|
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. |
@IgnE: to be a martyr in showing the world the cake was poisoned.
|
On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on.
The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does.
on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers
Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice!
|
On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. Show nested quote +on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice!
Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant?
|
On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant?
How would you summarize his argument?
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement.
If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard).
If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge.
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history.
I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East.
|
On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge.
The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority.
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority.
I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys".
|
On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East.
You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent.
|
On December 05 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant? How would you summarize his argument?
That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion.
On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent.
It's not "slick anti-whiteness" it's simply a statement of historical fact.
|
On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys".
Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate.
|
On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. Show nested quote +on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice!
I'm sorry but people really do get your arguments, and aren't impressed. You really aren't nearly as smart as you believe you are, not by a fraction. And the people you disagree with are not nearly as dumb as you think you are. Perhaps if someone is "misunderstanding" your argument, or "misrepresenting" it, it is because you are not nearly as good at writing or expressing your argument as you believe you are? Has that ever crossed your mind, or do you first presume that everyone who disagrees with you is dumb?
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent.
?
What anti-white sentiment? I am white for fucks sake. Hell, I'm also pretty proud of my own heritage which, when you get right down to it, is being the best at profiting from all of that shit. That takes a special kind of doublethink that only the vaguely nationalistic can achieve. Sure, we fucked shit up, but we fucked shit up on a whole new level of fucking shit up.
If it makes you feel better I think the skin colour was completely incidental to all the shit that went down. I don't think white people are naturally better at genocide or imperialism than other people. It's just the folks with the guns and the smallpox happened to be white, give a bunch of guns and smallpox to a different civilization and you'll get the same result.
|
On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant? How would you summarize his argument? That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent. It's not "slick anti-whiteness" it's simply a statement of historical fact.
Yea I'm sure you'd say the same thing if I pointed out negatively correlated facts with minorities. It is slick anti whiteness. It's hip these days to be anti white
|
On December 05 2017 13:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant? How would you summarize his argument? That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent. It's not "slick anti-whiteness" it's simply a statement of historical fact. Yea I'm sure you'd say the same thing if I pointed out negatively correlated facts with minorities. It is slick anti whiteness. It's hip these days to be anti white
History does show that whites have done well by repressing other minority groups. For whites to win, others must lose.
|
Because sometimes, you've gotta actively support pedophiles.
|
United States43539 Posts
On December 05 2017 13:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant? How would you summarize his argument? That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent. It's not "slick anti-whiteness" it's simply a statement of historical fact. Yea I'm sure you'd say the same thing if I pointed out negatively correlated facts with minorities. It is slick anti whiteness. It's hip these days to be anti white
Or, alternatively, being casually deprecating about your own culture is contextually very different to talking shit about someone else's. Learn about nuance.
|
On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate.
The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture."
|
On December 05 2017 13:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:12 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for.
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! Could you also do us the favor of telling Danglars his argument that this is about religious freedom is at least comparably ignorant? How would you summarize his argument? That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. On December 05 2017 12:52 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 10:13 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations? Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history. I mean basically anywhere white guys went in the last 500 years ended badly for the people there before the white guys. Canada, South America, Africa, Australia, India, China, the Middle East. You're so slick with your anti white sentiment. It's popular these days. Call it whatever you want, reverse bigotry, benevolent bigotry, or just plain bigotry. Shit exists on both sides and it's hilarious to see play out. If you were willing to trivially point out some negative correlations of non white folk, you would actually be consistent. It's not "slick anti-whiteness" it's simply a statement of historical fact. Yea I'm sure you'd say the same thing if I pointed out negatively correlated facts with minorities. It is slick anti whiteness. It's hip these days to be anti white Or, alternatively, being casually deprecating about your own culture is contextually very different to talking shit about someone else's. Learn about nuance.
Nice cop out, your friends were very quick to defend your casual deprecation
|
On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture."
I'm fully aware of where my culture and values came from. I'm just not naive, arrogant or foolish enough to believe they are superior to the point of dominance must be obtained. Or that other cultures do not share similar values. I don't subscribe to your myopic views and redressed jingoism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
