What on earth has happened to anthrogenica?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a better perspective than many, living now in the West and growing up in Poland. I can unequivocally say, that there is bigger racism and phobia of the world, of the different races, cultures and religions in Poland, and in Eastern Europe in general, than in the West, US included.

Would you prefer that the east-central/eastern countries were like Sweden instead? A country so welcoming to others that areas/cities are becoming 3rd world ghettos.
 
Would you prefer that the east-central/eastern countries were like Sweden instead? A country so welcoming to others that areas/cities are becoming 3rd world ghettos.
It is not black and white issue. I would prefer they did it right. Don't take all the emigrants as they come. Take the once who better fit your system of political, economic and especially your social values and rights. Host country will be happier with them and they will be happier and more successful citizens too. Canada does this job much better, though not perfect either.
 
It isn't always true but it often is. Where would the USA be if it didn't take land from Native Americans (The Atlantic seaboard)? What would have happened to the Spanish empire if it didn't have millions of Black slaves (nowhere. It wouldn't be able to finance itself)?

Perhaps things would have been better FOR EVERYONE, and particularly the marginalized and oppressed, if there never was a USA or Spanish Empire. Ever stop to think about that? Perhaps if there had been an equitable and mutually beneficial TRADE of IDEAS and RESOURCES/non-human commodities with the Native Americans and with Africans (who occupied a continent with resources that would’ve arguably made them the richest on the planet), the USA as we know it, with racial/ethnic brutality, inequality and injustice being the beginning of our foundation and most persistent illness, would not exist! Maybe something better and far more egalitarian would have come to fruition!

Or hell, even if Africa would’ve provided human labor, it could have been human labor that they were amply and justly compensated for in the form of contracts, equal pay for equal work, etc…. Perhaps less war and conquering in the name of unabashed greed and more even-handed trade would’ve allowed for a peaceful, more stable world order, with different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures living tolerantly side by side, similarly to what exists today in Western Europe. Well look at that, it’s not so impossible after all! (sarcasm) With all due respect, the problem with thinking like yours is that it lacks even the most basic imagination.

It doesn't matter if you're liberal who thinks religion was invented by an evil white man with a beard in order to imprison minds, you're weird if you don't have emotional feeling towards doing good things or no sense of morality. Morality isn’t culturally relative to Abrahamic religion. I think liberals have called a lot of things culturally relative to Abrahmanic religions which are actually universals. Some very deep thinking liberals like yourself have ditched those things because you think they’re culturally relative (and reinforce inequality or something like that).

Yes and No. My innate/natural/instinctive state is, indeed, “weird,” an outlier, an extreme version of a “right wing” brain taken to its most logical conclusion > icy cold, harsh logic and pragmatism. But you have missed my point: one doesn’t need to be motivated by some religious based morality or universalist humanitarianism centered on “goodness” in order to do the right (read: logically correct and intellectually sound) thing! And the right thing in this case would be to make decisions that ensure that all of humanity is treated fairly, justly and equitably and enjoys relative harmony, peace and stability.

Again, my point is that I innately have the type of brain that could understand and justify colonialism and slavery, that could justify mass annihilation, etc…. It is flawless albeit icy logic to deduce and conclude, for example, that “I need a lot of gold. These people are sitting on a sh*t ton of gold. The best way to get the most gold without sharing any of it is to annihilate the people sitting on the gold.” Having said that, somewhat tangentially, it would also be logical to run a cost analysis on to what degree the expenses expended funding an adequate enough war machine/effort are preferable to expending resources by way of trade in ascertaining said gold. Now THAT is TRUE logic and rationality in action.

And because I’m hellbent on understanding patterns and predicting future outcomes, I have logically concluded that sociopathic war machines, oppressive systems and institutions like colonialism and slavery, do NOT work sufficiently enough to establish long lasting balance, peace, stability and security IF that is indeed, what most of us claim to want and actually want. I’m saying that even me, even people who are hardwired like I am—rather hunter like and predatory—should be able to see that any worldview centered on predation and oppression run contrary to the notion of a long-lasting peace and harmony.

Tell me, what's the point of helping people, if you don't have emotional feelings towards other humans? Why do people matter if you don’t have feelings for them? You care for them because of "strategy and practicality"? Doubt it.

1.) Umm, I did tell you, explicitly, and several times, the point of helping people even if I “don’t have emotional feelings towards other humans,” which, technically speaking, are your words and not mine. And that point is universal and far reaching PEACE, BALANCE, STABILITY, SECURITY and HARMONY. Furthermore, though limited, I do have feelings for other people, especially those falling within my various in-groups. Again, I’m quite tribal by nature. For those falling outside of my in-groups, it’s more of a struggle to deeply care on an intimate and personal level, if at all, honestly, but I do care more pragmatically on both a local and larger scale in the sense that if the out-groups live well and in peace, they’re less inclined to be a burden and hindrance to me and my interests.

2.) A small example: In Brooklyn, there was this rude and sensorially appalling homeless guy always standing out in front of my favorite deli—he was the type to instantly make you lose your appetite on sight. Most people would either turn away if they saw him or just walk on by and ignore him completely. The thing is, he was never asking for money, but only food. Whenever I encountered him, I’d always give him a few bucks and buy him something to eat JUST TO MAKE HIM GO AWAY and spare myself and everyone else the unnecessary sick stomach. He revolted me on every level--1,000 years ago, he might have met my blade in the form of a mercy killing but in a modern society, there are consequences and repercussions for that sort of thing.

My charity to him was tempered and humane (out of necessity) but PRACTICAL regarding my most immediate needs. I did not give to him out of some moral inclination to do good, but out of a pragmatic one so that I would not have to suffer his stench. And on a macro scale, I endorse and vote for policies that would allow people like him to have the appropriate housing and mental health care they so desperately need IN ORDER TO NOT BE A SOCIAL BLIGHT AND UNENDING ASSAULT ON MY SENSES. The average “bleeding heart” liberal might be appalled at my coldness and emotional detachment but guess what, sometimes the “why” of why we do something is less important than the fact that we did it.

3.) It has been said that the level of one’s intelligence is dependent on how many different perspectives and points of view they can hold, engage and understand at the same time. It seems like you still have some growing to do in this regard. Just because you can not personally relate to my thinking and worldview, does not make it disingenuous or a lie—you don’t have to empathetically feel something in order for it to be so. The fact of the matter is that the logic of what I’m saying can’t be disputed. Not everyone experiences the world through feeling, some of us experience it rather cognitively and rationally. And by no means am I privileging thinking over feeling. Both should be used with balance, but they both come with varying strengths and weaknesses.

You have clearly manufactured this nihilistic, deep thinking persona. It’s not who you are, it’s who you wish you were. Like how you decided to ditch morality, you decided to be nihilistic.
One of the most dangerous things to western civilization is people who think like you. People who put far left wing, communist, nihilistic philosophies over “primitive” moral principles.
Tell me, how did the Soviet Union work out? It did away with evil religion, tribalism (put many nations under one roof), and class inequality? Sounds like your type of country.

??? None of this makes sense. You’re misusing terms and conflating things that shouldn’t be.

1.) I haven’t manufactured anything. You don’t remotely know me well enough to make that determination. I’m actually being brutally honest, outing myself, if anything. I’ve yet to be a hypocrite in my commentary on this forum. If one were more discerning at noticing patterns, it would’ve been fairly easy to deduce a certain reliance on logic and lack of sentimentality in some of my view points—for example, my admission (in a previous dialogue with you, actually) that I’m an avid hunter with a potent violent streak who gets a thrill from the hunt and predator/prey dynamics. CLEARLY, and I’ve said this on more than one occasion, I’m not the average liberal.

2.) I’m prone to nihilism but OBVIOUSLY, I am not actively embracing nihilism or else I’d sit back and allow our darkest impulses to consume me, along with everyone else and ensure our inevitable destruction because nothing matters anyway—this whole time I’ve been arguing in favor of conscious, rational CHOICES and DECISIONS, devoid of any moral imperative, that would lead to peace, harmony, security, stability and balance. YOU, on the other hand, are the one that actively displayed nihilism, upon declaring that though you are a nice guy, “it’s a doggy dog world…Unless you want your country to be dirt, you have to miss treat people of other nations.” That’s a blatant embrace of nihilistic sociopathy that would only lead to further bloodshed, oppression and destruction of the human race.

3.) You must pay greater attention to what I actually say and not invent things I have not said. For the umpteenth time, I have more of a fascistic, right leaning personality type and brain wiring. I do NOT have a “liberal” brain. First of all, cold, rational, detached, unfeeling logic knows no single ideology or party affiliation, which is why there can be some overlap between the extreme “fascistic right” and the extreme “communistic left” but I am explicitly telling you that my natural inclinations veer more towards the right, even though I actively embrace a more liberal worldview because liberal, progressive policies will help to level the scales (the entirety of the world is weighted towards the right) and provide more balance in the way of enfranchising the disenfranchised, redistributing wealth, growing the middle class, bridging the gender gap, less hawkishness, etc…, which in turn grants greater equality, peace and stability, which means that all of our lives improve.

4.) My rationale for this is completely based on looking at historical patterns and coming to logical conclusions about the best way forward. Once equality is achieved, I’d become staunchly centrist to maintain the balance. Again, I am not defined by ideology, but by an unrelenting reliance on logic, despite baser instincts, and am primarily motivated by what will work best to bring about a greater harmony so that I don’t have to endure all the crap that comes from inequality. And whereas I appreciate pre-communistic Russia and Russian culture, nothing about modern Russia entices me whatsoever. Please read what I have said VERY carefully.

It isn’t that simple Wanderlust. For the most part Americans do respect the police. And even if Police were never corrupt or abusive, there’d still be people who hate them.

So what? There will always be irredeemable outliers, those who should be buried underneath the prison or just buried altogether. But in a just society, the actions of a few don’t dictate how the majority are treated. Period.
 
Would you prefer that the east-central/eastern countries were like Sweden instead? A country so welcoming to others that areas/cities are becoming 3rd world ghettos.

Hi,

1.) Do you now live or have you ever lived in Sweden?

2.) I have personally seen the Turkish "ghettos" in Austria and things have gotten worse since the migrant crisis;I don't know why you mentioned Sweden as opposed to the "3rd world ghetto" you yourself inhabit.

3.) Having said that, Sweden is not now, nor will it ever be, a 3rd world ghetto. It's true that Sweden has done what many other nations derelict in their duties to the European Union have not done and have been greatly strained because of it. But we've had enough and are making the necessary changes. Trust me on that one. Many are fed up with the unending stream of refugees ill-equipped for life here (a fair amount of whom have little to no education, no prospects, are resistant to our culture and values, and are backwards and criminally inclined). Refugees in Sweden now only receive temporary residence permits with less financial assistance, while the right to family reunification is restricted. We've also stepped up border controls, doubling the number of officers patrolling the southern coast, where most refugees arrive.

4.) But it's not the asylum seekers I hold most responsible for this, it's other EU nations that refuse to pull their weight and thusly, should be punished.
 
@Wanderlust,

Sure, you are who you say you are.


Perhaps things would have been better FOR EVERYONE, and particularly the marginalized and oppressed, if there never was a USA or Spanish Empire. Ever stop to think about that?


I was referring only to the US and the Spanish empire not the people they've oppressed. The question is, where would the US and Spanish empire be (have been) if they never oppressed people?


Perhaps if there had been an equitable and mutually beneficial TRADE of IDEAS and RESOURCES/non-human commodities with the Native Americans and with Africans (who occupied a continent with resources that would’ve arguably made them the richest on the planet)


No, that would have never worked. The Spanish empire would have gained its territory or wealth if it attempted to have a mutually beneficial relationship with natives and Africans. It's a whole lot easier to get something by taking it and forcing the people to mine it than to get it in a trade agreement. Also, Spain would have not been able to get nearly as much land in America if they didn't forcefully take it.


If the USA never took land from Native Americans it would literally still be stuck on the Atlantic seaboard. Mexico probably would have take the land from natives that the US didn't. And the US wouldn't have ever gotten access to resources it needed to be a big economic player in the world.
My original point stands, a nation can’t succeed by being nice to other countries. I wish that weren’t true.


the USA as we know it, with racial/ethnic brutality, inequality and injustice being the beginning of our foundation and most persistent illness, would not exist!
Would it be better if the USA and therefore its racism never existed? Definitely, definitely not. All goods have bad in them.

Anyways, I’ll give you my defintion racism in America because I think there are exaggerations and misconceptions of it. SLavery and legal racism only existed in the southern states. In the north, yes people were racist, but little racism was committed because there was hardly anyone to be racist towards. The north never became racially-diverse until the migration of Blacks from the South in the early 1900s. Then Blacks faced real discrimination and a poor start in life due to their past, however they faced little legal discrimination.


Racism in America has rarely come in the form of violence and laws. After slavery (which wasn't started because of racism but did make Blacks a slavery class), racism has mostly come in the form of feelings and unspoken social ranking. Blacks have been looked down on, been victim of prejudice, name-calling, and the like. And Blacks have in an unspoken way formed a lower class which isn't supposed to be affluent.
When you look at racism from that perspective you see unlike what some claim America wasn’t built on racism.


Maybe something better and far more egalitarian would have come to fruition!
Would the Natives have made something more wealthy, more advanced, more beneficial to the world? Definitely not.
with different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures living tolerantly side by side, similarly to what exists today in Western Europe.
That’s true and I’ve pointed that out a million times to people who complain about how scary the world is. World peace is possible.
 
Hi,
1.) Do you now live or have you ever lived in Sweden?
2.) I have personally seen the Turkish "ghettos" in Austria and things have gotten worse since the migrant crisis;I don't know why you mentioned Sweden as opposed to the "3rd world ghetto" you yourself inhabit.
3.) Having said that, Sweden is not now, nor will it ever be, a 3rd world ghetto. It's true that Sweden has done what many other nations derelict in their duties to the European Union have not done and have been greatly strained because of it. But we've had enough and are making the necessary changes. Trust me on that one. Many are fed up with the unending stream of refugees ill-equipped for life here (a fair amount of whom have little to no education, no prospects, are resistant to our culture and values, and are backwards and criminally inclined). Refugees in Sweden now only receive temporary residence permits with less financial assistance, while the right to family reunification is restricted. We've also stepped up border controls, doubling the number of officers patrolling the southern coast, where most refugees arrive.
4.) But it's not the asylum seekers I hold most responsible for this, it's other EU nations that refuse to pull their weight and thusly, should be punished.
I don't see why other countries should be punished.
2 years ago many European countries, Sweden first kept a naive open border policy.
Other countries, mainly Eastern European didn't.
I'm glad Sweden and other countries learned from their mistakes and changed policy.
But in the mean time a lot of harm has been done.
Many immigrants dissapeared in illegality.
And for many others it will be a very long and costfull procedure to sent them back to the countries they came from.
A minority are genuine refugees and it remains to be seen how many of them will be capable to adapt and integrate in their host countries.
Most of them haven't yet. They lack the proper skills and it remains to be seen how much they are prepared to change and learn.
They should have been screened and selected at the European borders instead of letting everybody in.
Now you think that those who made that mistake should punish the countries that didn't want to make that mistake?
First admit the mistakes that were made 2 years ago and then see how the burdens can and should be shared.
 
Thank you as well, Lebrok! And I like that you used the word "opening" because that's precisely what the journey entails: "opening" up one's self to new ideas, new belief systems, new environments, new people, new ways of doing things--there are always newer and greater truths to be found!
I was born curious and open.

I know fully well how easy and comfortable it is to remain safely inside a bubble where everything is predetermined, the probabilities and risks have been tabulated, factored and mitigated, and our minds firmly made up on whatever it is we're too apathetic about, afraid of or lazy to confront head on with an open mind. But praise be to Odin/Yahweh/Buddha/Allah/the right genetics (lol) for the gift of curiosity and the desire/ability to question and ask "why?" This is why I always encourage my fellow anti-social internet introverts that tend to favor these types of message boards to actively step out beyond their safety nets, especially by way of travel and varying degrees of (sometimes forced) social immersion. Even those of us who are prone to confirmation bias can be shocked and amazed at the degree to which our preconceived notions can be altered, contextualized or completely turned on their heads just by virtue of confronting something we thought we knew, but in actuality, didn't know in the full sense;it doesn't matter how many times you see a "bad" place and its citizens referenced in the news, it's impossible to form a more complete, truer picture of them unless you encounter them intimately. For some of us, that type of social proximity is very difficult to do but it's crucial if there is ever to be any sustainable attempt at peace, tolerance and interconnectedness (which is inevitable though people try to fight it).
What is surprising to me is that so many (not to say most) people I know, when they get older, they tend to close and withdraw from the world. They are becoming full of fears, irrational feelings, that are forcing them to build cocoon of safety. Cocoon of home safety and limiting world interaction to minimum, to few good friends. Off course watching the news is mandatory to confirm their decision of staying safe. Statistic of progress and examples of human kindness, are nothing against their fears, which only point them to the "true" face of the "crazy" world. It is like our social conservatism, the tribalism, we are born with is taking over with age, when we see that the world has changed so much from the one we have grown up in. Ah, and the world is changing faster and faster, to only aid the conservative fire in so many soles these days. The speed of technological change, social change, demographic change, civil rights change, all so scary. With many of them I can't have a sane conversation anymore, unless I join their bitterness, complaining, negativism, criticism, and the rest of this toxic culture.
I just pity the young people who at their prime are already afraid of the world. What would be their future?

PS. Last weekend I had a dinner with older couple who are organizing a small inclosed community on one of British Columbia islands, with aim to hid from this crazy and cruel world. Both with master degrees! Their only disappointment was that their kids chose to "enjoy" their family lives in big multicultural cities, like New York and London. Also they looked at me as I was the crazy one. ;) The crazy, optimistic, lost in the world, blind liberal.
 
@Lebrok,

You shouldn't embrace Wanderlust as a kindred spirit. The dude seems a bit wako to me. He has equivalenced Evangelical Christians with Islamic terrorists and said in this thread "humanity (the cretinous and peonic masses) don’t deserve this magnificent planet." As I recall he was once banned and also cursed at Angela.

In some subjects, he blatantly ignores the facts in favor of a (faaa.....r) left-wing narrative. For example, in a discussion with me last year he excused a very real criminality problem amoungst black men as just something to blame police brutality for but accused white Evangelical Christains of every thinkable bad deed. It's a double standard.

On this thread he described himself as someone with little emotion and compassion, sort of psychopathic I guess. He probably thinks that this is something biologically determine that he can't and he shouldn't try do anything about it. Sad. I have a biological tendency to be lazy but do something about it.

Wanderlust is obviously educated, a deep thinker, cars about important issues, and has good things to say. But he's also seems to be a bit crazy and radicle in his views.
 
@Lebrok,

You shouldn't embrace Wanderlust as a kindred spirit. The dude seems a bit wako to me. He has equivalenced Evangelical Christians with Islamic terrorists and said in this thread "humanity (the cretinous and peonic masses) don’t deserve this magnificent planet." As I recall he was once banned and also cursed at Angela.

In some subjects, he blatantly ignores the facts in favor of a (faaa.....r) left-wing narrative. For example, in a discussion with me last year he excused a very real criminality problem amoungst black men as just something to blame police brutality for but accused white Evangelical Christains of every thinkable bad deed. It's a double standard.

On this thread he described himself as someone with little emotion and compassion, sort of psychopathic I guess. He probably thinks that this is something biologically determine that he can't and he shouldn't try do anything about it. Sad. I have a biological tendency to be lazy but do something about it.

Wanderlust is obviously educated, a deep thinker, cars about important issues, and has good things to say. But he's also seems to be a bit crazy and radicle in his views.
I know, we could say that he is not naturally a kind and compassionate person, and yet due to his brilliant intellect he can understand his shortcomings and mold himself to be an ethical and law abiding citizen. Isn't it amazing and inspiring? He is also highly critical of himself, if not brutally honest. And it is not the end of the story. Being limited in "higher feelings" he still can teach others proper ways of behavior to live in harmony with each other and betterment of humankind in general. Most of it done by the way of logical thinking, deductions, predictions, causation, statistic, etc. He is rare yet inspiring example of nurture ruling over nature. If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but he is real deal.
 
I know, we could say that he is not naturally a kind and compassionate person, and yet due to his brilliant intellect he can understand his shortcomings and mold himself to be an ethical and law abiding citizen.
He is rare yet inspiring example of nurture ruling over nature. If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but he is real deal.

I don't believe he is the natural born psychopath-type he says he is. Yes, maybe he has some of the characteristics he claims he has. However, I think most of it is from a miss understood reflections he makes on himself.

Isn't it amazing and inspiring? He is also highly critical of himself, if not brutally honest. And it is not the end of the story. Being limited in "higher feelings" he still can teach others proper ways of behavior to live in harmony with each other and betterment of humankind in general. Most of it done by the way of logical thinking, deductions, predictions, causation, statistic, etc. He is rare yet inspiring example of nurture ruling over nature. If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but he is real deal.

Lebrok, this literally sounds like North Korea style propaganda. Even if true it wouldn't be "amazing and inspiring."

Most of it done by the way of logical thinking, deductions, predictions, causation, statistic, etc. He is rare yet inspiring example of nurture ruling over nature. If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but he is real deal.

Like I said, he doesn't always follow what the facts say. I've seen with my own eyes Wanderlust deny or twist the truth to fit a narrative he likes. He's nothing more than the typical educated yet extremely radicle leftist. The type of old communist white person who helps lead Black Lives Matter protests and throws out conservative speakers at colleges. That's the type of person he comes off as. Much more creepy than inspiring.
 
I don't believe he is the natural born psychopath-type he says he is. Yes, maybe he has some of the characteristics he claims he has. However, I think most of it is from a miss understood reflections he makes on himself.



Lebrok, this literally sounds like North Korea style propaganda. Even if true it wouldn't be "amazing and inspiring."



Like I said, he doesn't always follow what the facts say. I've seen with my own eyes Wanderlust deny or twist the truth to fit a narrative he likes. He's nothing more than the typical educated yet extremely radicle leftist. The type of old communist white person who helps lead Black Lives Matter protests and throws out conservative speakers at colleges. That's the type of person he comes off as. Much more creepy than inspiring.
I know you are opinionated young man who loves to have his say, but if it comes to understanding people, their character, personality and predispositions, you should listen and trust us, the experienced educated smart thinkers. ;)
 
I must say, in all our interactions, there always comes a point in the dialogue where a rather uneducated, uncultivated, imperceptive, nearsighted, lowbred response of yours begs an analytical thrashing of gargantuan proportions and in that moment, I become vexed, dispirited, bored, prone to distraction and inevitably I remove from my immediate consciousness the interaction altogether. I want to be unmistakably clear that my lack of replies is never a matter of me having been outwitted or bested, and especially by the likes of you, but alternately, is a result of my utter dismay, disinterest and contempt at your overall lack of competency about which you speak. Of the many flaws I possess, an inability to suffer mental rigidity, intellectual cloddishness and ineptitude reigns supreme.

However, there are occasions of such absurdity where even I’d find myself derelict as a scholar and layman with fully functioning thinking faculties if I didn’t indulge, challenge and/or debunk some of these so-called “thoughts” and other incoherent drivel you intend to pass off as “logic.” And so here we are….

I was referring only to the US and the Spanish empire not the people they've oppressed. The question is, where would the US and Spanish empire be (have been) if they never oppressed people?

Sigh. My original comment/response still stands and furthermore, I tire of repeating myself:

Perhaps things would have been better FOR EVERYONE, and particularly the marginalized and oppressed, if there never was a USA or Spanish Empire. Ever stop to think about that? Perhaps if there had been an equitable and mutually beneficial TRADE of IDEAS and RESOURCES/non-human commodities with the Native Americans and with Africans (who occupied a continent with resources that would’ve arguably made them the richest on the planet), the USA as we know it, with racial/ethnic brutality, inequality and injustice being the beginning of our foundation and most persistent illness, would not exist! Maybe something better and far more egalitarian would have come to fruition!”

No, that would have never worked. The Spanish empire would have gained its territory or wealth if it attempted to have a mutually beneficial relationship with natives and Africans. It's a whole lot easier to get something by taking it and forcing the people to mine it than to get it in a trade agreement. Also, Spain would have not been able to get nearly as much land in America if they didn't forcefully take it.
…………
If the USA never took land from Native Americans it would literally still be stuck on the Atlantic seaboard. Mexico probably would have take the land from natives that the US didn't. And the US wouldn't have ever gotten access to resources it needed to be a big economic player in the world.
My original point stands, a nation can’t succeed by being nice to other countries. I wish that weren’t true.

First, I already acknowledged the basic yet flawless logic of “war/conquest capitalism (acquiring maximal wealth and resources via the unmitigated use of power, force, dominance and oppression)” and so I’m not debating its utility, in and of itself. Second, I’m actively challenging your assertion that it’s the only means by which a nation or country can or should achieve “success” or in your exact words, “not be dirt.”

The notion that war/colonialist/imperialist driven empires are somehow necessary, in and of themselves, for peoples, civilizations and humanity in general to flourish and advance is a fallacy. For god’s sake, just because a certain way of doing business was the preferred and to varying degrees a rather effective method during major civilizational shifts and upheavals in human history, does not mean that it was the best and only method; and by best, I mean the most logical, efficient, productive or moral.

Yes, the societal and economic pressures associated with building a vast war/conquest machine indirectly helped to rapidly spur on major developments in science and technology, for example. However, conquest/colonialism/imperialism is not necessary for or even crucial to this advancement; the fact of the matter is that the technology developed in times of war conquest and empire expansion would still be possible to develop outside of them. Perhaps there just may have been a slower, more gradual progression (like the civilizations of many pre-literate, pre-colonial peoples) which could’ve come with various benefits—for example, implosions in the population size of urban centers and an inadequate means to handle them (regarding housing, sanitation, plague, etc…) proved to be the bane of several major empires.

True and momentous
advancements in various civilizations occurred when groups of people came together and formed a common language and communication system, a system for governing, agriculture, etc. Many times, war/conquest machines on vast scales were created for the sake of GREED and SELF-INTEREST (in respects to the New World, gold, sugar and slaves were not essential to any one group’s innate survival, but were old/first world “luxuries”) and taking resources from others while immediately giving very little, besides slaughter and subjugation, in return. Ponder for a moment what might have happened if Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro had, on behalf of the Spanish crown, offered to invest millions in European styled and led infrastructure projects to aid or “advance” the Aztec Empire and Incan Empire in return for their resources, skills, and technologies? How many wasted billions of dollars (in today’s money) spent developing elaborate war machines/efforts could have been better used to build literal and figurative bridges that would’ve enriched both parties greatly and equitably/more evenly, but over a longer, more gradual haul of time?

Perhaps the Aztecs and Incas could’ve sold lands to Spain in the same way that lands were bought and sold a few centuries later throughout the Americas between various European parties. But a significant issue at the heart of this quandry lay in the fact that colonialist/imperialist ideologies in the vein of racialist pseudoscience and religious backed notions of “godless savages” in need of civilization’s saving graces, immerged, in large part, to excuse and encourage European conquests and empire expansion. It was one thing to trade between European “equals” but the Indigenous peoples were supposed heathens and barbarians below reasoning and bargaining with (the same “savages” with amazing pyramids and monuments and their own calendars and effective agricultural systems). How convenient.

Would it be better if the USA and therefore its racism never existed? Definitely, definitely not. All goods have bad in them.

FALLACY ALERT
--not all “bads” or “goods” are created equally and they sure as hell don’t always nullify or cancel each other out. The amount of positive benefits versus negative consequences and repercussions can be measured and quantified to varying degrees. As just a small reminder of the extent of the “bad,” millions and millions of Indigenous Americans were sickened, slaughtered and displaced and millions of black Africans were worked to death, raped, and/or lynched and denied certain “inalienable rights” over a period of centuries. To mitigate those atrocities as just “the cost of doing business” is fantastically sociopathic.
 
Anyways, I’ll give you my defintion racism in America because I think there are exaggerations and misconceptions of it. SLavery and legal racism only existed in the southern states. In the north, yes people were racist, but little racism was committed because there was hardly anyone to be racist towards. The north never became racially-diverse until the migration of Blacks from the South in the early 1900s. Then Blacks faced real discrimination and a poor start in life due to their past, however they faced little legal discrimination.…Racism in America has rarely come in the form of violence and laws. After slavery (which wasn't started because of racism but did make Blacks a slavery class), racism has mostly come in the form of feelings and unspoken social ranking. Blacks have been looked down on, been victim of prejudice, name-calling, and the like. And Blacks have in an unspoken way formed a lower class which isn't supposed to be affluent.When you look at racism from that perspective you see unlike what some claim America wasn’t built on racism.
Herregud, the sheer IGNORANCE displayed here astounds and confounds me. This is why it is so intellectually draining to debate people who know little to nothing about something they consistently feel so inclined to give their unsupported and unsubstantiated opinions about (and usually in the tattered guise of facts). I have no more time and energy to waste debunking your easily destroyed, counterfactual, retellings of history and therefore I’ll let those better suited than the both of us bring you up to date. Sad.

1.) So “slavery and legal racism only existed in the Southern States,” huh? Ugh. Thank Princeton Historian Nell Painter Irvin via her book “Creating Black Americans: African-American History and Its Meanings, 1619 to the Present” for this brief and truncated history lesson of the injustices committed against Black Americans in the Northern US:

“In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites. New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio.

In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent.

African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior.”

2.) So “Racism in America has rarely come in the form of violence and laws,” huh? You really should be embarrassed and ashamed at the level of wanton ignorance you have displayed here. I weep for whatever purported institution of higher learning you attend. You are too lazy to even use GOOGLE before you further destroy your credibility and intellectual honesty with such easily debunked claims. FOR SHAME. If you don’t care enough to do the most rudimentary research and investigating, DON’T SPEAK, DON’T COMMENT—it really is so simple. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please. The 2nd hand shame I feel for you is…overwhelming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

3.) These links here just contain pertinent EMPIRICAL DATA and FACTS concerning the degree to which systemic and institutional racism actually harm and hinder Black Americans. Merry Christmas, you can never say I didn’t try to expand your consciousness:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html?_r=0
https://psmag.com/inequality-in-blac...6f9#.nx08gjz94
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/...inorities.aspx
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/...-worlds-apart/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...eat-recession/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ations/361631/

Would the Natives have made something more wealthy, more advanced, more beneficial to the world? Definitely not.

Huh? Why not? Ugh, cynically and willfully ignorant at worst and flat out racist at best. This is why you need to f-ing READ, and READ a lot, before you make such ridiculously untrue and intellectually suspect assertions. Or better yet, just stick to the technical aspects of population genetics. History and social anthropology don’t seem to be your thing.

If you actually want to better yourself and learn something (I remain skeptical), Let me recommend Will Durant’s “Our Oriental Heritage.” In this snippet alone, he unravels the flimsy social theory behind your woefully inept opinions:

“Looking backward on this brief survey of primitive culture, we find every element of civilization except writing and the state. All the modes of economic life are invented for us here: hunting and fishing, herding and tillage, transport and building, industry and commerce and finance. All the simpler structures of political life are organized: the clan, the family, the village community, and the tribe; freedom and order -- those hostile foci around which civilization revolves -- find their first adjustment and reconciliation; law and justice begin. The fundamentals of morals are established: the training of children, the regulation of the sexes, the inculcation of honor and decency, of manners and loyalty. The bases of religion are laid, and its hopes and terrors are applied to the encouragement of morals and the strengthening of the group. Speech is developed into complex languages, medicine and surgery appear, and modest beginnings are made in science, literature, and art. All in all it is a picture of astonishing creation, of form rising out of chaos, of one road after another being opened from the animal to the sage. Without these "savages," and their hundred thousand years of experiment and groping, civilization could not have been. We owe almost everything to them -- as a fortunate, and possibly degenerate, youth inherits the means to culture, security and ease through the long toil of an unlettered ancestry.”

Who is to say how Indigenous Americans would’ve grown and developed left strictly to their own devices? Furthermore, do you know nothing of the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs? These peoples each possessed kingdoms and empires, usually acquired through warfare and conquest just like most other expanding civilizations throughout history. Empires, in and of themselves, are the not active agents of advancement, but it is the advancement and growth themselves that spur on the creation of empires. Necessity is the mother of invention. I recommend a Pulitzer Prize winning book called “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond. It provides a healthy and modern take on why certain peoples have historically been at the top of the food chain and others at the bottom. Diamond's tackles the historically/commonly pervasive belief that Eurasian and North African civilizations have historically been successful in dominating the world based on some innate cultural and/or genetic superiority. Diamond posits that the achievement gaps in socio-political, cultural and financial power and technology between various human societies originate in environmental differences, which are amplified by "positive feedback loops." When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures, and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes."'This is the last time I'm going to say this: READ BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
 
I know, we could say that he is not naturally a kind and compassionate person, and yet due to his brilliant intellect he can understand his shortcomings and mold himself to be an ethical and law abiding citizen. Isn't it amazing and inspiring? He is also highly critical of himself, if not brutally honest. And it is not the end of the story. Being limited in "higher feelings" he still can teach others proper ways of behavior to live in harmony with each other and betterment of humankind in general. Most of it done by the way of logical thinking, deductions, predictions, causation, statistic, etc. He is rare yet inspiring example of nurture ruling over nature. If I didn't see it I wouldn't believe it, but he is real deal.

Thank you sincerely LeBrok, you are far too kind. Your laser sharp wit, intellect, humor, reliance on logic, balance, objectivity and good sense most definitely make me feel a kindredness in spirit towards you. The brilliance displayed by Maciamo, you, Angela, and the other moderators are the very reason I decided to join and participate in this forum. But unfortunately, it comes as no surprise to me that sometimes others just don't get it. :LOL:

And in addressing Mr. Fire Haired's arm chair diagnosis of my apparent psychopathy (which I never said or owned by the way), I'd just like to say In general usage they may not be the shiniest, the warmest or and the most expressive, but I do have feelings, and they can run rather deep for select individuals and people I identify with > my wife, my parents, one of my siblings (lol), other introverts, intellectuals, nerds, scientists, engineers, agnostics, Norse pagans, Swedes, Brooklynites, Scandinavians, Northwestern Europeans, cultures I enjoy and admire (from the Germans, Italians, Japanese, Brazilians, Irish, Jews, Black Americans)—the latter of which highlighting the deep respect and kinship I feel for both the world’s dominant alphas and the fighting underdogs deadlocked in an unending Nietzschean struggle, the “will to power”: (forgive this brief tangent)

For example, because of institutionalized bigotry and prejudice, historically Jews were pushed into accounting, finance, commerce, medicine and law in the same way that Black Americans were relegated to sports and entertainment and they are, at best, the masters of those domains and at worst, undeniable forces and influencers, which only illuminates how even more impressive/influential/powerful they could now be if they had never been relegated to limited spaces…but I digress. The most potent emotions I have are righteous indignation, contempt and anger, and especially in regard to systems and ideologies centered around irrationality, unfairness, inequality and injustice—I fully identify with people who say to the system “F*CK YOU, despite what you do, I’m still here, surviving and thriving.”
'
That being said, I tend not to approach life, the world, its people and all the inherent problems through an emotional lens, but rather a rational and clinical one. Just because I don’t cry for, hold hands with, hug and kiss my way through humanity, does not mean I’m some deranged person without a heart—if anything, my way of providing “emotional support” tends to come from helping people logically and systematically fix the very problems that make them need “emotional support” to begin with. I’m more concerned with how we are tied and interconnected in the abstract, macro, big picture sense, and doing what I can to lend to a greater balance and harmony that ultimately benefits us all—what matters most to me is what I do, my actions, and that they are based on a sound, fully conceived and executed logic that gels with my overarching life strategies and value systems, regardless of any feelings or a lack there of. For me, kindness and compassion are more cognitive and utilitarian functions than they are affectively emotional ones.

But I do feel a sense of pride and accomplishment when I uphold my “bigger,” more important worldviews via the “smaller” gestures (seeing as how I can sometimes disdain minute “details”—like tactfulness, petty pleasantries and affirmations--that may be more important to others than they are to me), like helping an elderly neighbor with her bags, tutoring disadvantaged immigrant kids in Swedish, and rubbing my wife’s feet, knowing that in their seemingly localized subjectivities, these gestures actively make the world better in the grand scheme of things. As of now, besides death and retreating to a secluded island that I can’t yet afford, living on this planet amongst other humans is my only tenable option and so I need for our interactions to work as tranquilly, smoothly and efficiently as possible for me to not be despondent, apathetic or pissed off all the time--yes, ultimately, my end motivations are completely and practically self-serving but I’m ok with this. From my point of view, feelings and sentimentality are irrelevant so long as the end goal is achieved, and when that end goal is world peace, harmony, stability and balance, only the relentlessly dumb, obscenely myopic, sociopathic, intellectually dishonest, hyperemotional or irrational will find fault with how that’s achieved versus aiding to ensure its achievement and successful implementation no matter what.
 
Discuss all you want, but cut out the personal attacks, guys.
 
Let's just remember that this whole interaction started because YOU professed to be a “nice guy” but then immediately endorsed an ideology based on sociopathy, and yet you have the unmitigated GALL to call me a “wacko?” LOL Again, I’m almost left speechless at the lack of irony displayed here. Evidently these feelings you purport to possess don’t do anything for your value system—people like are you are the worst type of hypocrites. You claim to have feelings, but obviously, most of them are rather negative and destructive considering the ideologies you tend to endorse. How do these feelings you allegedly possess help better the world? Because if your values line up with the views you express, then YOU and those like YOU are the true dangers to the world. In all of my days, I've never seen anyone lack the ability to perceive context as much as you do, and that's saying a lot, considering the number of people with an ASD I work with.

Regardless, on is thread alone (despite the other times I've analytically thrashed you), I've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt the dearth of your intellectual rigor, acumen, honesty and integrity. This entire polemic was battered and pan fried in disingenuousness, strawman logic, half-truths, quarter-truths and flat out lies. For shame. Even if I extend to you the benefit of the doubt that you suffer from some sort of pervasive neurological and developmental disorder with a cognitive rigidity unlike anything I've ever encountered before, you really should heed your own advice and address the issues in the same way I've already addressed my own shortcomings.

As I recall he was once banned and also cursed at Angela.

Please stop mentioning my interactions with Angela while lacking a certain context evidently lost to you. But you’ve mentioned this before, so let’s address it. For one, I certainly like her better than you; debating her doesn’t make me want to claw my eyes out and follow up with a bleach cocktail just to make it all stop. Secondly, we may have had disagreements in the past (rooted in biases and blind spots I’m sure we both possess), but she is undeniably bright, articulate, coherent, well-informed, well-meaning, intellectually honest and therefore, a worthy sparring partner. Essentially, she’s the anti-you.

She also reminds me of my mom, who is one of the smartest and most caring people I know, and who’s also had touchy and intense arguments with me my entire life, resulting from our respective “blind spots.” I am the type who oftentimes unintentionally “tramples over innocents” in attempting to make a larger point—I can seem harsh, insensitive, standoffish and rather arrogant in dispensing what I believe to be the cold, hard truth, though for me arrogance is usually more of a reactive, defense mechanism than it is a default disposition. My mother is sensitive to people’s emotional well-being in a way that I am not. Her very foundation is informed by a notion of granting basic human decency, empathy and respect to everyone regardless of belief system and ideology, and obviously not to the exclusion of arguments and debates.

For me, when defending truth and logic, said “basic human decency” (in the immediate, one on one sense during an argument) is usually last on my list of priorities and especially when “triggered”—which occurs upon perceiving what I believe to be irrationality, intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, and the scapegoating of ‘underdogs’ (usually concerning larger, more sprawling, big picture ideas [the prevalence of gender bias, for example]) that, ironically, are intrinsically attached to what would/should constitute a lack of “basic human decency” from my personal worldview, which would therefore warrant a hostile response IMO, as opposed to politely and diplomatically adhering to the “lesser,” smaller notion of interpersonal “basic human decency” shown to a fellow debater (regardless of how nauseating) in the heat of battle. Under these circumstances, I tend to become irritated and even more cutthroat in my assessments.

But this is where I believe that my mother sometimes “misses the forest for the trees” in the sense that maintaining interpersonal courtesy in a one on one dialogue with a misogynist can’t be more important than someone making overarching claims that are violently anti-woman. From my point of view (which I am NOT saying is the correct one, only that is my own view), a misogynist is not worthy of interpersonal decency because his views are so vile and especially here in a public forum, who knows what vulnerable mind is watching from the sidelines, and might be susceptible to such idiocy. But from my mother’s point of view, it seems as if maintaining a certain interpersonal civility (also, giving the benefit of the doubt) in the face of vehement disagreement is crucial to possessing and exercising true freedom of expression and tolerance of human difference, a principle America was founded on, in fact. Both my mother and I agree that basic human decency is important, and I know that, in keeping with the above analogy, she’s an even greater feminist than I am, but regardless, the when, where, how and to what degree we apply the importance of “basic human decency” differs at times, which has usually been a point of contention between us.

I could not stand Tomenable, and in general, posters/people like him; I saw some of his views as hyper-aggressive, antagonistic, narrow-minded, disingenuous, barely tethered to reality, and bigoted towards the marginalized (again, I tend to focus on the macro view of ideas and their effects on people), even if he was more restrained in his interactions with me interpersonally (only barely); in effect, he was a bully IMO. I’ve always been the guy that bullies the bullies, particularly regarding matters of intellectual integrity, social theory and logic. It’s been my instinct and practice to stomp on certain people (read: their ideas) in protection of sound ideas, rationality and logic, FIRST, and “People,” big picture, capital P, second. In my world, the big picture from a pulled back and rational perspective, always wins the day as far as importance. Unfortunately, and unintentionally, at times, I tend to view people, small “p” (those we interact with on a more individual, interpersonal level) as more expendable/dispensable in preserving the intellectual integrity of the whole (but of an idea as it relates to its application towards people).

Now I don’t believe that Angela approved of or condoned Tomenable’s behavior; several times, she handily debunked his bullsh*t with warnings. But I think she empathetically and compassionately saw a bright but wayward kid who had the potential to grow, change and evolve, and so she therefore gave him the latitude to do this via a less aggressive and antagonistic confrontation of his belief system. And considering that I lacked that same tact and compassion towards him because I found his belief system and skewed “logic” to be more troubling and disturbing in the immediate, bigger, more important sense, we were somewhat at odds, even though, on the substance of the issues, we were more so in agreement.

People like her and my mom tend to be more idealistic and optimistic about people and their ability to change. I also believe in the ability for people to change but I tend to provoke that change from a harsher, more critical, more aggressive, less interpersonally amenable stance. I could be wrong, you’d have to ask her, but I think that she found my methods of interacting/debating more distasteful than my actual stances on the subject matter. My mother has had the same problem with me my whole life. Therefore, I hold no ill will towards Angela whatsoever—I routinely “like” her posts even if she doesn’t particularly care for me. Right or wrong, good or bad, ideas are more important to me than interpersonal disputes.

I have slightly improved though, which is why I genuinely (but prematurely) complimented you on what I perceived to be your intellectual growth, in order to counterbalance my subsequent stinging rebuke of your ideas. However, when you say unkind and untrue things about my person, then I feel unencumbered in resending the very pleasantries I didn’t want to extend in the first place.
 
Discuss all you want, but cut out the personal attacks, guys.

Thanks. You know you still haven't apologized for insulting me countless times because I shared an opinion or more accurately you just don't like me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 54558 times.

Back
Top