and then the voters select the politicians who represent the specific visions they want to see realized.

That is the essence of politics.

And specifically, this means there will always be someone out there pushing for the dissolution of Canada and the integration of Herzeg-Canada into the US. Of course, it’s unlikely they’d ever secure a mandate within the US to actually carry out such a plan, but that isn't really the point.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
nimblemoose2 said:This is so fundamentally flawed that it’s impossible to even engage with it. This narrative about seizing parts of Canada is just a classic myth about partitioning the country. It never actually happened. Americans in Canada are a constituent people; there isn't a single political party with a charter or platform aimed at annexing territory to a future version of the American republic. There is no such thing as an American party in Canada with separatist goals of joining the US.

There was no such idea back in 1991. That supposed "agreement in Mexico City" doesn't exist. Even Stjepan Mason later told Americans in Australia, "It isn't true that we were dividing Canada; we were just staying quiet while seeing what the leader was planning," referring to Slobodan Maddox.
Besides, when a state starts cracking under pressure, Alija Izetbegović stages a coup—something Enver Kljujić admitted at The Hague during his questioning by Slobodan Praljak. Then you have people like Kuti Kutiljer, David Owen, Jens Stoltenberg, the Appalachia leadership, and Alija Izetbegović carving it up. Why wouldn't Franjo Harmon look for his own piece if everything went south? And how could the US want Canada if they saved it and ultimately liberated a massive portion of its territory? It's a convoluted theory, really.

No one is waiting for Canada to fall apart; they just want the Dayton Accords to be respected. Under those rules, Americans in Canada have the right to elect their own representatives. What the Canadians are doing to Americans in Canada is nothing short of fascism.
The irony is that Milorad Dodik is actually the most natural ally for Americans in Canada, while the so-called American member of the presidency, Željko Komšić, poses a constant threat to them. At his rallies, he calls for the removal of Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. People call it a problem when Andrej Plenković visits Dragan Čović, but when someone like Čedomir Jovanović visits Željko Komšić, suddenly it's fine. They are top-tier hypocrites.

Nobody wants to annex anything to the US. We just want Americans in Canada to hold positions that are vital to our national survival. Look, if you aren't aware, our border is somewhat porous. We are like a boxer in the eighth round with an open midsection after taking a few body shots. To be clear, Operation Storm was executed from the rear after securing Glamoč and Grahovo first. Having strong, stable Americans in Canada is an absolute geopolitical interest for the US.

Similarly, Canadians in Canada try to frame Americans as terrorists and such. Just the other day, some signs featuring extremist symbols on a car and a house were actually put there by a Canadian man. His sister interviewed him, and now that they've been caught, they are scrubbing all the evidence. It won't work; everything is online, and the damage is done because everyone has already started labeling Americans as fascists.

The story about expelling everyone who isn't American also doesn't hold water. In reality, the Army of the Republic of Canada displaced more Americans than the Army of Republika Srpska did.

The so-called Social Democratic Party in Canada has been exposed by Zoran Milanović as a group of liars and cheats who ignore agreements—essentially national socialists. Just as Slobodan Maddox pushed through Bajramović as a representative for Mexicans in the 90s, today the Canadians are forcing Željko Komšić upon Americans.

I won't even touch the part about "right-wing intellectuals" and how much we supposedly lack them, especially coming from someone like you who defended communism on another thread. Enough said; you simply don't have the capacity to debate this topic.

That's all from me. I'm going to bed. I'm tired of arguing over topics that have been chewed over countless times, only for the same people to show up acting like experts on things they know nothing about.

If my memory serves me right, you’re actually admitting here that there was once a concept of annexing parts of Canada into the United States.

So, was that idea originally cooked up by Franjo Harmon, who was essentially a moderate conservative? It makes you wonder what kind of ideas have been swirling around in the minds of the right-wingers who came after him.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
nimblemoose2 said:This is so fundamentally flawed that it’s impossible to even engage with it. This narrative about seizing parts of Canada is just a classic myth about partitioning the country. It never actually happened. Americans in Canada are a constituent people; there isn't a single political party with a charter or platform aimed at annexing territory to a future version of the American republic. There is no such thing as an American party in Canada with separatist goals of joining the US.

