Imagine needing to live your whole life in a safe space to avoid getting triggered by black skin...
Imagine needing to live your whole life in a safe space to avoid getting triggered by black skin...
It's enough to make a man want to take an automatic to the whole damned place.Originally Posted by xerxe
I once worked with this very educated guy who had Rush Limbaugh on his office radio all day long. He and I were working for a company that subcontracted to government agencies, and one day, the government guys who gave the company the work contract to the conservative guy showed up to check on the progress that he was making. One of them was black.
The guy couldn't even stand next to the black guy. It was so interesting to see. Especially since a lot of government contracts are given to people whom the guys dispensing the contracts like. I felt really sorry for the conservative guy. He was crippling his chances for future contracts.
*EDIT*
I should add that I actually like the conservative guy. He's very generous and supportive to people whom he sees as being in his "group", and defends his people against outgroup people. It's not entirely his fault that Capitalism has made the entire world into one group.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-13-2019 at 02:28 PM.
Yeah thanks to their trade being completely blocked, same as North Korea. Both their economies tanked at the precise time the Soviet Union collapsed, before then North Korea was actually a great deal actually richer then South Korea. Even in spite of the US embargo however Cuba today still maintains higher standards of living then other comparable capitalist countries in Latin America like Nicaragua and so forth.
Last edited by Muddy; 07-13-2019 at 02:22 PM.
Why do you keep eagerly equating isolation from further migrants, with deportation of already settled citizens by their ethnicity? Why do you assume that everyone who wants one also agrees with the other?
This is why people strawman the pro-migration camp as being "pro-completely open borders" when not all of them claim they are. You can't even contemplate the benefits of a country deciding to bear a little less of the burdens of the world without it being obviously motivated by petty racial aestheticism.
Because he likes to strawman and argue in bad faith? And because he himself is an ethnic with motivated reasoning?
I just saw this. You're a compulsive liar and factually illiterate. You latch on to facts in so far as they conform to your biases and have no business accusing other people of acting in bad faith. As for "ethnic," I'm not even sure what you classify as ethnic, but the fact that this is even on the table as a motivation is sufficient indicator of the sad, narrow prism of self-centeredness through which you judge your own and other people's actions.
Ah, sounds like a nerve has been struck.
I have had extensive contact with racists, and every single one of them has hated both immigrants and settled minorities; many are in my own extended family, giving me a thorough perspective into their reactions of contempt and consequent dehumanization of outgroups, sometimes going as far as comparing them to insects.
There are cogent arguments for limiting immigration: a rise in the population of first world countries obviously contributes to global warming; emigration hurts the countries of origin by stripping them of talented people. But racist don't give a shit about these arguments because their emotional need to avoid outgroups is always grounded in despicable elitism. Even the economic argument that immigrant-driven population growth takes away jobs, which is wrong but has reasonable elements, is almost always a bullshit cover for their real motivations. Consider the fact that racist governments almost never have a problem with native-driven population growth; most would even like to increase it.
The real upshot of living in a racist society is that the purity spiral never ends. The default attitude of elitism means that there is always someone else that's deemed inferior, someone else that needs to be trampled and made to know their place.
Last edited by xerx; 07-14-2019 at 03:13 AM.
Among the most cited theories for the rise of Western Europe is that conquest and consolidation was difficult due to geography, meaning that power was decentralized and shared among a large array of independent states. It was impossible for a king or prince to block technological change when a thinker could pack his bags and travel to the next principality only a few kilometers away.
The situation in the Muslim world and Asia was significantly different, where a small number of large, stable empires could wield enormous power to crush dissent and innovation.
In Europe, the fierce competition over territory drove the creation of advanced military technology. In the rest of the world, war was an art; in Europe it was a science.
All of this was happening long before the industrial age kicked off in Britain.
Last edited by xerx; 07-13-2019 at 08:11 PM.
I know no racist that would admit they're racist, obv. if immigration is an issue, it already talks about what you consider immigrants to be, not people, but issues (the poor ones, sure, because hey! rich world blond and perfumed immigrants are welcome!).
btw, I don't get why we should take war refugees only, as if the misery in which most African countries live were not our faults too, or as if we should divide people in class a and class b citizens, where people coming from poor countries to have a better life were class b and people coming from rich countries to have a better life were class a, lol. that's what racism is.
because hey, I hope you're not so naive to think that Americans and Europeans are not immigrants when they choose to go live abroad.
