User talk:FrancisTyers/Nationalist test/Greeks-Macedonians

Macedonians

Do you know what is trollish and foolish - the pages User:Macedonia and User:Makedonia.

I think he knows that by now. FunkyFly 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nationalism is really retarded. cf. User:Asteraki ;) I haven't found any Bulgarians yet, but then I haven't really been looking. - FrancisTyers 18:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek-MacSlav nationalists

I posted my change and my view on the matter. You are free to discuss it. Think about it first though...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did think about it... of course. But, like the "Kosovo should remain part of Serbia" suggestion, I'm afraid I had to remove it, as these are facts, we can't have two conflicting ones on the same page. :) Of course you are free to argue about the Greek one, but I think would just prove my point. ;) - FrancisTyers 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't give any nationalistic arguements. I'll only present a logical diagram for you (after all, it's fashionable):

 
My POV:  |-----------Nationalists-----------------Moderates-------------------Liberals--------|
 
Position:|-------No Macedonia at all-------Macedonia with something-------Only Macedonia------|
 

Please if you decide to redraw it, to put "Nationalists" above the "...with something" option, try also to find a position that the liberals would have in that case. What do you think? Does the above reflect what the true extremes would be? (Also I didn't really grasp the Kosovo parallel, but nevermind).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Screw liberals, nationalists and moderates — at least your idea of moderates. The Kosovo parallel is really quite easy:

1. People who think that Kosovo should probably be independent: Everyone except nationalist Serbs and their sympathisers (the whole transferred nationalism thing).
2. People who think that Kosovo shouldn't be independent: Nationalist Serbs and sympathisers.

"true extremes", as I think I said before... really... no-one... cares... except... Nationalists. If an English guy pretends he's caring, he's not doing it because he actually believes it — he doesn't have the years of acculturation — but rather to stop you yapping on about it! Seriously, I can imagine someone just giving up, "ok, fine fYRoM, JUST SHUT UP ALREADY". Tedious, boring, puerile. PS. MacSlav seems like some kind of Macintosh software ^___^ - FrancisTyers 09:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. You proved my point. All I can say is, at least you aren't as bad as the Turkish guy who was denying the Armenian Genocide. - FrancisTyers 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. It's the other way around: "Screw" English guy (per your example) or anyone else not involved in this carnival. We are talking about PC/Mac (sorry) Greek/MacSlav nationalists here. My Kosovo parallel is the following:

1. Kosovo independent/Macedonia included in title: Moderate
2. Kosovo Serbian/Only Macedonia in title: Serbian/FYROM Nationalists

Your insistence would tempt people who couldn't care less too, to say: "OK OK! ONLY Macedonia, JUST STFU-P and ESAD!!!"

and for your PS: I could easily say the same thing about the supporters of your view...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say just Macedonia, I support the name of the country being "Republic of Macedonia" and the short-form being "Macedonia". Like when people talk about "Ireland" they mean the Republic. And you're wrong again wrt. Kosovo. ;) There are no supporters of my view on their side because in my view they're largely nationalist idiots. - FrancisTyers 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You do say just Macedonia, because what would the short form be then? There are many third-party supporters in the Macedonia with something view, totally unlike the Serbian Kosovo view! So you are simply wrong!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Republic of Macedonia Macedonians sympathize with Serb nationalists on the Kosovo issue. The Republic of Macedonia recently escaped a similar fate of partition. During Yugoslav times the Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia were subject to more repression than anywhere else (including autonomous Kosovo). In 1988 Albanian families were prohibited from having more than two children and naming their children with Albanian names was also prohibited on the grounds that it caused divisions with the "Macedonians" (Politika ekspres 10/06/1986). Needless to say that the public use of the Albanian language was forcibly suppressed and literal torture of Albanians in the Macedonian prisons continued (even more than the reported incidents in 2001). When at last the Albanians uprise and demand autonomy they were dubbed "the bad guys", terrorists etc. The same happened in Kosovo. Telex 10:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the NLA or whatever. However that is largely irrelevant to this subject. It is immaterial if the Macedonians largely support the Serbs or not. - FrancisTyers 10:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Now, please, Francis change your definition yourself because you know that my previous comment is 100% correct and doesn't need further verification.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

