What on earth has happened to anthrogenica?

[Angela]

It appears that it has escaped the notice of some posters that when the moderators finally read the thread they shut it down.

I also just love it that the northern Italian poster who lists his nationality as "Alpinoid" doesn't see any anti-Southern Italian rhetoric and skewed analysis by Sikeliot, Claudio, and Tz85 on that site. :) You just can't make this stuff up.

As for those who find only "fantasy" here, I personally post new threads on genetics almost every other day, threads on archaeology as well, but those don't attract the attention that "fantasy" threads do. In fact, the ones complaining about that are just upset that their particular fantasy has competition. Again, you almost couldn't make this stuff up.

What is happening in general in the hobbyist genetics world is that now that we have ancient dna people are not going to spend oceans of "print" on speculating, when their speculations can so soon and so completely be refuted by ancient dna. That's why at sites like anthrogenica you go through whole stretches like at present where only two to three worthwhile posts appear in any given day. There's also the fact that a lot of the basic parameters have already been established by ancient dna, especially for those who want to talk Indo-Europeans all the time. It's just filling in the gaps from now on. That's just the way it is.

To be clear, there are a lot of knowledgeable posters on anthrogenica. The problem is that since the future of racist sites is now in jeopardy, those people are migrating and trying to find other "homes", and the respectable posters probably don't notice the questionable posts on the less genetics and archaeology oriented parts of the site. I just noticed this one by accident. Goodness knows how many others there have been.

Let me be clear about something else: posters who follow the rules, stay civil, and don't ***** or insult other nationalities and groups will have no problems here and have not had any problems here. That doesn't mean that if you present nonsense claims or evidence you won't be called on it, because you will. That's a different issue.

[davef]

Fire haired, I don't get your concept. You first condemn slavery and colonialism, but then you support treating other ethnicities unfairly in order to advance one's own nation. Why? If your business is desparate for an engineer and you had a choice between the Iranian-American who graduated from Princeton and an English-German American who barely made it through an institution with a 50 percent attrition rate with a 2.4 GPA, who would you choose?
And Sile, I have absolutely no idea why you were accusing Jovialis of lying and being agenda driven, that was completely unfair and cruel. He has every reason to feel offended by the anti south Italian/Sicilian trash that sikeliot posts on there.

[davef]

And anyone who disagrees with the idea of anthrogenica being flooded with anti Sicilian posts has either never read anything from "Professor" Sikeliot or blindly sees him as a reliable source of Sicilian genetics.

[Zanatis]

It appears that it has escaped the notice of some posters that when the moderators finally read the thread they shut it down.

It might have escaped your notice that people here are banned for trivial reasons.

As for those who find only "fantasy" here, I personally post new threads on genetics almost every other day, threads on archaeology as well, but those don't attract the attention that "fantasy" threads do. In fact, the ones complaining about that are just upset that their particular fantasy has competition. Again, you almost couldn't make this stuff up.

I check almost all of them and it's either the case of your post being the only one in the thread or you get a handful of "Wow interesting" posts.

To be clear, there are a lot of knowledgeable posters on anthrogenica. The problem is that since the future of racist sites is now in jeopardy, those people are migrating and trying to find other "homes", and the respectable posters probably don't notice the questionable posts on the less genetics and archaeology oriented parts of the site. I just noticed this one by accident. Goodness knows how many others there have been.

Exactly what I though it's happening with Eupedia. I joined because I very often read posts by Maciamo, Taranis, sparkey, LeBrok, MarkoZ, Moesan, Tomenable (some bias but still), bicicleur, Alan, and maybe I'm missing some other respectable posters in here.

Let me be clear about something else: posters who follow the rules, stay civil, and don't ***** or insult other nationalities and groups will have no problems here and have not had any problems here. That doesn't mean that if you present nonsense claims or evidence you won't be called on it, because you will. That's a different issue.

I wish I could mention 3-4 names but knowing how things go down here I'll refrain but I'm also talking of an Alpinoid, an Ancient Greek, and a Yugoslavian that have always fight with Albanians who although are not very knowledgeable on the matter, currently do happen to be on the winning/lucky side as recent data suggests. Yet its the Albanians that get banned, even for correcting your Italian. Sorry but its the truth.

[Zanatis]

And anyone who disagrees with the idea of anthrogenica being flooded with anti Sicilian posts has either never read anything from "Professor" Sikeliot or blindly sees him as a reliable source of Sicilian genetics.

I'm not sure if flooded is the right word as I haven't experienced this dramatic anti-Sicilian/South Italian propaganda in there.

Sicily and South Italy do indeed share many genetic similarities with the Eastern Mediterranean countries but what always bugged me is the fact that how come people believe the Sicilians are dark because of this link. I don't have actual statistics but I've been to both Sicily and the Levant and there's no way the Lebanese, Syrians, or Palestinians contributed to that as the percentage of light features is way too high for the area. I was even shocked as one would expect that after hundreds of years of intermixing the brown eyes would completely dominate for example.

[Jovialis]

What's this non-sequitur of brown eyes, and phenotype of Sicilians? Obviously, you don't need to be from the eastern Mediterranean to have brown eyes.

Here’s ancient DNA results from a Sicilian/South Italian poster:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post521471

This doesn’t look anything like the garbage that Tz85 was saying on that thread. 50+ NA and Levant is Total b.s., what does that even mean?

Also, don’t purport that those people were banned for trivial reasons. You sound like a sock-puppet account for someone that was rightfully banned. Are you telling me, you have an account here for several years, and your only posts are these aspersions?

@davef

It takes a lot more for me to be offend. But I'm certainly offended by the lack of mental gymnastics by some posters that participate in these discussions. Thankfully, the rude, strident, and belligerent ones eventually get the hammer dropped on them, and are booted out.

Edit: I also think it's funny that in spite of that thread, National Geographic gives me "100% european". Though I'm sure other tests may put me at different rates.

[Wheal]

Are you all surprised? Americans have a fixation about race and "whiteness".

Not all Americans... many of us could care less

[Azzurro]

And anyone who disagrees with the idea of anthrogenica being flooded with anti Sicilian posts has either never read anything from "Professor" Sikeliot or blindly sees him as a reliable source of Sicilian genetics.

As someone who has been banned here twice for mentioning similar rhetoric as Sikeliot being pan Mediterraneanism and who also posts on Anthrogenica and is a friend of Sikeilot, I don't find that he is racist and I am half Sicilian, how can he be racist to Sicilians when he is 3/8ths Sicilian? He can't be the most reliable source since he is not a scientist conducting dna testing or is a project admin, but he does seem to know quite a lot when it comes to autosomal, before he posts results of people he checks to see if they are full Sicilian or Southern Italian whatever be the case and compares it to the other results that he has seen in the past and sees if it makes sense, how do I know this? Because he and I are regularly in contact. The true enemy and racists against Southern Italians and other Southern Europeans are these garbage Nordicists, who post vile things just take a look at Apricity there is a abundance of them, truly vile people.

As to the main topic of the thread, I am sure the poster who started the thread is one of those Nordicists, the owner and the admins don't stand for that sort of speech as no one should, the reason why it probably lasted longer than it should of is because it went unnoticed.

[Zanatis]

Jesus, I expressed my opinion that happens to be the same as everyone here, that of Sicilians not being MENA or whatever Nordicists claim, and I already got 4 negative ratings in my posts. Very friendly indeed.

If you check my posts on Anthrogenica and you'll see at least 10 people clicking the Thanks button, replying to your questions, send PM with extra info.

So much for Anthrogenica being a nest of idiots, racists, and mentally unstable people.

This thread simply got my attention as I for a moment started to wonder if I should refer to the users there less, but then I understood its just for some potentially anti-Sicilian members there.

Respect to all and to Sicilians and their amazing culture and country (2nd best in my list after Andalucia). I won't be bothering anyone anymore on this topic so gather your negative ratings and report my offensive posts.

[Angela]

As someone who has been banned here twice for mentioning similar rhetoric as Sikeliot being pan Mediterraneanism and who also posts on Anthrogenica and is a friend of Sikeilot, I don't find that he is racist and I am half Sicilian, how can he be racist to Sicilians when he is 3/8ths Sicilian? He can't be the most reliable source since he is not a scientist conducting dna testing or is a project admin, but he does seem to know quite a lot when it comes to autosomal, before he posts results of people he checks to see if they are full Sicilian or Southern Italian whatever be the case and compares it to the other results that he has seen in the past and sees if it makes sense, how do I know this? Because he and I are regularly in contact. The true enemy and racists against Southern Italians and other Southern Europeans are these garbage Nordicists, who post vile things just take a look at Apricity there is a abundance of them, truly vile people.

As to the main topic of the thread, I am sure the poster who started the thread is one of those Nordicists, the owner and the admins don't stand for that sort of speech as no one should, the reason why it probably lasted longer than it should of is because it went unnoticed.

You are aware that Sikeliot is a moderator at theapricity, aren't you? Or did that escape your attention? Never had any conversations about that? You are also aware that he used to publish anti-Italian rhetoric by the reams as Clementina and Portuguese Princess there, are you not, and as Oreo Cookie here? I mean, as you're such good friends.

Give it up. You convince no one. He's notorious all over the internet as the ***** with the thousand socks, often having conversations between his socks. It would be hysterically funny if it weren't so pathetic and sad. If you knew anything about him you'd know that he has tremendous problems with his Sicilian father because he didn't accept his homosexuality and because he disparaged the African in his mother's island Portuguese ancestry. Strange that he wrote me post after post about that when I was at 23andme but he doesn't confide in you about that.

I have joked in the past that all his output could be labeled "The I Hate My Father" opus. Whether or not that is mentally healthy is an entirely separate issue. Also, it's incredibly naive of you to think that some people can't hate their minority ancestry.They can indeed, although it is indeed sick. Just think about the part Jews who have been rabid anti-Semites, or part black Southerners who are racists. As a matter of fact he once relayed to me that he resented his father for bequeathing to him his "East Med" looks, for which he was supposedly bullied. Actually, if the pictures he showed me are legit he's a good looking guy, and unless he grew up in the Ozarks, which he didn't, they most certainly would not have gotten him bullied. Growing up in Rhode Island as he did, the sometimes visibly African admixed people from the Azores or Cape Verde would be infinitely more likely to be subjected to that kind of behavior.

As for what he knows about genetics, particularly Italian genetics, he learned most of it from me at 23andme, but of course he then twisted it for his own bizarre reasons.

You can also obfuscate as much as you want, but you were never banned here for your genetics based posts. You were banned for breaking the rules. Since you seem to be confused about that, perhaps you should review them.

[davef]

As someone who has been banned here twice for mentioning similar rhetoric as Sikeliot being pan Mediterraneanism and who also posts on Anthrogenica and is a friend of Sikeilot, I don't find that he is racist and I am half Sicilian, how can he be racist to Sicilians when he is 3/8ths Sicilian?

Didn't sikeliot say he was 1/2 Sicilian? If he's 3/8 Sicilian, what's the other 1/8?

[Wanderlust]

It seems you've become a bit more nuanced in some of your perspectives and I appreciate this--it's a sign of greater, more balanced intelligence. But in life there is always a quibble to be had...

I'm a nice guy but it's a doggy dog world. Unless you want your country to be dirt, you have to miss treat people of other nations.

This is overly simplistic, egregiously cynical, needlessly nihilistic and patently untrue. And I say this as a hardcore INTJ who instinctively tends more towards tribalism at best, misanthropy at worst, and the type of cold rational logic usually restricted to aspies and psychopaths. lol

For me, being fair, just, ecumenical, humanitarian, cooperative, and compassionate has nothing to do with pesky feelings or being “good” in some morally masturbatory religious sense; it’s all based on strategy and practicality, namely to promote peace, harmony and good will in order to avoid mutually assured destruction (which, again, innately, I sometimes think might be for the best because the cretinous and peonic masses don’t deserve this magnificent planet but at the same time, I’m more curious than nihilistic and would like to see how this relatively recent human experiment works out, at least while I’m still around lol).

Honestly, I (cognitively understand and recognize sadness, compassion and pity rather well but) emotively feel little to nothing when I give to the homeless, donate time and money to charities/non-profits, and endorse policies bent on “leveling the scales”; emotionally, I don’t relate to the “bleeding hearts” of the world; I simply see these gestures as necessary evils of sorts. Most humans respond in kind to good will, which only engenders more good will and most importantly, peace, balance and stability. If the police respect the people, the people will respect, assist and the not resist the police. If the corporations respect the people, the people will work harder for the corporations and increase productivity. If an occupying military doesn’t wantonly murder, rape and pillage the occupied, there will be less bloody retaliation and generations long vendettas that only perpetuate more paranoia/reality based bloodshed. IT’S SO SIMPLE. Giving into base, primitive instincts only acts as a devolving agent for humanity. I am proof positive that one can be inclined towards a certain fascistic, starkly right leaning worldview and ideology but resist them on the practical grounds of harmony (which is the only viable option once the alluringly pragmatic notions of mass, systematic extermination and annihilation are taken off the table)—as you can see, I am, in execution, a liberal (though idealistically, a centrist) but there is no "bleeding heart" attached.

Throughout history, there were always progressive voices far ahead of their times who decried the worst evils, systems and institutions of their day, while the primitive, imbecilic masses were slow to catch up—that being the case, I get how the atrocities and injustices that happened, happened, and to a very limited degree, can tolerate the “they lived in different times” narratives. But I’m a firm believer in “when you know better, do better.” And any logical, thinking person (that wants to live in relative peace) should be able to look at history, notice some pretty glaring patterns, and conclude that there are better ways to establish a prosperous, successful, more stable world order that don’t include unbridled sociopathy and callousness.

[LeBrok]

IT’S SO SIMPLE. Giving into base, primitive instincts only acts as a devolving agent for humanity. I am proof positive that one can be inclined towards a certain fascistic, starkly right leaning worldview and ideology but resist them on the practical grounds of harmony (which is the only viable option once the alluringly pragmatic notion of mass, systematic extermination and annihilation are taken off the table)—as you can see, I am, in execution, a liberal (though idealistically, a centrist) but there is no "bleeding heart" attached.

Thanks for opening. I did a similar journey myself, with starting point being mildly conservative and religious person. That's by nurture, and later by means of understanding, becoming pragmatic liberal.

Throughout history, there were always progressive voices far ahead of their times who decried the worst evils, systems and institutions of their day, while the primitive, imbecilic masses were slow to catch up—that being the case, I get how the atrocities and injustices that happened, happened and to a very limited degree, can tolerate the “they were different times” narratives. But I’m a firm believer in “when you know better, do better.” And any logical, thinking person (that wants to live in relative peace) should be able to look at history, notice some pretty glaring patterns, and conclude that there are better ways to establish a prosperous, successful, more stable world order that doesn’t include unbridled sociopathy and callousness.

Ah, if we could just find the way to explained this to roughly 6 billion people who still live with their heads deep in their tribal arses. Might need to wait for generation of smart designer babies coming off the production line. ;)

[Wanderlust]

Thanks for opening. I did a similar journey myself, with starting point being mildly conservative and religious person. That's by nurture, and later by means of understanding, becoming pragmatic liberal.

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 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).

[Fire Haired14]

It seems you've become a bit more nuanced in some of your perspectives and I appreciate this--it's a sign of greater, more balanced intelligence. But in life there is always a quibble to be had...

Thanks I appreciate that.

I'm a nice guy but it's a doggy dog world. Unless you want your country to be dirt, you have to miss treat people of other nations.

This is overly simplistic, egregiously cynical, needlessly nihilistic and patently untrue. And I say this as a hardcore INTJ who instinctively tends more towards tribalism at best, misanthropy at worst, and the type of cold rational logic usually restricted to aspies and psychopaths. lol

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)?

For me, being fair..........has nothing to do with pesky feelings or being “good” in some morally masturbatory religious sense; it’s all based on strategy and practicality....... in order to avoid mutually assured destruction

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).


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.

(which, again, innately, I sometimes think might be for the best because the cretinous and peonic masses don’t deserve this magnificent planet. .

Yeah……..and I’m the cold hearted one for saying nations need to hurt other nations to succeed. This is sick dude.

but at the same time, I’m more curious than nihilistic and would like to see how this relatively recent human experiment works out, at least while I’m still around lol). .

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.

If the police respect the people, the people will respect, assist and the not resist the police. If the corporations respect the people, the people will work harder for the corporations and increase productivity. If an occupying military doesn’t wantonly murder, rape and pillage the occupied, there will be less bloody retaliation and generations long vendettas that only perpetuate more paranoia/reality based bloodshed.

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.

If IT’S SO SIMPLE. Giving into base, primitive instincts only acts as a devolving agent for humanity. I am proof positive that one can be inclined towards a certain fascistic, starkly right leaning worldview and ideology but resist them on the practical grounds of harmony

Ok, good. Then we agree at some level. Harmony is what just about everyone wants. But I’m sure we have different opinions on how it can be achieved.

as you can see, I am, in execution, a liberal (though idealistically, a centrist) but there is no "bleeding heart" attached.

I’m dead serious, hopefully you know if an ideology ever calls for violence against ignorant minds who can’t understand its truth, ditch that ideology.

[Rewind]

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.

[LeBrok]

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.

[Wanderlust]

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.

[Wanderlust]

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.

[Fire Haired14]

@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.

[bicicleur]

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.

[LeBrok]

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.

[Fire Haired14]

@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]

@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.

[Fire Haired14]

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.