(no subject)
so i was studying polisci and talking to arnab about girls at the same time and came up with a wonderful metaphor. i think it was something along the lines of national security = protecting ones emotional well being, respect for sovereignty = level of trust, getting attacked = getting cheated on/dumped. i think it really works. for example, you might say 'nick, what a cynical view of love'. but, on the other hand, you could easily say 'nick, what a cynical view of geopolitics.' what do i mean?
lets say hypothetically you get cheated on. this is an attack on your emotional well being, and you can either retaliate by dumping the person, or being a lot more restrictive and suspicious in the relationship. if you believe that someone will leave you or cheat on you, you can preemptively break up with them to protect your emotional health. a less extreme path would be to give them the cold shoulder for a week or so, cutting off communication or physical intimacy. if things are going well, you can foster a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with trust and communication as the foundation (marriage, shared bank accounts, talks.)
lets say hypothetically that your country gets attacked. this is a threat to your national security, and you can retaliate by counter-attacking or otherwise infringing their national sovereignty by spying on them. if you believe that another country is planning to attack you, you can preemptively attack them to protect your national security. a less extreme path would be to place an embargo on their country, cutting off diplomatic ties or foreign aid/trade. if things are going well, you can foster a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with trust and communcation as the foundation. (nafta, free trade, talks.)
i'm not sure how useful this is, or how original. phrases like 'alls fair in love and war' and songs like 'cold war' have explored this issue on a more superficial level. one might criticize my metaphor as being too male oriented and pragmatic. thankfully, this very criticism has been levied against modern political science by feminists. so my metaphor stands.
lets say hypothetically you get cheated on. this is an attack on your emotional well being, and you can either retaliate by dumping the person, or being a lot more restrictive and suspicious in the relationship. if you believe that someone will leave you or cheat on you, you can preemptively break up with them to protect your emotional health. a less extreme path would be to give them the cold shoulder for a week or so, cutting off communication or physical intimacy. if things are going well, you can foster a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with trust and communication as the foundation (marriage, shared bank accounts, talks.)
lets say hypothetically that your country gets attacked. this is a threat to your national security, and you can retaliate by counter-attacking or otherwise infringing their national sovereignty by spying on them. if you believe that another country is planning to attack you, you can preemptively attack them to protect your national security. a less extreme path would be to place an embargo on their country, cutting off diplomatic ties or foreign aid/trade. if things are going well, you can foster a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with trust and communcation as the foundation. (nafta, free trade, talks.)
i'm not sure how useful this is, or how original. phrases like 'alls fair in love and war' and songs like 'cold war' have explored this issue on a more superficial level. one might criticize my metaphor as being too male oriented and pragmatic. thankfully, this very criticism has been levied against modern political science by feminists. so my metaphor stands.