An immigrant is an immigrant last time I checked no matter where they come from. War refugees are coming because it is a life and death situation, economic migrants are coming to improve their life, it should be obvious which one has more importance in Europe.
Anyways, for my country of Canada where I live, I think we should take less immigrants no matter who they are and where they are from to avoid driving up the prices of housing and taking a toll on our infrastructure in our major cities.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
yey
National sovereignty is exercised by all states with even moderately decent economies, there's nothing uniquely Western or "racist" about that. Affluent civilizations are selective about the median annual income levels of immigrants precisely so that, in the process of assisting people from other nations, their own nation does not itself become a place worth leaving. Canada admits countless immigrants into our nation every year. Plenty live in my own immediate neighborhood. The kind of Africans that have middle class cars and large families. It's an economic qualifier, not a racial one. Since you're making this about "racism", quantitatively speaking, far more non-white immigrants benefit from immigration than not - America fills up with Latinos, and Britain and many European nations fill up with Islamic populations. I suppose there's no appreciation for the millions of former third-world individuals now living safer lives in Western nations? If all nations were to remove any and all prerequisites for immigration, within a few generations nations worth moving to may themselves gradually descend into places worth leaving. This would be a policy of gradual, steady impoverishment, retail scarcity and inflation, among many other factors. Violent crime (particularly sexual assault) has skyrocketed in a variety of Nations as a direct consequence of accelerated immigration. Nations have a variety of rational reasons for their discretion. Nations attempt to strike a sustainable balance of influx so their own lands maintain a high standard of living. This shouldn't even need to be explained, and who does anyone think they are to question the sovereignty of nations, or demand they adopt policies that could harm them? That is the discretion of the Nation in question. "This is all just white people being racist" is a worthless, false, reductionist conjecture.the only people for which immigration is an issue are racists tbh. and yeah, "only accept immigrants from Syria", as if that was the only country at war right now...but sure, if tomorrow morning a Canadian wanted to move to Paris without any idea about his future, we should let the doors open because obviously a Canadian is a class a citizen, while immigrants instead... bleh
I don't hear people demanding South Koreans take in waves of disadvantaged immigrants, it's always the West that gets called racist. This is a senseless double-standard, particularly when combined with the fact that no other region of the world takes in, assists, or extends welfare and social aid to more people than the West. "Class A" citizens come from a variety of races and cultures and are taken in annually to nearly every Western nation. Considering Canada has one of the highest annual median incomes on the planet and enjoys high standards of living and security, of course it is sensible that Canadians are often successful in their applications for immigration. You keep putting the cart ahead of the horse when this is largely a financial matter; you're the one insisting this is racial when the simple fact of the matter is that an income requirement being met by a White or non-White individual is no different, but many people do not meet these basic requirements. Naturally, no appreciation is shown for the enormous Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, or African populations presently in Western nations. America is nearly a minority-white Nation. At what point has, in this case America, done its fair share for the world? It seems there's no pleasing some people, and thus they should not be pleased.
Naturally, when people respond with consistent arguments, instead of response or consideration you stoop to this. Disgusting.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
Except when they need slave labors "economic migrants".
That's good. You colonize a bunch of countries and bring in slaves, and you kick them out when it's inconvenient. These people must feel so thankful for your grace and your privilege of being allowed to live in your master Western nation.
And why do you think there are so many Islamic migrants and Syrian refugees in the first place? Because of US's "War on Terror"! If anything you should be blaming the US for their disastrous foreign policies.
So it is about what's economically beneficial to the country. Don't pretend that it's about anything else. Immigrants are just as beneficial to the country as it is beneficial to the immigrants themselves. Yet at the same time you feel personally burdened, and feel that "it's not fair" that countries like South Korea are not taking their fair share of the burden.
Again, this is just "homogeneity envy", and countries like South Korea and Japan have plenty of social and economic problems of their own, which they will be facing more acutely later on when they have to face the reality of having an aging population with no immigrants. Basically, a slow and gradual death of their own nation and their own culture.
