User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 40

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Racism is not a final product or ideology. Racism was merely a means to an end. The United States cultivated the general public's suspicion of foreign invaders to dehumanize them and make the people see them as different creatures, which in turn would unite the people against anyone of another nationality and instill loyalty to the state. The early days of America were fueled by reckless paranoia and conquest.
    If that is the case, explain away why the state sees race/ethnic identity as a threat. Why does communism, the most statist ideology around, pushes for the marginalisation of both?

    Because ethnicity, like religion (another pet dislike of the political left) provides a sense of group identity independent of the state.

    And people of different races ARE different - if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be talking about race right now. I have posted about this before, more than once. It isn't my fault if people choose not to listen.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    If that is the case, explain how the state sees race/ethnic identity as a threat.
    If foreigners, which at the time were the only people of different race, mixed with the "native" white population, the old culture would begin to change and power and social status would begin to trickle down from the higher classes, in effect destroying the old social hierarchy. A government controlled by an oligarchy of elites would never want that to happen.



    Explain why communism, the most statist ideology around, pushes for the marginalisation of both?
    "Most statist?" Then can you explain why the majority of Anarchists happen to be Anarcho-Communists or Anarcho-Socialists, while Anarcho-Nationalists or even Anarcho-Capitalists are either extremely elusive or largely considered insane?



    Because ethnicity, like religion (another pet dislike of the political left) provides a sense of group identity independent of the state.
    All the more reason to oppose ethnicity. The people should not be united under a cause that does not provide a clear benefit, otherwise they may be more easily controlled.

  3. #13
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    If foreigners, which at the time were the only people of different race, mixed with the "native" white population, the old culture would begin to change and power and social status would begin to trickle down from the higher classes, in effect destroying the old social hierarchy. A government controlled by an oligarchy of elites would never want that to happen.
    Funny how that is happening right now (look at statistics) and people who are against it increasingly are persecuted.

    A lower class will always exist. The ethnic mix of the population may change but a class structure will always reassert itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    "Most statist?" Then can you explain why the majority of Anarchists happen to be Anarcho-Communists or Anarcho-Socialists, while Anarcho-Nationalists or even Anarcho-Capitalists are either extremely elusive or largely considered insane?
    Anarchy and Communism are complete opposites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    All the more reason to oppose ethnicity. The people should not be united under a cause that does not provide a clear benefit, otherwise they may be more easily controlled.
    Ethnicity is a part of what defines a people's unique identity. Actively trying to destroy it, or passively allowing it to happen, is aiding genocide, by law.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Funny how that is happening right now (look at statistics) and people who are against it increasingly are persecuted.

    A lower class will always exist. The ethnic mix of the population may change but a class structure will always reassert itself.
    So you argue that class structure will always exist, and it is implied you are in favor of that.

    Then you say that the mix of a population is irrelevant and a social hierarchy will always establish itself. If this is the case, why bother to define it by ethnicity? You specifically said that social structure, on which you are so intent in preserving, exists independently of ethnic segregation. So ethnicity is not your means to an end, it is simply the way you want society to be structured.



    Anarchy and Communism are complete opposites.
    You misinterpret Anarchy. "Anarchy" does not literally mean "absence of government," that would be "Anocracy."

    "Anarchy" literally means "no supremacy," or complete equality; no person has power over any other person, whether through government, wealth, social intimidation or otherwise. Communism intended to do this by equally distributing wealth and promised to create a social state democratically controlled by the people, however Lenin wanted to keep Russia stable during the revolution and so he planned a "continuing revolution" in which the Bolshevik party would continue to assert dictatorial control over communist Russia in the guise of "keeping the revolution alive."


    And you specifically stated before that you were opposed to Communism, yet you also supported a Fascist dictatorship, but then asserted that Communism and Anarchy are complete opposites. Anarchy certainly isn't Fascism. Fascism never helped abolish social hierarchy.



