captaincrunk wrote:Ah, you are an idiot and a jackass I see. At any rate, the distinctions aren't inherent, most abilities are learned, and most people given similar circumstances will produce similar output. You are clinging to this dumbfuck idea that you are a special snowflake just because you are a white honky cracker.
AutSider wrote:Anybody care to explain this?
Which history shows, can shift relatively quickly, even in generally homogenous group.Magnus Anderson wrote:
Group identity = shared pattern of behavior as evidenced by the history of the group.
I agree with this, but this does not make an otherwise homogeneous group immune from splitting, only less likely so. This is why I said that ideology has been the main factor in disagreements (whether the group is homo or hetero). And to preserve group ideology (prevent it from splitting) you'd have to be pretty much watertight like North Korea. This is why there is so much emphasis on winning the hearts and minds of people - it's primarily through ideology that you create a group identity. Even if you unite all the white people, based on race, you're not going to be immune to divisive ideology, since it does not discriminate based on color.Homogeneous groups degenerate into heterogeneous when their defenses become weakened.
I think what is needed is a historical awareness of political dynamics (causes-effects and factors involved), and on a larger scale. Group identities (on national levels) have made the common man into a tool or a pawn to be played in a larger global arena of power games. Of course, the common man stands invested into the society into which he was born because the national self-interest will also eventually trickle down to his own self-interest, so a common man is born to be dependent on the play of global politics by default, whether he likes it or not. And sometimes, the common man gets screwed, like a regular Syrian person, to take a recent example. So does global politics really care for the welfare of the common man? I think not. It's primarily about ideology and power games, and the regular people are either just collateral damage or raw material to be used. And there are no innocents in this game, either. Are American people good people because their government tells them that their foreign policy is destroying nations for the good of other people (bringing democracy and freedom)? Everyone is complicit, and I think most people, at least instinctively, understand this. And of course, nobody wants to be the bad guy so we have to make up these fancy reasonings and justifications so we can lie, steal and kill, and still be the good guy in the end. This, of course, is nothing new, and has been happening since we first created a group identity.Pacifism is one such entirely unnatural pattern of behavior.
Who determines exactly what one human being needs, at minimum? I think in most of the world now, you must have at minimum an e-mail address and a cell phone (even in shanty towns around the world). Most of the cities around the world must have at least one McDonald's. Even Italy, which has always resisted Starbucks expansionism, is now buckling in and will open its first Starbucks next year. Will Italy be enriched by Starbucks coffee? Heck no, it's like comparing Michelangelo to children's doodles. But how can we not have a Starbucks in Italy?! At the very minimum, we should have one. Visit your local mall, it's a practically a carbon copy of any other mall in the world. If you don't have this standard set in your local town, you're not having the minimum experience that a human being around the world should have access to. This is the world we live in now. But I digress.Asceticism, i.e. expecting people to have fewer needs than they really do, is another.
Pandora wrote:Who determines exactly what one human being needs, at minimum?
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Heterogeneous group = a collection of individuals that have one or two things in common ( e g need to survive ) but that have nothing else in common
Magnus Anderson wrote:Pandora wrote:Who determines exactly what one human being needs, at minimum?
Who or what determines when you're going to be hungry?
Your body does, right?
...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.AutSider wrote:I've already offered my explanation in the OP.MagsJ wrote:So why.. in your opinion.. are certain groups banned and not others, if hate and violence are not the reason?
Change the tone of the message and the view of the group will be seen in a different light.. it happened here, but their intent remained the same.But what when there is a system of indoctrination in place which teaches a certain group from a young age to adopt political ideals which are self-destructive, aka go against the interests of the group?
Can we truly and fairly say that it is their own will? Especially when a "disparate few" manage to break free from the indoctrination and point out all its flaws (though no doubt the system continues to suppress their message and vilify them).
Does a child which has been indoctrinated from early age to believe in God by every adult authority they know, in an environment where any atheist would be labeled a "mindless hater", "heretic", etc. and opposing views would never be seriously entertained, believe in God of its own will?
