IndieAgora

Do you believe there are visible distinctions between

[*] Politics
[*] Diplomacy
[*] Governance
[*] Policing
[*] Nationalism
[*] Patriotism

I see Politics, policing and nationalism as derogatory and are often confused or are submitted as superseding terms for diplomacy, governance and patriotism.

There are distinctions between politics, diplomacy, governance, policing, nationalism, and patriotism, but they often blur because they operate in overlapping spaces of power and identity. Politics is concerned with acquiring and competing for influence, often involving partisanship, manipulation, and self-interest, which is why it frequently carries a negative connotation. Diplomacy, by contrast, is about negotiation and coexistence, maintaining relationships and resolving conflicts through dialogue rather than domination. When diplomacy becomes a tool of political performance, the two can appear indistinguishable, but at their core, one seeks compromise while the other seeks advantage.

Governance focuses on structuring collective life, creating frameworks, policies, and institutions to sustain stability and fairness. Ideally, it is participatory, grounded in consultation and mutual agreement. Policing, however, is enforcement — the application of force or authority to maintain order. It becomes problematic when it substitutes for governance rather than serving it, reducing society to a system of compulsion rather than collaboration. In rhetoric, law and order are often portrayed as governance itself, erasing the distinction between making rules and enforcing them.

Patriotism is an expression of care and belonging, rooted in love for one’s culture, community, and shared history. It asks how to help a people or place flourish. Nationalism, on the other hand, defines identity through exclusion and opposition, constructing a sense of “us” by creating a “them.” It tends toward aggression and superiority, seeking to prove dominance rather than nurture belonging. Political actors often deliberately conflate the two, framing criticism of government policy as unpatriotic in order to control narratives and mobilize support.

Seen together, these pairs reflect two paradigms of power. One is coercive, rooted in control, enforcement, and exclusion — politics, policing, nationalism. The other is cooperative, concerned with negotiation, participation, and shared identity — diplomacy, governance, patriotism. The confusion arises because systems that rely on coercion frequently justify themselves using the language of cooperation. They invoke patriotism to mask nationalism, call enforcement governance, and present political maneuvering as diplomacy. It is precisely in this collapsing of terms that cynicism and mistrust grow.

The distinctions between politics, diplomacy, governance, policing, nationalism, and patriotism are not as clean as they first appear. Treating politics as manipulative while elevating diplomacy, or seeing policing as coercive while idealizing governance, imposes a false binary between “bad power” and “good power.” In reality, these forces are entangled and inseparable — each one depends on and transforms into the other depending on context.

Politics, for instance, cannot be reduced to factionalism or self-interest. It is the negotiation of collective priorities within conditions of limited resources and conflicting values. Even the most refined diplomacy operates within political constraints, leveraging influence, alliances, and strategic performance. A diplomatic gesture is often a calculated act of political power rather than a separate, purer alternative. To draw a hard line between the two risks misunderstanding diplomacy as somehow free from manipulation, when in truth it is politics conducted with a softer aesthetic.

Similarly, governance and policing are not distinct categories but two expressions of the same authority. Laws, policies, and frameworks have no force unless they are backed by mechanisms of enforcement. Even in the most democratic systems, governance assumes the capacity to compel compliance when persuasion fails. To idealize governance as cooperative while vilifying policing ignores the fact that every governance structure, at its root, contains an implicit or explicit threat of force. Enforcement is not a failure of governance but its necessary shadow.

The supposed opposition between patriotism and nationalism is also unstable. Patriotism often begins as affection for one’s place and people but easily slides into exclusionary nationalism when confronted with perceived threats. Conversely, nationalist movements frequently present themselves as patriotic — defenders of heritage, culture, and collective dignity. There is no clear line between pride and supremacy; the difference is not ontological but rhetorical, depending largely on who frames the narrative and how power is exercised.

What looks like two paradigms of power — coercive versus cooperative — may in fact be one continuum. Diplomacy can be coercive through economic leverage or veiled threats; policing can be participatory when communities shape enforcement priorities; nationalism can unify across borders in resistance to imperialism; patriotism can justify wars. Rather than existing in moral hierarchies, these concepts morph into one another based on circumstance. Treating one side as virtuous and the other as corrupt obscures how deeply they are interdependent.

If power always contains both negotiation and enforcement, persuasion and compulsion, belonging and exclusion, then the distinctions we draw between these terms are not ontological truths but strategic framings. Politics can masquerade as diplomacy, policing can disguise itself as governance, and nationalism can cloak itself in patriotism — but so too can diplomacy, governance, and patriotism carry the seeds of manipulation, coercion, and supremacy within them. The boundary between these forces is not fixed; it is porous, shifting with the flows of power.

Maybe this isn't the right place for this, but this is how you walk in relation to:

[*] Politics
[*] Diplomacy
[*] Governance
[*] Policing
[*] Nationalism
[*] Patriotism



Somehow, some people, end up walking like that, whenever any of those words are in action.



Two times at least, there have been cartoons showing some type of automaton being used to control people through sexual interest in the female looking android.



The people should see what "unlimited power executed with impunity" does to ordinary dad-bods.



For a person with claustrophobia, they should want to dismantle whatever this is and whatever is leading to it.

One of the things people are complaining about is that there isn't enough protection for people from dangerous criminals.

This guy killed a father of four and weirdly seems to also look like him and potentially have his tattoos imitated:

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/VEJw3GwX

There is an obsession with power in this story, and also a bit creepy is that the elderly mother figure is covered in tattoos like her son was, but the most recent partner isn't covered in tattoos.

The two guys looked so similar, plus a tattoo over the eyebrow.

The "teardrop" tattoos were mentioned in the article and are indicative of kills, and 7 years for a murder, and just having basically total freedom and filming videos leveling up at a gym does seem crazy.



There might be a sick plot behind such things to make people clamor for protection by the real mafia.

https://npf-fpn.com/the_locker/why-are- ... o-quickly/

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/column ... s-reoffend

Creating problems to justify all these measures to spy on citizens and people in the country.

Added in 1 hour 53 minutes 12 seconds:


Added in 6 days 23 hours 38 minutes 50 seconds:

Yep they are all different

Politics: Exchange of ideas regarding governance.

Diplomacy: Peaceful exchange between cultures/ethnicity/governments/groups

Governance: Seen as a social contract in most western democracies, from theoreticians like John Locke and Jean-Jaques Rousseau.

Policing: Usually an authority that keeps law and order, even if that order is unjust. HOWEVER, they may be a social service to people in my opinion (Rather than operating under some presumption patriotism).

Nationalism and Patriotism: Are the same thing, the belief that people serve their country, rather than their country serve them.

Essentially I believe that the government should serve the people, not the other way around. It is a SOCIAL SERVICE

I agree, that if there is going to be anything like a government, it should wholly be for serving the people and beautifying everything, not limiting anything except for hazardous things that are toxic for everyone and stuff like that, mainly should never be seen or heard of at all, not interfering with anything, unable to enrich themselves, not creating red tape and catch 22 situations, not tying people up, not bossing anyone around, a 0 power job like a janitor, they should, if they are to exist, only to function to protect people's freedom to do as they please mainly, to stay out of each other's business, to never see or deal with problems, so everything is dealt with smoothly. Every person should have everything, ideally for free, whenever they want, accessible, free internet, services, water, food, light, shelter, space, natural land, people should not be forced to be crammed together, now they should be able to do as they please, remotely, ideally no money or limitations or resource exploitation from humans but if there must be then to be able to do whatever in as much comfort and peace as possible and to get as much of the profit and benefit from their labor for themselves rather than the majority going to a do-nothing rich boss exploiting people. A world with ample food, no bullies, no restrictions, no interference, nothing except if anything help, free medicine and satisfactory healthcare and accurate health knowledge, ideally everyone should be able to train as much as possible in any field for free so that doctors and experts who can verify their information are everywhere and not a limited group that huge numbers of ignorant people depend on if they are trouble, that help is always easily available and a culture that strictly endorses universal friendliness and helpfulness and caring without being invasive. Children should be protected and all vulnerable beings, but also treated woth a lot of rights and protections so that imposing things is not the cultural norm, but people are protected from a lot of forcing as a cultural norm in many cases. All the best features from all cultures should be adopted and encouraged, but personally I am not fond of any governments, even pseudo-governments or close knit familial ties or governance in that way, just as much leaving everyone alone for the most part as possible so that I am likewise mainly left alone, left to my own thoughts and practices, and most communal things which start getting power dynamics involved should be avoided, so that religions are individualistic mainly as a cultural thing, no matter ehat they may be. People gatekeeping and trying to enforce dogmas, sometimes groups I favor may be in power, sometimes not, and that is unstable, whereas if everyone is left alone and these things are kept private mostly too, then there would hopefully be less issues.

Even though I want everyone to back off and keep away from ruling over anyone else, I would like the culture to promote decency of pretty old standards, chivalry in the most kind form possible, nobility. As much as I like freedom, I also don't like obnoxiousness, pushing boundaries, different kinds of manipulation, people acting rude or inconsiderate like putting their dirty shoes on places people are going to sit later, littering, just being bastards in various annoying ways that most people dislike and don't want. I also don't like people being too weird, scaring others, being unpredictable or seeming like they might do something wild or dangerous at any moment.

I hate illness, drugs, things that make people fall down or clearly makes them less able to function. I also believe in strong ethics and reciprocation, like fidelity in deals or social contracts or relationships and not going behind backs or cheating or playing dirty games and all that basic stuff that I think even animals may have versions of not liking and feel distressed by.