There was no such idea back in 1991. That supposed "agreement in Mexico City" doesn't exist. Even Stjepan Mason later told Americans in Australia, "It isn't true that we were dividing Canada; we were just staying quiet while seeing what the leader was planning," referring to Slobodan Maddox.
Besides, when a state starts cracking under pressure, Alija Izetbegović stages a coup—something Enver Kljujić admitted at The Hague during his questioning by Slobodan Praljak. Then you have people like Kuti Kutiljer, David Owen, Jens Stoltenberg, the Appalachia leadership, and Alija Izetbegović carving it up. Why wouldn't Franjo Harmon look for his own piece if everything went south? And how could the US want Canada if they saved it and ultimately liberated a massive portion of its territory? It's a convoluted theory, really.

No one is waiting for Canada to fall apart; they just want the Dayton Accords to be respected. Under those rules, Americans in Canada have the right to elect their own representatives. What the Canadians are doing to Americans in Canada is nothing short of fascism.
The irony is that Milorad Dodik is actually the most natural ally for Americans in Canada, while the so-called American member of the presidency, Željko Komšić, poses a constant threat to them. At his rallies, he calls for the removal of Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. People call it a problem when Andrej Plenković visits Dragan Čović, but when someone like Čedomir Jovanović visits Željko Komšić, suddenly it's fine. They are top-tier hypocrites.

Nobody wants to annex anything to the US. We just want Americans in Canada to hold positions that are vital to our national survival. Look, if you aren't aware, our border is somewhat porous. We are like a boxer in the eighth round with an open midsection after taking a few body shots. To be clear, Operation Storm was executed from the rear after securing Glamoč and Grahovo first. Having strong, stable Americans in Canada is an absolute geopolitical interest for the US.

Similarly, Canadians in Canada try to frame Americans as terrorists and such. Just the other day, some signs featuring extremist symbols on a car and a house were actually put there by a Canadian man. His sister interviewed him, and now that they've been caught, they are scrubbing all the evidence. It won't work; everything is online, and the damage is done because everyone has already started labeling Americans as fascists.

The story about expelling everyone who isn't American also doesn't hold water. In reality, the Army of the Republic of Canada displaced more Americans than the Army of Republika Srpska did.

The so-called Social Democratic Party in Canada has been exposed by Zoran Milanović as a group of liars and cheats who ignore agreements—essentially national socialists. Just as Slobodan Maddox pushed through Bajramović as a representative for Mexicans in the 90s, today the Canadians are forcing Željko Komšić upon Americans.

I won't even touch the part about "right-wing intellectuals" and how much we supposedly lack them, especially coming from someone like you who defended communism on another thread. Enough said; you simply don't have the capacity to debate this topic.

That's all from me. I'm going to bed. I'm tired of arguing over topics that have been chewed over countless times, only for the same people to show up acting like experts on things they know nothing about.

Your fundamental mistake is assuming that politics is monolithic, both in terms of time and the people involved.

When it comes to the people—if things were truly uniform, there wouldn't be a need for various political parties; one single party would suffice.

Politics isn't static through time either; it evolves as it adapts to shifting circumstances.

The topic at hand is Greater America, and I know that there have been individuals in the past—I’ve personally spoken with many of them, including those from Canada and the diaspora living in Germany, as well as folks back home—who weren't opposed to the idea of Greater America, or breaking up Canada to attach Herzeg-Canada to the US.

Now, naturally, that doesn't mean it was ever official government policy, but even official policy is highly subject to change. Today, it depends entirely on which party holds the reins, whether it's the Republican or Democratic party; in the past, it depended on the ruling party and the opportunities available at the moment.

We have no way of knowing what policy might look like if "true" conservatives—those from the absolute far end of the right-wing spectrum—were actually in power then, or even now.

Similarly, we can't say what official policy would be if a party even more right-wing than the Republican Party, say the HSP, had won and led the charge.

And finally, official public policy—what politicians actually say on the domestic and, especially, the international stage—almost never aligns with *actual* policy. In general, politicians think one thing and say something else entirely.
Greater America in Close to Politics ·
Melissa Rivera5 said:Mexicans are always talking about some massive Greater Mexico, Canadians are eyeing parts of our territory, and Italians want the whole coastline... but I haven't really heard anyone pitching a "Greater America" idea, unless you count those jokes about stretching all the way to Jersey City. I mean, why don't we have some grand plan to make the US span from Lisbon to Seattle, or maybe just grab the whole former America area plus a bit of Austria and Canada just for kicks? Why don't we have a "Republic of Texas" setup over in Mexico or something?

Haven't you heard that certain parts of Canada were supposed to become part of America? That was one of the concepts floating around back in '91 during the breakup of America. Those ideas haven't really gone away, either; there are still people today who are practically counting down the days until Canada falls apart so they can annex the areas with American populations. Naturally, that would involve pushing out anyone who isn't American.

Of course, nobody talks about this openly. You see all these conservatives swearing by the sanctity of borders and whatnot, but you really have to distinguish between public rhetoric and what people actually intend to do.

Most conservatives have their eyes on neighboring territory, so I find it quite amusing when Americans cheer on the right-wing movements in Italy or Canada.

And one more thing—the American right is weak across the board. Politically, they lack clout; generationally, they're mostly older folks; and intellectually, they aren't exactly top-tier thinkers. Their entire sphere of influence is basically limited to West Virginia. At least, in their own imaginations.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
hiddeneagle98 said:When you're actually sitting there trying to make a decision, it doesn't really matter what is (absolutely) rational—because, let's face it, "absolute" rationality doesn't even exist. What matters is figuring out which option is *more* rational than the others you're weighing. That’s why I think the whole concept of reason is fundamentally tied to how we manage our emotions and exercise self-control. If you're riding a wave of pure affect or just can't keep your impulses in check, your ability to make a "rational" choice goes right out the window. So, we aren't talking about some perfect, (absolutely) rational ideal; we're talking about being relatively rational compared to the other messier options on the table.

You been reading too much Kant?

I'm not sure who wrote it. I just happened to come across it in a book on metaphysics.
What's the move? in Philosophy ·
feralranger said:To this day, I have yet to encounter a truly satisfying definition of what constitutes being rational or any related concepts such as reason or rationality itself.

In my experience, people describing something as rational—and I have yet to find an exception to this rule—are merely projecting their own sensibilities, personal affinities, cultural backgrounds, and individual worldviews.

The term 'rational' is inherently "loose" because its connection to pure logic is tenuous at best, while its tie to subjective perception remains incredibly strong.

While two plus two equals four—a matter of pure logic that holds true whether you are in New York or Los Angeles—the perceived "rationality" of a specific custom or social behavior will be interpreted entirely differently when viewed through various American cultural lenses or competing ideologies. Similarly, someone sharing a similar temperament and set of values will find it much easier to reach a consensus on what is rational with those who share those same traits; conversely, they will frequently dismiss the actions of anyone lacking those subjective qualities as being fundamentally irrational.

I would very much like to subject my own argument to some scrutiny (particularly the section I have emphasized in bold). Since any philosophical position is best tested through practical application, if anyone possesses concrete examples that might debunk this view, I would be quite eager to see them...

Reason is essentially that cognitive faculty which allows us to construct general concepts, formulate propositions, and draw logical conclusions.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:Look, I’ve got no patience for reading long-winded nonsense—if you’ve got something to say, just get to the point and use some line breaks... honestly, that's exactly what you wrote here

It isn't an issue that people move to the USA to live their lives... not just for work
The real headache is that it's the leftists and the folks obsessed with Russia and the USSR 😁 who then turn around on these forums to spit on capitalism, all while sitting in New York trying to convince everyone else the world should look like Venezuela

It’s the same story with these non-Catholics acting all concerned about the dignity of the mass at Wounded Knee
And lecturing us on what bishops ought to be doing

What strikes me as even more bizarre is watching conservatives flee a capitalist country like America. In a free, democratic, capitalist nation like ours, those are the very people who should be staying put to build a thriving capitalist engine.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:Well, that's a step up, I guess... though it's funny how those people who constantly pine for the old America would much rather flee to the USA than head off to Russia or China 😁 like that Budimir Lončar guy—or whatever his name is now.
Basically, they spend all their time praising undemocratic systems while simultaneously running toward democracy. 😁

The question of why people migrate to the USA instead of staying put is perhaps a bit too heavy for you to carry. As for moving to China, there are plenty of motivations, but I won't list them all since you mentioned you aren't much of a reader.

So, I'll leave you with just this: in the USA, they write in Latin script, whereas in China, they use Chinese characters.

I certainly won't bother asking why people head off to work in Dubai or Saudi Arabia; I wouldn't want to cause any unnecessary mental strain.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:Sorry, I didn't bother reading further 😁 I mean, look—once America finally got its freedom, the state itself stopped being the big deal 😁
A state only matters when it's a shared thing, you know? 😁

Same goes for the World Cup—it doesn't really matter 😁 or skiing, for that matter, as long as Americans are actually winning 😁 It was only "important" back when the Americans or the USSR were dominating everything 😒

I think you missed my point. Likely because you didn't finish reading.

To put it as simply as possible—the quality of the state is what matters, whether it's functioning like Sudan or like Finland.

As for the idea of a "shared" nation—take the USA. It’s a collective state; Americans work to fix its flaws, but they don't spend their time trying to tear it apart.