    Ethnicity is a part of what defines a people's unique identity. Actively trying to destroy it, or passively allowing it to happen, is aiding genocide, by law.
    You are more loyal to the law than the equality and liberties of the people, all in the name of "identity?" Identity and the self are not empirically quantifiable, they only exist in the mind. Equality, on the other hand, can exist in reality, and it impacts the lives of everyone. No matter what your circumstances, you may always have your own identity because you will always have your own mind, but Equality must be fought for in reality, hence making it more valuable.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Noon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Admit defeat.
    There is no 'defeat'. You asked for impressions, I gave impressions.

    Your first reply to me on this site included the notion that an entire subforum of INFJs were "desperate to be pushed against a wall and have their clothes torn off." This, eventually followed by linking a blog in which the author claims feminist white women want to be made to submit, physically and sexually, by a racialized monolithic Muslim.

    An earlier post included an entirely superfluous anti-gay slur.

    You frequently rant about feminists and non-traditional women, calling them nutjobs among other things. You've proudly called yourself a male chauvinist. Regardless of your alleged "obvious provocation", you have proclaimed yourself one of "the fittest people on the planet" and followed up in another thread about yourself being "clear proof" that being very good-looking doesn't guarantee you anything if you are male.

    My impression is that you are an elitist who looks down on others, who doesn't fully investigate opposing schools of thought, who holds resentment against many women for the "bad deeds" of those you have had experiences with, who doesn't mind much leaving courtesy as an afterthought, and who very well may have stopped by either to recruit or to stir strife as a social experiment.

    Your lack of compassion frustrates me and it wouldn't surprise me if it frustrated others.

  6. #16
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    So you argue that class structure will always exist, and it is implied you are in favor of that.

    Then you say that the mix of a population is irrelevant and a social hierarchy will always establish itself. If this is the case, why bother to define it by ethnicity? You specifically said that social structure, on which you are so intent in preserving, exists independently of ethnic segregation. So ethnicity is not your means to an end, it is simply the way you want society to be structured.
    Ethnicity is more important to me than class. All I am saying is that it is not practically possible to create a classless society because peoples' innate abilities differ. In other words, biology makes equality impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    You misinterpret Anarchy. "Anarchy" does not literally mean "absence of government," that would be "Anocracy."

    "Anarchy" literally means "no supremacy," or complete equality; no person has power over any other person, whether through government, wealth, social intimidation or otherwise. Communism intended to do this by equally distributing wealth and promised to create a social state democratically controlled by the people, however Lenin wanted to keep Russia stable during the revolution and so he planned a "continuing revolution" in which the Bolshevik party would continue to assert dictatorial control over communist Russia in the guise of "keeping the revolution alive."
    Look up the definition of anarchy, then get back to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    And you specifically stated before that you were opposed to Communism, yet you also supported a Fascist dictatorship, but then asserted that Communism and Anarchy are complete opposites. Anarchy certainly isn't Fascism. Fascism never helped abolish social hierarchy.
    I support a system which I have reason to believe will be stable. My primary interest is ensuring that I and my family will have a future where we will not be a hated minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    You are more loyal to the law than the equality and liberties of the people, all in the name of "identity?" Identity and the self are not empirically quantifiable, they only exist in the mind. Equality, on the other hand, can exist in reality, and it impacts the lives of everyone. No matter what your circumstances, you may always have your own identity because you will always have your own mind, but Equality must be fought for in reality, hence making it more valuable.
    I do not break the law unless I see a very good reason to do so. Identity has biological aspects like ethnicity and on a wider level, race/subspecies. It is hardly delusional that I am different from other men who hail from different parts of the world. The attempts by the left to erase these differences are pathetic.

    Equality is impossible without forcibly removing the biological differences that exist. This is the real reason why far left lunatics like you support the abolition of ethnicity. It is a wall standing in the way of your utopia.