MagsJ wrote: ...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
Mimisbrunnr wrote:MagsJ wrote: ...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you. It seems that you are ignoring the fact that by virtue of being "pro-white" is it unacceptable to you. How do you even know what the messages are? Sounds like you're just another sheep.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Mimisbrunnr wrote:MagsJ wrote: ...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you. It seems that you are ignoring the fact that by virtue of being "pro-white" is it unacceptable to you. How do you even know what the messages are? Sounds like you're just another sheep.
The banking cartels. I'm cool with them being pro white.
Magnus Anderson wrote:captaincrunk wrote:Ah, you are an idiot and a jackass I see. At any rate, the distinctions aren't inherent, most abilities are learned, and most people given similar circumstances will produce similar output. You are clinging to this dumbfuck idea that you are a special snowflake just because you are a white honky cracker.
Not a special snowflake at all. That's what your emotions force you to assume. Just interested in reality, that's all.
You're a walking and talking and posting contradiction, aren't ya? You said there are inherent distinctions now you're saying there aren't. Next thing is you're gonna say there are. Then say there aren't. And so on ad infinitum.
You're very indignant too. Quite a bit of a victim and a victim sympathizer, aren't you? Life must be very hard.
Most abilities are learned . . . great stuff. Can a domestic cat learn to be a lion? Or an ape learn to be a human? Why not? You said "most abilities" are learned. Oh, those are not among the most?
You must be a believer in infinites then. Because given "infinite amount of time" which is to say "given sufficient amount of time" anyone can become anything.
But who gives a fuck about that when life is finite?
There are limits to everything. Including limits.
There is such a thing as rate at which a trait is developed and this is different for everyone and it is different for every single trait within a single organism.
You must be very naive to think that anyone can become Usain Bolt given similar circumstances. Usain Bolt must be special, not because of his past (genetics/nature), but because of the circumstances in which he was raised (education/nurture.)
Note that I am not denying the value of nurture. American Africans are better at basketball than African Africans precisely because of better circumstances (because they were enslaved whereas the latter were not lol.) But that does not mean that genetics play no part. Whites can never compete with Blacks in basketball. Nurture can't change that.
Mimisbrunnr wrote:Thank you for admitting you don't know what you are talking about.
Britain First.Mimisbrunnr wrote:So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you.MagsJ wrote: ...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
You seem to have entirely missed the point I am making.It seems that you are ignoring the fact that by virtue of being "pro-white" is it unacceptable to you. How do you even know what the messages are? Sounds like you're just another sheep.
MagsJ wrote:Britain First.Mimisbrunnr wrote:So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you.MagsJ wrote: ...and I reiterate.. it is not the group but the message that is the problem.
No group is unacceptable to my sensibilities, but the tone of their messages are.. regardless of which group it is
The messages are out there to read for those that seek them.
Who am I following to be a sheep?
captaincrunk wrote:Could you learn to be a good person?
Can a honky learn to dance?
Your pathetic metaphors don't fool anyone. Penis envy drives your culture.
Mimisbrunnr wrote:So name one specifically pro-white group that is ok to you.
Britain First.
Ok then, EDL.Mimisbrunnr wrote:Not a pro-white group. Pro-loyalist. They still play the leftist word game with "racism", as if a Britain First group that didn't accept multiculturalism is racist. They are pro-christian. Their 'traditional British values" equates to "christianity" to them. Again, not pro-white.
I didn't conflate white pride with anything... I was simply addressing Autsider's concerns on why pro white groups are banned.. as opposed to the other groups.I didn't miss your point. My point that you missed, is that this thread was started with black pride, lgbt pride, latino pride but not white pride. Your response was immediately about the "message" meaning you are conflating "white pride" automatically with a "bad message", you didn't make any distinction. My sheep comment was about being a sheep to the establishment and their language manipulation and how they portray different groups. Secondly your example of an acceptable "pro-white" group lacks any hint of actually looking out for white interests. Only loyalist and christian ones, guised as "British values". If we were to take another actual pro-X group and change it to pro-white, the very same "values", demands, the very same rants would be considered racist, x, y, and z "'ist" etc. etc. and my assumption is that based on this you would automatically call it a " bad tone to the message".
Accepted, MimisbrunnrThough, perhaps an inflammatory term like "sheep" was a little dramatic. Apologies MagsJ.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users