It's likely that countries like the US wouldn't have gotten to it's place now ("the most powerful country in the world"), and it wouldn't have been able to sustain its population without immigrants.
alright, @Raver, you wish for monoculturalism in the ex brit colonies and for uniethnicity in Europe and wherever else. just to give you a vague idea of how that makes no sense, I'll remind you that all these countries you're advocating some kind of racial unification for have built their history through mixed cultures and ethnicities.
what mono-culture mono-ethnicity mono-anything you're talking about? they're just naive ideals. in practice: impossible and damaging.
obviously immigration should respect the laws, but it shouldn't be restricted to anyone with the excuse to defend a chimerical identity, which exists just in virtue of all the compromises that different people from different traditions have achieved together. growth happens when different parties mingle and expand, why should we block this phenomenon?
immigration can be a great resource, especially now that EU countries are starting to face negative birth rates, so that the jobs of the youth won't cover for our parent's pensions and national debt. after all, economy has always been number one reason to emigrate anywhere, even within one's own country. to forbid these movements means to block any growth.
@Grendel, basically humanism is the soul of politics, it was invented in the first democracy that we know about, to grant the citizens rights and participation. and IDK what else to answer to your post, everything you said is unrelated to wtv I said, so yea, take all the chinese muslim you wish, and don't deport anyone, yeye.. I'm totally ok with that.
@Luminous Lynx, disgusting here is only your knowitall hysterical attitude. you project onto me and accuse me for claims I never made, and you're just talking to yourself, so acute... btw, I'm not expecting you get any of this since you can't even see that a "mfkcr" is someone who fcks their mom.
@Alonzo, I told you twice, the delusional hypocrite is you. now, what's stupid and pathetic is how you managed to misread a very corny joke. but I guess that's what happens when one's so used to shouting nasty insults like an angry 12 year old kid, maturity at the same level.
I don't think you understand the meaning of projection. In this context that would imply that I hold the very worldview I was addressing, which is absolutely not the case. Your response is considerably more irrelevant than my own, as I was addressing a broad array of context in order to substantiate why your original quoted remark was vapid and hollow. If you actually read my two paragraphs with the indication I was "hysterical" you're either willfully disingenuous for the sake of a convenient response, or you're not half as intelligent as your clearly think you are. The only projection between either of our posts is you calling me a "knowitall" when I've seen you embarrass yourself in response to others numerous times. I do in fact know a great deal, but that's hardly relevant to anything. I suppose you're too ignorant to bother reflecting on anything I actually contributed to the discussion, as you didn't address a single fucking point I made. When you tell people to "Educate" themselves I suppose you're not a "knowitall", and when you get utterly shown up you dismiss people. Yes, I'm aware of his username. You chose to respond to the very last sentence I left because you are either too lazy or lack the ability to address my actual argument. No matter. To be frank, I didn't make the post for you, I want this thread to get back on track and I want people to discuss ideas instead of bickering, so I'll take my own advice and bow out if this only serves to sap the thread of worthwhile discussion.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
@Luminous Lynx
I didn't reply to any of your "oh, so acute!" remarks because as I said, you projected stuff that YOU think I would think, just to take your shot at insulting me (as usual, lol) but it's stuff that I don't think, so... this is called projecting, just so you know.
hysterical is how you keep popping on my back to insult me and judge for stuff you know no shit about.
smarty pants starts bickering out of his own bs and complains the thread gets derailed in bickering. lol typical
Realistically, I don't even expect Europe to be fully comprised of ethnostates. It is too late for that. At best, some European countries will remain ethnostates (Italy, Hungary, Poland and Australia) and most will become multiethnic/multicultural and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Asia and Africa are the only continents that will likely be comprised of ethnostates anyways.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
there's no thing as ethnostate in Europe, especially not in Italy. in Africa and Australia, I guess the very same. what you wish for is just racist pure and simple... luckily the world doesn't turn like that
The world won't be comprised of ethnostates in the 1st world, it has already been decided. Ethnostates will likely remain only in the 3rd world, a few European countries, South Korea and Japan. I guess wanting Japan, China and other non-European countries to remain an ethnostate is racist despite having no ties to those countries. I look forward to seeing Japan prove how a 1st world ethnostate can work.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
@ooo, come now. It’s a terrible thing for the Celtic-Briton-Roman-Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Scandinavian-Norman population of England to become diluted by other ethnicities. It’s not like they literally conquered a quarter of the world; why can’t those pesky immigrants just leave them alone to continue their entirely homogenous race?