So much seems to be headed towards increasingly the opposite of what I want, where the politicians and rich people are acting like overlords and also trying to bother with all kinds of private matters that are none of their business.

I was out today and it seemed to me like religious fanaticism is replaced with many people by political fanaticism and relying on heroes and saviors again, and the whole thing is not to my taste. I liked my childhood and that I never knew or heard anything about politics or politicians and things just seemed to be set a certain way, people could get things and there was an expectation that one could attain things like a house eventually. Right now, they are making the conditions almost like the French Revolution with how people have nothing to look forward to.

Everywhere and in anything, I mainly want to be ignored, so I don't do anything that gets me much attention, particularly negative attention, and for the most part I feel sufficiently ignored and only pleasantly interacted with, if ever. I never want anyone to ask me anything or ask anything of me in public, I never want to be bothered, I never want to be interfered with, I want to enjoy everything I see and do, I want everyone happy, I want everything available, easy to reach, at the convenience of all, no rushing, no pushing, no running, no scarcity, no emergency, just maximum peace, and never to see problems. While I was out, there were constant ambulances, and firetrucks, and then on the bus back I saw everywhere I had been traveling and visiting there were ambulances and firetrucks, like I had just missed a bunch of stuff that occurred immediately after I had left or something lol, there was total chaos everywhere, but I had a peaceful time doing my own thing and mainly not seeing any police or bad behavior and the people in this area I was in seemed even better than those in the area where I live and other places I often might go to. I also hate feeling uncomfortable in any interactions, like fearing aboit my being frank or honest or open about things because it might activate someone or be overheard, but mainly I never talk about or even think about any of that stuff and I want it that all such things are incredibly far from me, and I just amuse myself with looking at pretty colors like how the trees are changing color here and breathing fresh air or interesting drawings in a book store. Sometimes even people with certain hairstyles and fashion styles make me very slightly uptight or nervous, like if they were to ever get on my case about anything, so I try to avoid getting any attention from such people. Like modern young people who seem extravagant or creepy in various ways really disturb me, people who look very internet connected or influenced, which is a lot more than there had been in the past.

I just smile and maintain a friendly demeanor and like I'm distracted or busy, but I want no one to even look my way with any questions, and especially not to hear from any authority figures, like even workers in an establishment like a grocery store or anything. I'll do whatever they request most likely but I just don't want to hear it or to get into any trouble, or be reprimanded or corrected in any way. Like I was eating a pizza in the grocery store, the pizza was from another place that had closed so I couldn't sit there, so I bought some juice at the grocery store in case anyone might bother me, that I'd have some extra buffering and justification, but I was glad no one even came around or saw me or bothered except some hungry older men glanced over very briefly, which was fine, they were not threats like a manager type or security might be, but when those people eventually passed by me they seemed to totally not even glance over which I appreciated a lot. I'd even be invisible if I could, as long as I could be visible when I please, and I'd even live invisibly in a huge space no one can ever see, and I mainly do that in a small place with all the curtains closed and dreading ever hearing from the building management for anything, but they seem to not bother either so far, which is nice. I dread having to communicate to them to fix things and avoid any fixes that have to be done in my apartment because I'd need to clean a lot again and I feel not that able to do so much work, especially on short notice, though I'd be forced to, like I was repeatedly all throughout last year while they were trying to sell the building. These things are like little micro-governments, which is why I bring them up. I'd prefer just owning a property, ideally never paying constant bills on it, but otherwise mainly just doing the bare minimum, having as little on my mind as possible or things to remember to do, and just pursuing my interests in a vacuum, unperturbed by anything. My natural state is angst free, total equilibrium, peace, happiness, pleasure, automatically, serene joy constantly, until I see people, like the ugly faces and hateful sounding irritating voices of nerds on YouTube or hearing about evil governments and corporations and criminals all being unjust and no justice being done regarding them, and this all infuriates me and disrupts my mood and fills me with bad feelings, until I think about other things and avoid seeing any of that, but it always seems to be things impeding me, outside of me, or hurting me, like causing me anxiety or physical pain, that disrupts my naturally happy and serene mood. So if all the governments just f*ck off and I have everything provided to me easily and I am healthy and not in pain and not in fear and not deprived, I will be very happy and just laughing through my day like I'm in heaven. If a government is to exist, they should only exist to make life like heaven for everyone as much as possible, to keep everyone happy. They have stole more than enough money to make that a reality right now and very quickly in every country, but instead these maniacal f*ckers don't seem to want to do that, ever,and for that reason I think they should be nowhere near any management, administration, or authority, and that the world would be a better place each time and as soon as any one of them isn't bothering people anymore. That goes for corporations making bad things, bosses, managers, bullies, crybullies, karens, whatever the male ones are called.