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noon View Post
    There is no 'defeat'. You asked for impressions, I gave impressions.
    If you remember, all I asked was whether you would date me or not and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noon View Post
    Your first reply to me on this site included the notion that an entire subforum of INFJs were "desperate to be pushed against a wall and have their clothes torn off." This, eventually followed by linking a blog in which the author claims feminist white women want to be made to submit, physically and sexually, by a racialized monolithic Muslim.

    An earlier post included an entirely superfluous anti-gay slur.
    For a start, I have seen a few INFJ girls on forums confess that they would get turned on if their boyfriends just ordered them around, which matches my experience offline. I admit, I don't like INFJs much. I have argued with every one of the precious princesses that I've had the misfortune to come across. You are my ideal type apparently though, so there must be some redeeming features that are not apparent superficially. I am trying to probe into your mind through the screen to determine what those might be, but admit a 0% success rate to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noon View Post
    You frequently rant about feminists and non-traditional women, calling them nutjobs among other things. You've proudly called yourself a male chauvinist. Regardless of your alleged "obvious provocation", you have proclaimed yourself one of "the fittest people on the planet" and followed up in another thread about yourself being "clear proof" that being very good-looking doesn't guarantee you anything if you are male.
    I do, because feminists/non-traditional women won't give me what I want willingly; a stable LTR with the assumption of marriage and a family in the future if everything turns out OK. I like the idea of someone being dependent on me in some meaningful way - it drives me to better myself and gives me a sense of purpose, a reason to live another day. I am not sure what you mean by "chauvinism". I rate myself as better looking than most men because my craniometry is measurably better than most. Maybe you consider my lack of a jawline and haircut feminine, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However as I am not going to date you, your opinion is only of academic importance to me

    I do believe that I am proof that looks do not guarantee you anything as a man, and that by extension does lead to the nice guy phenomenon that has been discussed on other threads. Women judge men as much if not more on their social status and game, at least in my age group (late teens to early 20s).

    Quote Originally Posted by Noon View Post
    My impression is that you are an elitist who looks down on others, who doesn't fully investigate opposing schools of thought, who holds resentment against many women for the "bad deeds" of those you have had experiences with, who doesn't mind much leaving courtesy as an afterthought, and who very well may have stopped by either to recruit or to stir strife as a social experiment.

    Your lack of compassion frustrates me and it wouldn't surprise me if it frustrated others.
    Calling me an elitist is just another slur.

    Give me a reason why I should care what "the opposing side" thinks when your model for running society is not working. As your model has failed, it needs to be replaced before the damage cannot be undone. I do not blame all women for anything - remember that the article I linked which you took offense to was written by a woman. What I find frustrating is women who are bereft of any femininity, have no tolerance for men expressing themselves as we are and refuse to do any housework and cleaning without complaint, meaning we have constant arguments when we see you at the end of the day.

    You call me insensitive, but you make no effort to see things from a male perspective, either.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Just look at him, @Amargith!

    @SilentMusings, you have become my favorite source of forum entertainment over the last few days. Please continue the farce.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Just look at him, @Amargith!

    @SilentMusings, you have become my favorite source of forum entertainment over the last few days. Please continue the farce.

    Nic, if you want to attack this guy, why don't you just logically deconstruct his arguments like a civil human being instead of dismissing him and making fun of him? You're looking down on him like a little puppy who doesn't have an independent mind or humanity. No one deserves disrespect for what they believe, even if they are very likely wrong.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    No one deserves disrespect for what they believe, even if they are very likely wrong.
    I disagree.

Similar Threads

  1. Political Ideology and Don Quixote
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 07:08 AM
  2. Media and the effects on politics?
    By Vie in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 06:08 PM
  3. Modern Political Ideologies, Pessimism and Optimism
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-16-2010, 07:15 PM
  4. Office Politics: Do you engage, and if so how?
    By Meatbot in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 03:02 PM
  5. Anyone else find the news media annoying?
    By The_Liquid_Laser in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 12:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO