|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality.
I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation.
|
On August 17 2017 12:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:38 geript wrote:On August 17 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:
He didn't call the mayor after a terrorist attack. When a Muslim attacked people with a knife, Trump flew out to see the family. This is bullshit though. Like I don't expect orangeface to a normal politician. I don't expect him to reach out to someone who wasn't in any way harmed by the incited nazi violence in his city. Like if we're going to condemn Trump, let's do it for good reasons: like promoting racism, destroying the environment, blaming his lack of support staff on congress when congress can't even deny nominations that haven't been put forth, etc. You have very low standards for the leader of your nation. Presidents call mayors after terrorist attacks to talk about what they need. It is the job.
No I actually don't. It's just that of the things to call Trump unpresidential, this isn't very high up on the list at all. The problem is that there are a million reasons for Trump to not ever be president; but there are big potato issues and small potato issues. Is it the job to reach out to the mayor/family/etc. who are victims of notable attacks? Yes. He's also done more than some presidents in seeing/reaching out to families (thought being honest, that's mostly for his benefit not theirs). Big picture: it's the garnish on a plate of food; sure the food might look a bit better with it there. But it not being there doesn't ruin the plate of food; it's the using rotten meat, turned wine, and mushy fruit/veg that makes it bad.
|
On August 17 2017 12:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
Destroy the plurality and diversity that has shaped our history to protect nothing. As a fifth generation white Christian, people like Vox are the antithesis of America values. And do no accuse me of not understanding the simplistic writings of Vox fucking day. I understood them in 2014 and understand them now. It is just the repacking white first dogma that has plagued this country since its inception. The sad part is that people think this is original. But then again, our public education system has been criminally neglected for decades. No one is going to presume that you understand Vox Day's writings when your posts continuously show that you don't. This latest post of your is no different.
You are just mad because you didn't notice the language from white supremacy 101 was at the core of his writing. Which is weird because it was featured in a lot of lazily written 90s TV shows and movies.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation.
Just to be clear, you're saying that a white ethnostate is an ideal outcome but you're willing to accept more moderate solutions that work towards that ideal?
|
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration?
|
On August 17 2017 12:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. Just to be clear, you're saying that a white ethnostate is an ideal outcome but you're willing to accept more moderate solutions that work towards that ideal?
Here's a perfect example of why I rarely bother responding to Kwark anymore. Despite everything that I've written over the past several days -- hell, even in the big post that I made where I clearly delineated my thoughts on the matter -- here he is actively trying to pin Nazism on me. Bad faith argument in action.
|
On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality.
Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.
The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US.
|
On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation.
And I can agree with accepting your position as valid and debate in good faith on that. But you won't get good faith out of anyone until you disavow nazies and white supremacists. They don't compromise they don't want assimilation and they don't want good faith arguments.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:57 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 12:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. I look at it as the expression of an ideal in which a problem is identified, and an optimal solution is offered. Even though we may never reach the ideal, I do think that ideal can provide useful guidance for real policy to help mitigate the problem. For example, while the ideal may be to stop immigration altogether, the real policy would be to bring in immigrants who are most likely to assimilate culturally and then actively assist in the assimilation. Just to be clear, you're saying that a white ethnostate is an ideal outcome but you're willing to accept more moderate solutions that work towards that ideal? Here's a perfect example of why I rarely bother responding to Kwark anymore. Despite everything that I've written over the past several days -- hell, even in the big post that I made where I clearly delineated my thoughts on the matter -- here he is actively trying to pin Nazism on me. Bad faith argument in action.
So when you said that a desire for a white ethnostate was an expression of an ideal, what did you mean by that?
Really. Please respond to me here. It's in your interest to clarify what you meant.
|
On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration?
If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions.
|
On August 17 2017 12:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
Destroy the plurality and diversity that has shaped our history to protect nothing. As a fifth generation white Christian, people like Vox are the antithesis of America values. And do no accuse me of not understanding the simplistic writings of Vox fucking day. I understood them in 2014 and understand them now. It is just the repacking white first dogma that has plagued this country since its inception. The sad part is that people think this is original. But then again, our public education system has been criminally neglected for decades. No one is going to presume that you understand Vox Day's writings when your posts continuously show that you don't. This latest post of your is no different.
Label me "No one" and ship me to the Moon, I guess.
I agree with some provisos that if one takes the statements of Vox Day about these points at literal face value as you have done that they don't necessarily indicate a white supremacist agenda or whatever. I disagree with you that taking those statements at literal face value is a useful or accurate analysis of what his views are. As most anybody else would do, his statements are cast in such a way as to put him in the best and most tactically convenient light.
|
United States41989 Posts
On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions.
This time around you say "if", as if you're addressing this in purely hypothetical terms and not speaking at all about your own beliefs. Please clarify. Do you think the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity?On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:
Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity.
that'll do
|
On August 17 2017 13:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:59 Plansix wrote:
I'm still stuck on the part where stopping all immigration is ideal. How can you claim to care about American culture and want to stop all immigration? If the problem is maintaining cultural homogeneity, part of an ideal solution would be to stop all immigration so as to best preserve the culture without importing outside influences (again presuming that cultural homogeneity is the only objective). However, this is impractical for obvious reasons, hence the need to look at more realistic solutions.