By the way, arguably humanism had its origins in the Eastern Roman/“Byzantine” Empire. Which was not a democracy in any sense of the word in any way at all.
what do you mean? I knew that humanism is a cultural current that developed in Italy during the XV century.. "man in the middle of the universe", it led to reinessence
So. Real simplified history. The renaissance was essentially a “rediscovery” of Greek (and to an extent Roman) culture. Why did this happen, you may ask? Why did the illiterate barbarians of Western Europe suddenly learn to read and create decent art and literature and architecture and civic planning and infrastructure again? Well —ignoring smaller Renaissances of a sort that happened throughout the Middle Ages, spawned variously through technological advancement, the Crusades, and the Reconquest in Iberia, which exposed the darkened, uneducated souls of Europe to Arabic culture and its preservation/translations of Greek texts — basically, in 1453 the nascent Ottoman Empire beat down the famed walls of Constantinople, using cannons for the first time in a large-scale siege, before quickly putting the remnants of the Βασιλεία ‘Ρωμαίων out of its protracted misery. Conquest always stirs people up, and so you had a ton of Greek speakers migrating to Italy (which is practically right next door). The Greeks sometimes brought interesting manuscripts/books with them, and so, one thing led to another and the Italians finally took interest in the charming handsome educated Greeks and also you know their history and culture and stuff and their beautiful accents, reminiscent of the sun-soaked waters of the Mediterranean.
But basically, the important bit is that humanism developed in the Byzantine Empire long before you really had an analogous movement in Italy or Western Europe. The development in sciences associated with the Renaissance was also really just a continuation of the developments and study that had been, and continued to be, pursued in the East.
@FreelancePoliceman the Greeks colonized Italy long before the Romans did, and the later Romans' culture was largely based on the Greek one. all through the middle ages (primacy of the Church) this influence continued, you can smell Plato (neo-platonism), Aristotle and the stoics in every work of religion, art, literature. the intellectual thinkers in the Roman empire have always spoken those "languages", and don't you dare saying that the middle ages had no enlightened artistic peaks.
btw, if the Greeks were the ones to promote what you define humanist values, we owe it to them for passing it along, not to the Ottomans. uh
Again, there were mini-Renaissances of a sort during the Middle Ages, and these were generally associated with leaps of artistic and scientific advances. But very generally speaking, the philosophical and intellectual climate you refer to had collapsed in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The population became largely rural, cities and infrastructure were destroyed or declined naturally with no one to live in/maintain them, and there weren’t as many institutions of learning besides the Church. As the Middle Ages advanced, this trend did begin to reverse at a *very* slow pace. But new ideas in art or science tended to be inspired by contact with the Muslim and Hellenic worlds, which in comparison were more literate, usually placed a greater emphasis on learning and, importantly, physical books, and tended to have noticably more developed architecture, infrastructure, cities, military planning, etc. (For instance, compare the Moorish architecture in Spain to Spanish architecture from the same period; the latter simply sucks in comparison.)
I think you misunderstood my post. The Byzantines developed humanism; the Ottomans just conquered them and caused a large number of Greek speakers to migrate to Italy.
It's easy to talk big about generosity and "being good" when you have no experience with the negative consequences of such attitudes taken to the extreme. I am, of course, talking from my perspective as a Swede with a working class background. The liberal middle class loves to talk about how great immigration is, yet they refuse to live in immigrant-packed areas for some reason.
I've been watching Bert Karlsson on his YT channel. He is constantly complaining about these things. He also invited some politicians to come and live in Bergsjön for 2 weeks to experience multiculturalism first hand. He is a funny guy. Lots of projects going on. I type him LIE.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Haha, my mother has received a scolding from him over the phone. She worked at one of his asylum accommodations but accidentally ordered too much food. So he called her and was very angry about this, as it meant extra expenses for him and his company.
it was decided? by whom? ethnostates are practically impossible because people have always moved and sought for things further than their nose, the history of mankind. what you aim for is to prohibit to people to travel, fall in love, build a future out of their country, for them and their peers, with anyone who's not a far cousin and shares the same genetics? if this is not racist i dont know what is.
and China Japan and NK are not ethnostates.
Like I told you already, I don't care about ethnostates because they won't happen in most of the 1st world, it has already been decided. All that can be done for most 1st world nations aside from the few that chose to remain ethnostates is reducing immigration as much as possible to encourage integration and keep infrastructure and welfare states from overloading. They are ethnostates including SK, they rarely accept immigrants and are homogeneous.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
you don't care but that's what you wish for, and I wonder why?
China Japan and Korea might all be highly exclusive, but for one reason or another they're not mono-ethnic, and are starting to open up more and more... that's what you do when you want to grow.