10 hours later: Don't change it and Fuck the borders! Whatever, I guess it's just more nationalistic to have "No Mk at all" than to have "Mk plus smthng", anyway. You just have to define the specific degree of nationalism that may be to an extent acceptable by others. I'm saying: Are we all unaware nationalists? (Oh and... it's the "should be" part that annoys me more, you know...)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Check also my last proposal for the Americans! It's one of those things that proves that everything in life is a vicious cycle...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd sooner have no nations than nations! Which is why I am derisory about all countries and nationalist ideologies. :)) I'd rather have no Macedonia and no Greece at all! Regarding your question "Are we all unaware nationalists?", the answer is that, as Orwell says, yes we all have nationalistic feelings, not necessarily towards a country — some of us realise this, others don't — the point of this exercise is to try and deal with them in the appropriate fashion, that is, KILL THEM WITH FIRE. - FrancisTyers 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, since once the sun never set over your ancestor's dominion. Other countries were less fortunate, many ideals were broken and generally lots of tough breaks. FunkyFly 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite an intriguing discussion ;-) But while I agree that blame is generally shared by both parts, the amount of blame is often different, I think. Also don't you think you're a bit too radical in your definitions? If we accept them, we would have to conclude that almost everybody in the world is a nationalist! And why don't you try to define an Italian nationalist, since it's the only big western nation missing? I confess that I would be really curious ;-)--Aldux 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

By the way, to all the wonderful nationalists who have responded here, let me tell you I'm honoured that you've come to tell me where I'm wrong. I think you're gradually getting through... Keep trying! ^____^ Don't give up hope! - FrancisTyers 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Republic of Macedonia

I am not accusing you of renouncing your ethnic id Fran. You missed the point, but maybe it is because I started on the wrong foot. I am just saying that if someone would be under-valueing other people's ethnic id's, that would be more nationalistic than being a nationalist himself. I think you agree to that. And maybe I was a little harsh in calling you an "unaware victim", but you had given on my nerves (or maybe my nerves themselves are the issue). Maybe your page about nationalists is not intended in promoting under-valueing of other people's ethnic id's, but you must admit that there is no clear boundary for that. For one thing it is not clear what someone may consider as under-valueing his ethnic id. And for another, in more than one case, I can observe examples that could be contradicting with other examples, and yet you choose which of the two to use, with your own criteria. The other side may just think that you are under-valueing their ethnic id by choosing the other's POV. (actually I think that the whole point of your page should be illustrating those contradictions, but then again, it's your page).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't undervalue or overvalue anyone's ethnic identity. I don't think ethnic identity should be based on, to give a specific example, whether the Armenian Genocide happened or not. I seriously don't think that these facts are part of an ethnic identity, but rather of an underlying national ideology instituted during acculturation. I don't think a Turk has to give up his ethnic identity to accept that the Armenian Genocide happened, and I'd be very disappointed if we lost diversity through coca-colonisation -- for one I wouldn't be able to rip on my flatmate for buying Danish feta! I agree that I am in some sense seemingly "arbitrary" with regard to these facts, but I hope you realise I am presenting them as I come accross them and understand them, and any perceived bias is probably due to either not knowing both sides, or just not having read enough. As I have continuously mentioned, I welcome input from all sides, as you can see from the reasonably active talk page. I'm interested in your idea about illustrating the contradictions and think we should continue it on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but Danish Feta??? You'll have to deport him! On the other hand, comments like this one aren't exactly encouraging input. :-) I agree on anti-coca-colonisation (to the extent that I'll not stop drinking it).

Illustrating contradictions: I think this will exactly present the vagueness of the situation. The whole thing is foggy to me, and I guess to most readers, so why take sides? Just "tizz" them both!

Ofcourse, if you don't want to take sides, there's also the other solution: just include objective examples (such as historic facts which are backed up with tons of sources) and avoid subjective ones (such as that f***ing naming issue, which to me is a matter of definition). You see, I accept your POV that the name is OK, please don't flush mine down the toilet, by calling me and everybody else supporting it a nationalist (unless you are prepared to do it for the other -your- side too)!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, "deport him"? more like REPORT HIM! (to I think you know who) :)) With regard to your suggestion, I think it is a good idea to stick to historical facts wherever possible — although these are often manipulated — as I'm sure you're aware ;) Can you think of an alternative for the Greek nationalist position — or better, a more amenable way of wording it? Part of the reason I chose the naming dispute is because uniformly Greeks I have met (with the exception of certain anti-nationalist Greeks) are opposed to the name "Republic of Macedonia" and yet to me (and the anti-nationalists) it seems a common sense example of self-determination/self-identification (although we've been through this and it probably isn't worth arguing here). So, other options for Greece? - FrancisTyers 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, why don't you try "Republic of Macedonia" deserves including the term "Macedonia" in its permanent name. It doesn't necessarily exclude being the only one, plus I am sure that 2 million people protesting in the streets of Salonica for not including the name at all, can be considered as a sizable nationalistic crowd! The Greek anti-nationalists you mention are generally quite the contrary: They are mainly leftists who were oppressed during the Greek civil war and had seen their Slav supporters being exchanged with other countries so as to ...freely enjoy the bliss of communism (you know I am not supporting that tactic). I was always curious how people may prefer political views over national interest, but I am sure that both of those ideals require fanatism. Your wording now seems to replace one sort of fanatism (political views) for another (nationalism). I propose we choose to abolish both with my wording.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I saw your suggestion of using the naming dispute for both sides and unfortunately I can't take that angle. I'm not going to put up anything that opposes either self-determination, self-identification, or freedom of movement. Possibly other things too, but I haven't thought of them yet. - FrancisTyers 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about the right to call others as you please (self-other-identification [sic])! This logic would automatically characterise all people as nationalists for not calling Deutschen as Deutschen! Italians would be nationalists for calling them Tedeschi, French for calling them Allemands, and English for calling them Germans! I am quite certain that just the hard-core of the nationalistic elite of ethnic "Macedonians" pretends to be offended by disambiguating terms like Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs, as I have many contacts with the country, which I have visited dozens of times. I am sure you do not consider the content of Britannica, or CNN (or,or,or) to be of nationalistic nature when it calls them the same for disambiguating purposes. I am also sure that there are many non-Greek users here (or people outside) that would favor such an option.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply... You are quite welcome to call them what you like, "Skopjans", "Slavobulgars", "non-Macedonian Slavic Macedonian Slav minority"... whatever you like :) The problem for me doesn't come there, it comes with attempting to encourage other people to reject their self-identifying name. An analogy may be made with racial hatred. To be a racist is necessarily a bad thing, encouraging and attempting to persuade others to be racists is severeal orders of magnitude worse. - FrancisTyers 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just have to wait for the slow reply then... You seem really confused (or I just can't get your loose parallel). First you ask for a proposed wording, then you give a reply that shows you either consider third party users that happen to have the same opinion "recruited naives" or "Greek nationalists". It is another thing to "encourage and attempt to persuade" people (for racism???) and another to "stand on your opinion and defend it, while respecting other's opinions, and being slandered as a nationalist, for just wanting to disambiguate, while maintaining the term that annoys most hot-headed nationalists of your side, which borders you with treason". I made a proposal, will you answer or shall we continue philosophising eternally?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia is disambiguating and you know that. You know, thinking about it, I will remove the should, I think that the "is" is sufficient to get most nationalists, the kind that will go "Oh no it isn't, the real name is fYROM" etc. How is that? - FrancisTyers 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! So the short form would be "RepMac" and the people called "RepMacs", I suspect... You know I disagree with your reasoning but let us not repeat ourselves. I'll accept your proposal, though, since I am not a WP:DICK, and since 2/3ds or so of the world countries allow you to make that exaggeration. Oh, and by the way, that "should" ommission would exclude me from the "most nationalists" list! (as I said before)...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)