so. if you live in a town that can't or doesn't pay for fire service you might have moral rights against arson, but they won't be very effective. the first project is building a town government that is actually protective. 1/

internal mass violence by states is usually (not always, but much much more commonly than not) imposed in large part along "sectional" lines. an effective state requires a degree of integration, even assimilation, paradoxically even in order to accommodate and even celebrate group difference. 2/

in success cases, assimilation and accommodation are complements, not substitutes. 3/

however, when nationalists (that is the right term for what you advocate) seek to grant rights to nations independent of, orthogonal to, states, it becomes difficult for states to manage a project of integration. 4/

is it okay to insist that schools be taught in the state's official language, even if a minority community would prefer their kids taught in their own national tongue? or is that genocide? (calling that genocide was part of Russia's pretext for invading Ukraine.) 5/

in general, evidence is strong that when outside actors support national or group rights of minorities in other states, that increases risk of thr "exclusion" (a word encompassing everything from discrimination to ethnic cleansing to extermin8n). politicalscience.columbian.gwu.edu/politics-nat... 6/

the project of building and sustaining a civilized state is *hard*. but in practice, all rights derive from state. as Hannah Arendt put it, protection by an organized state amounts to "the right to have rights" at all. 7/

placing abstract, external constraints how on the project of state consolidation — forming an "artificial" nation that coincides to a great degree with the full diversity encompassed by the territory of a state — is prosecuted… 8/

with respect to the profoundly difficult problem of integrating (and then hopefully celebrating!) diverse identities (celebration happens only in very confident states) is counterproductive. 9/

but counterproductive is too anodyne a word. because the real life consequence is frequently horror and atrocity. 10/

Israel/Palestine is in practice a single territory on which two groups, neither of whom have formed a successful state that integrates all the residents of the territories, demand individual national rights. we have seen the results over decades. really blossoming now. /fin

one reason they have so many upscale social events with one another is they need to constantly remind themselves in the joyful light of fellowship that the things they are doing are *right goddammit*. 1/

if left in the clarity of solitude too long, without the solace of mutual boosterism, even many of them can't help but glance at the crumbling visage in an attic portrait. 2/

there are the true sociopaths, of course, who are immune. but they tend not to be good writers. their intellectuals have just enough sensitivity and capability to really need to be told all the time, in circumstances that shout out reward-for-virtue, that it's their conscience that is mistaken. /fin

i guess the claim, which i think is mostly accurate, is that no one has any capability of starving others' arguments of attention — or if anyone does, it's the fascists now. 1/

there's still the asymmetry that their claims are purely instrumental, they face no truth constraints, seek only propaganda effectiveness, will happily flood the zone with shit. it's still true that debating with a Gish Gallop is mostly counterproductive. 2/

but gatekeeping won't work, and they no longer require "us" to help bring their propaganda attention. the President of the United States is megaphone enough. 3/

it's not a happy story. it's a story of we'd-better-figure-something-out, because right now the so-called marketplace of ideas is about as competitive as, say, the search market. civilized ideas are basically duck-duck-go. /fin