My true beliefs are revealed in what I want in my own country because I get to live in it and experience it in my life, which is multi-ethnic/mono-cultural with controlled immigration. Only time will tell if they do become inclusive or not. So far they are highly resistant to immigration. I understand ethnic is relative so you are defining it via tribal ethnicities means, which is not what I am talking about. I consider them mono-ethnic nations by my definition.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I understand that ethnicity can be a vague term, and you could use it to refer to the over1.5 billions people living in the same country, but just like in any African, European, American etc country you don't actually have the same ethnic/cultural group span everywhere, for how small that country can be... it can be possible, but very unlikely. I get that you want to close all the borders, I just wonder why. from what I understand you're placing economical reasons before of any humanitarian ones.
Yes, mono-ethnic nations are only going to happen in a few select 1st world nations that are actively trying to do it atm (Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, Italy and Australia) and I have accepted that. The rest of the 1st world nations that have chosen that route require strict controlled immigration and cultural assimilation via integration in an inevitable multi-ethnic society.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I don't know if you're confusing it with Austria, but Australia is already an multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country like Canada.
A lot of the countries in Asia and Africa are already multi-ethnic or multi-cultural.
Japan, South Korea and North Korea are a special case, because they've been heavily influenced by the "racial purity" ideology of the Empire of Japan, which was influenced by... Nazi Germany. They've basically copied their ideas from the Nazis. Before that, there were no concept of race or ethnicity or nations. People belonged to certain clans or fiefdoms or tribes, and they were loyal to them. So they needed something, a fictional idea to unite people to create the concept of a nation for the war efforts.
Most countries pretty much only accept highly-skilled immigrants. The US being one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period
During the Edo period, there were hardly a consciousness of "Japanese" among the people of Japan, they were mostly considered to be subjects of the regional feudal domains called the Han, and the people were loyal to their feudal lords.
During the era of Japanese modernization, most of them went to Germany to study abroad, and they were heavily influenced by Nazi Germany, as Nazism was influential then. When they returned home, they went onto influence the politics of Japan, which were Japanese ultranationalism and Japanese fascism.
On a related note, I think countries like Germany, Italy and Japan went with the path of ethnic nations, because historically they were so late to the game of state modernization. While countries like France, England and China already had the political systems in its place to modernize and unify the state without having to resort to the idea of ethnicity to unify its people.
Historians Hans Kohn, Liah Greenfeld, Philip White and others have classified nations such as Germany or Italy, where cultural unification preceded state unification, as ethnic nations or ethnic nationalities. However, "state-driven" national unifications, such as in France, England or China, are more likely to flourish in multiethnic societies, producing a traditional national heritage of civic nations, or territory-based nationalities.Germany had of course, completely rejected the idea of an ethnic nation after the defeat of Nazism. It's highly unlikely that any modern Western nation will ever go back to it. Especially for the countries that historically have had the process of state unification before cultural unification, I don't think that it's even in the political consciousness of those countries.The relation between racism and ethnic nationalism reached its height in the 20th century fascism and Nazism. The specific combination of "nation" ("people") and "state" expressed in such terms as the Völkische Staat and implemented in laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg laws made fascist states such as early Nazi Germany qualitatively different from non-fascist nation states. Minorities were not considered part of the people (Volk), and were consequently denied to have an authentic or legitimate role in such a state. In Germany, neither Jews nor the Roma were considered part of the people and were specifically targeted for persecution. German nationality law defined "German" on the basis of German ancestry, excluding all non-Germans from the people.
You guys really need to stop with this kind of weirdo revisionist projection. Tribal/ethnic/racial consciousness has always been a thing. The only ones who try to pretend otherwise are eunuchs of modernity, or people with ulterior agendas.
The point of ethnic consciousness is a strawman. The history of the Edo period itself goes to show that a general attitude of isolation from world affairs in Japan long predates their exposure to Third Reich ideas during the Meiji Restoration, and their modern attitudes are just as likely influenced by these long, deep-seated notions about their nation's role in the world, as they are by the following period, if not more.
Also, contrast the relative prosperity that the average peasant in the Edo period had under the isolationist social structure, than the typical plight of the peasant in most other periods of an east asian society.
Contrast that with the pressure under which the modern Japanese citizen lives, but also scale the relative standard of living with that of most developed countries in this same era. For the time and region, it's likely that the average citizen in the Edo period had it "good," and for the standard these days, in contrast to other developed countries around the world, the average Japanese citizen now has it rather "bad."
Given how relatively prosperous for its time the Tokogawa Shogunate's policy of isolationism made its country, we could take a lesson or two from their probable line of thinking. And at any rate, the modern incarnations of Japan and China are set to outlast our own civilization regardless.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