This assumes the culture is under assault, which it isn't. There is no reason to take this action. My white cultural heritage is not at risk.
|
On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US.
Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it.
|
Cultural homogeneity is A) Impossible in today's globally connected world unless you go full North Korea B) Is moot because the US is already really diverse C) Cultural homogeneity has many weaknesses in of itself.
|
On August 17 2017 13:06 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
Destroy the plurality and diversity that has shaped our history to protect nothing. As a fifth generation white Christian, people like Vox are the antithesis of America values. And do no accuse me of not understanding the simplistic writings of Vox fucking day. I understood them in 2014 and understand them now. It is just the repacking white first dogma that has plagued this country since its inception. The sad part is that people think this is original. But then again, our public education system has been criminally neglected for decades. No one is going to presume that you understand Vox Day's writings when your posts continuously show that you don't. This latest post of your is no different. Label me "No one" and ship me to the Moon, I guess. I agree with some provisos that if one takes the statements of Vox Day about these points at literal face value as you have done that they don't necessarily indicate a white supremacist agenda or whatever. I disagree with you that taking those statements at literal face value is a useful or accurate analysis of what his views are. As most anybody else would do, his statements are cast in such a way as to put him in the best and most tactically convenient light.
Racists these days have caught on, and realize that it's a terrible idea to spell out your racism for everyone to see.
Then again, I recall people arguing that Trump was innocently hoping Comey would look past his shit.
|
On August 17 2017 13:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US. Wegandi is pretty much expressing my root concern over lack of sufficient cultural homogeneity. Nations break apart when people cease identifying with each other. I don't think that the US is of a prohibitively large size to preserve as a whole, but we do need to put some effort into it.
If you think that's the result of people with different skin colors bumping into each other, then you only have one stance on the matter.
|
I can't believe you look at the US today and think we are in some cultural crisis that merits this. Well I can, because I studied how toxic idoligies work and feed into pre existing biases. It is sort of terrifying to watch it happen in real time.
|
On August 17 2017 13:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I can understand your point (If I understand it correctly and congrats on what I think is an admirable attempt at defending something thats really hard to defend) I don't see how it works in reality and falls a lot under a kind of libertarian "well this is what we want but it doesn't really work in real life".
I don't see how it works on anything but a theoretical level and can be taken seriously past that level. There is no acceptable way to create ethostates or to create enough distance in order to remove war according to that logic. There never was and there never will be. The United states became a superpower because the European states tried to practice this by creating ethnostates and removing the people required to create these states and enough space between them to end war. What happened was that the wars continued regardless and the United States grew from their cast offs to become the worlds only super power.
There will always be cultural conflict. There will always be war. Until your political theory accepts this and adapts to this trait of evolution it will never survive in reality. Right, but Democracy and large nation states have created things such as Total War and World Wars. Having smaller polities means that wars tend to be regional conflicts which is much less damaging than our current state of affairs. Advocating for Nations the size of the US is one that will end in failure - our country is simply too large and too disparate politically to survive for say - as long as China, Rome, or let alone 400 years. It's only a matter of time until this "Union" is broken. It's cancerous and destroying society at the pace we're going. Hyper-polarization is a normal state of affairs when you try to bring all of the people and areas of the US into one central polity. Conflict and turmoil is the natural state of affairs. So when I hear complaints about the strife and conflict and state of politics and the same people turn around and beat chest about how we must keep the US as is and no one can ever leave, I roll my eyes. You want your cake and you want to eat it too. The answer to minimizing the damage of war and conflict is to advocate for smaller more homogeneous polities. There's much less conflict let's say in Japan politically, than there is here in the US.
Jesus Christ No. Technology has shrunk the distance between people to almost nothing. The Romans built roads to close the distance between people. The Dark ages was full of small regional conflicts with everything in Europe being small polities. We only have the good things we have today because of centralization. Thats the only thing that has shown positive results in every example in all of history. The United states Is built on having our cake and eating it too. We can be proud of our national accomplishments that are done from people we got from overseas. We can say we want to be free from britian and turn around in a few years and be the best of friends with them forever. England can have a monarchy and a democracy at the same time. Euope had less war when it was Just the 6-7 or so countries that mattered and they swallowed up everything smaller.
Furthermore you have no proof and no examples in all of history to point to supporting your position. You hate america and think it should die. Get behind me Satan.
|
So I typed a whole fucking boatload about that Vox Day thing xDaunt posted, but it occurs to me there's a fairly good chance people don't want me to drop a textwall about what racist bullshit it is on the thread right now. Should I just keep it to myself? Because it's absurd that xDaunt is holding that up as something of any intellectual integrity and doing his condescending Socratic method routine with a bunch of white supremacist (yes, I did read the second-to-last point, it's just bullshit) trash from some shitty ex-game dev. But I also recognize the thread might be better off to just move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
