cultures generally don’t declare war, but leaderships of countries do.

Yeah, that’s what I meant. In the context of discrimination though you tend to speak of them in terms of cultures.

Verbal technicality in this case since the topic is discrimination. When someone from a nation is treated a certain way, often they’ll speak in terms of culture instead of nation and it catches on in these conversations.

I mean if someone felt dysphoria about their nation but couldn’t escape it that would be one thing, but that’s not even the biggest concern, as you have people further up the scale who will stand by their homeland or former homeland for whatever reason in a nepotistic sense, and in a world where people often boast and judge over one’s national or heritage background, there is apparently growing discussion over whether the fact someone’s realm of origin pushed the big red button is a cue that national sphere can be looked down upon.

Even in hindsight, I wasn’t sure whether to say “countries” or “cultures” in this context. I know people who take their heritage very, very seriously, they might hire people because “they’re Italian like me” or order food because “it’s an Italian food” and so on, it’s a kind of nepotism for the history of one’s heritage that exists on a scale. While I do not necessarily agree with the question in the OP word-for-word (so many of the people here making assumptions can calm down, I simply see it discussed), I am worried, for example, about maybe Russia using nuclear power and wiping out a city or two and going above and beyond and then me having to work for someone from there who is “all for the motherland” and is exactly as I describe in my first sentence but pertaining to Russia, someone who will go so far as to favor something just for the upbringing connection. When people have their national upbringing challenged in society, they do often speak of it in terms of culture instead of nationality, especially if it’s a heritage thing.

That would imply nuking people is “a Jewish thing”. Do we really want to go there?

There’s a difference between being against a group for trivial and/or subjective things and being against active participants in a player on a world stage that we can now say is the reason another player on the world stage no longer exists.

And I already mentioned (several times, unless one trusts their biases so much they won’t take my word for my own opinions) I wasn’t implying myself in the OP except to say it irks my misanthropic side and I might express that some other way.

Slightly neutral, lean towards a much less severe response but still keeping one’s eyes open. I am a second-hand witness to this debate, I am seeing it a lot though because nuking a territory is seen as an act of escalation/consequentialism that puts a nation’s misdeeds and status amongst other peoples on a whole other level in a world where all peoples are supposed to be equal, and people have been saying “wait, if [insert government here] is going to go THAT far and go above and beyond what others are going to do and be so indiscriminate as to wipe cities off the face of the Earth, can we be indiscriminate too and treat anyone from there as anathema and a form of pressure as long as cancel culture is acceptable”.

I remember in school one of our history lessons we had to write an essay about was the US almost nuking Vietnam/Korea in their respective wars (can’t remember which one, sources even differ) and Americans being so upset that close to a million protestors camped outside the White House, ready to storm it. You know, back when storming the white house was considered a big deal.

I’ve clarified a few times here, it’s not a stance I have, just one I’ve seen and saw as tempting enough to ask about. Their logic goes, if A) nuclear assault is a step above normal warfare, and B) normally all countries/ethnicities/cultures are equal and not below one another on the basis that that we all have equal potential both good and bad, and C) we live in a world that found a way to justify witch hunts, the red scare, and cancel culture, then D) a country that does engage in nuclear strikes would (according to the logic) mark a civilization as being humanly lower than other peoples and thus it wouldn’t be unfair to have a cancellation-or-red-scare-style approach to it and use it as a force of consequentialism against the nation in question having engaged in nuclear assault in order to bring a downpour of shame upon the nation that carried it out.

My problem with it is exactly what yours is, though I don’t disagree with doing something about those directly connected to the act.

I did mention there were three such political spheres that were relevant, though a number of places over there in the Middle East one of them. The one on everyone’s mind though right now is the East Asian bloc.

deleted by creator

I’m not a Russian puppet. I pride myself in being one of the first supporters of Ukraine for this very reason (and hardcore too). Still do.

I can relate to that type of sentiment.