Anti-white sentiments

Author: Analgesic.Spectre

Posts

Total: 51
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@triangle.128k
How do you propose dealing with differences in IQ of races? Would you support establishing a hierarchy that places whites over blacks and other nonwhite races? Or would you prefer to let these differences show naturally without any discriminatory law?
IQ racial differences are one of the myriad reason to keep races separate. I don't think a racial superiority schema is necessary, nor even desirable. Until we're able to discover a transhumanist solution (to rid ourselves of these silly biases), I think people should remain in their ancestral geographical location. This becomes difficult for people of mixed races, but the majority of people are not this, and we could address on an individual basis. Nonetheless, this is much better than the globalist free-for-all we currently have.

Albeit, this is not going to happen. Countries with stronger cultural and racial identity will covertly invade countries silly enough to adopt multi-racial and multi-cultural policies, the invasion will continue until the invaders are dominant, and then the invaders, we have now become the dominant culture/race, will slowly begin to fall for the same traps that tricked the ones they conquered. That cycle has happened all throughout history, and will continue to happen.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
The question is whether the concept of 'nations' is optimal for humanity and the planet or if we'd all be better off without 'nations'.
If not 'nations', then humans will find another trivial facets to discriminate between in and out-groups. The concept of 'nation' isn't the root of the problem. If you look at experiments like the Robbers Cave experiment, it takes virtually nothing for humans to engage in tribalistic nonsense.

Humans would require massive redesigning, in order for appeals to "humanity" to be more effective than tribalism.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If not 'nations', then humans will find another trivial facets to discriminate between in and out-groups. The concept of 'nation' isn't the root of the problem. If you look at experiments like the Robbers Cave experiment, it takes virtually nothing for humans to engage in tribalistic nonsense.

Humans would require massive redesigning, in order for appeals to "humanity" to be more effective than tribalism.

Something we are close to agreement on for once. 

Perhaps it is only your apparent pessimism regarding postive change I don't fully concur with.
 

triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Albeit, this is not going to happen. Countries with stronger cultural and racial identity will covertly invade countries silly enough to adopt multi-racial and multi-cultural policies, the invasion will continue until the invaders are dominant, and then the invaders, we have now become the dominant culture/race, will slowly begin to fall for the same traps that tricked the ones they conquered. That cycle has happened all throughout history, and will continue to happen.
I'm a bit busy to address your other statements, but regarding race... The idea of a racial identity has been occasional, though throughout history it's largely been more ethnic or culturally based.

The idea of racial identity, especially a white identity, is almost entirely tracable to Protestant-European colonists that saught to justify slavery. In other cases, there was more fluidity. The most successful empires typically imposed cultural hegemony and assimilated/integrated conquered peoples. Ethnic based ones such as the Mongols usually failed. 

ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@triangle.128k
The Mongols did exactly that though. They were famous for their toleration of other religions and creeds, and for their complicated, neutral form of law. Hell, the Mongol empire mostly dissolved because the Mongol ruling class assimilated to the societies which they conquered. Just look at the Ilkhanate or Yuan China.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
Something we are close to agreement on for once.  
Thrilling.

Perhaps it is only your apparent pessimism regarding postive change I don't fully concur with.
I really don't care about labels such as optimism or pessimism. I only care about what is accurate, unless I'm directly controlling the outcome (and thus having an optimistic outlook would help to influence the outcome in a positive way. Macrosocietal change is certainly not something I can impact, in any meaningful way).

The human mind needs radical change, or else it'll fall into the same traps it historically has always fallen into.


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@triangle.128k
I'm a bit busy to address your other statements, but regarding race... The idea of a racial identity has been occasional, though throughout history it's largely been more ethnic or culturally based.
If you're going to play silly, little semantics games, involving "racial identity" and "ethnic", I'm even busier than you.

The idea of racial identity, especially a white identity, is almost entirely tracable to Protestant-European colonists that saught to justify slavery.
Racial identity, of any kind, has roots in evolutionary tribalism. "White identity" is a manifestation of that. Beyond that, there really isn't a worthwhile distinction to be made.

In other cases, there was more fluidity. The most successful empires typically imposed cultural hegemony and assimilated/integrated conquered peoples. Ethnic based ones such as the Mongols usually failed. 
The tactics/facets that empires used to become successful, and the tactics/facets that empires used once they became successful, are crucially important to recognise. Every single major empire, that decided to employ assimilation/integrated models, planted the seeds for it to become divided -- to have its multi-racial/multicultural people apathetic, lazy, uncharitable and distrusting of their fellow neighbours.

Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.
That may have been so in the past but a wise man said "The human mind needs radical change, or else it'll fall into the same traps it historically has always fallen into."


Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
That may have been so in the past but a wise man said "The human mind needs radical change, or else it'll fall into the same traps it historically has always fallen into."
Actually, a wise woman said that.

Anyway, yes, as in literal change, not merely different thoughts. You cannot solve these problems by merely thinking of solutions. Humans need to feel differently, and since these undesirable feelings have been embedded within us through countless years of evolution, cerebral thoughts aren't going to be sufficiently powerful to change those feelings.

9 days later

triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Racial identity, of any kind, has roots in evolutionary tribalism. "White identity" is a manifestation of that. Beyond that, there really isn't a worthwhile distinction to be made.
Not true, the idea of a "white identity" comes from Protestant European planters in the New World using race as a diving line between black slaves and white indentures to prevent them from cooperating and overthrowing them, as they were initially trying to. In reality, "whites" would encompass a loosely defined people of a great multitude of cultures, languages, religion, etc, that could never unite simply based on skin color. 


The tactics/facets that empires used to become successful, and the tactics/facets that empires used once they became successful, are crucially important to recognise. Every single major empire, that decided to employ assimilation/integrated models, planted the seeds for it to become divided -- to have its multi-racial/multicultural people apathetic, lazy, uncharitable and distrusting of their fellow neighbours. 
And empires divided over a multitude of causes... To attribute this entirely, or even significantly to the lack of racialism, is quite absurd. Moreover, "multicultural" and "multiracial" are different terms. 


Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.
You're assuming ingrouping/outgrouping, homogenity, and tribalism are all entirely based on race. This is false, considering the fact that multiple cultures have existed between what would appear to be the same race. Such factors may range from culture, language, religion, customs, politics, etc. For instance, there was no concept of race in Medieval Europe. Rather, the source of cohesion and ingrouping/outgrouping would be more based on stuff such as religion (the main one back then) or regional identities. 

Why necessarily, then, is race a superior construct to base an ingroup on? And from what you've been stating, it seems that "sola race" is your ideal. Yet in reality, identity is often based on a multitude of factors. There are racial minorities integrated within the society of a racial majority simply by adopting aspects such as behavior, culture, religion, language, etc.
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@triangle.128k
Not true, the idea of a "white identity" comes from Protestant European planters in the New World using race as a diving line between black slaves and white indentures to prevent them from cooperating and overthrowing them, as they were initially trying to.
Mate, what do you think inspired white people to beget the idea of white identity? Do you honestly think that a white person, suddenly out of the blue as he sat in his stately office, just thought, "You know what? F*ck black people," for not apparent reason? Or, and this is only supported by a plethora of research, maybe his evolutionary derived tribalistic feelings encouraged such a thought as "white identity?"

In reality, "whites" would encompass a loosely defined people of a great multitude of cultures, languages, religion, etc, that could never unite simply based on skin color. 
You do realise that tribalism isn't limited to skin colour, right? You do realise that experiments, like the Robbers Cave experiment, showed how little humans need to have their tribalistic tendencies trigger?

And empires divided over a multitude of causes... To attribute this entirely, or even significantly to the lack of racialism, is quite absurd. Moreover, "multicultural" and "multiracial" are different terms. 
Yes, there are other factors, too. However, in every major empire for the last 2,500 years, multiculturalism and multiracialism have been present as said empires fell. As to the specific effects of multiculturalism and multiracialism, that really needs it own thread. But, to be awfully terse, those things make people less trusting of each other, causes people to be less charitable to one another, erodes a sense of duty etc. -- none of these things help keep a society functioning.

You're assuming ingrouping/outgrouping, homogenity, and tribalism are all entirely based on race. 
Wow.

How the f*ck do you people even operate?

Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?

And you wonder why I get angry with people like you...

Just get out of here.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society
And assimilation is an attempt to achieve that end.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@disgusted
And assimilation is a foolhardy attempt to achieve that end.

Ftfy
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Yeah it's a product of love and respect, anathema to wingnut godists.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I think that subsidiarity helps with managing diverse subgroups. What we have now is the worst of all worlds: no political subsidiarity, self-segregation is illegal, no enforced universal culture, and a drive towards ever-increasing diversity. The entirely predictable outcome of this, for anyone with an unclouded mind and two brain cells to rub together, is a violent backlash the likes of which will shatter our society and result in atrocities. I'm still haunted by a historical retelling of Boston's busing policy and the violent, neighborhood-dissolving backlash which followed. Not just white against black, but black against jew and every other ethnic combination. Pretty universally, minorities were tolerated with politeness. One teach, a black women from the West Indies who taught in a white school, testified that nobody had every called her a nigger in all her years of teaching. But as soon as any school reached a point where there was no clear minority, it triggered those deep limbic systems that humans have and jaw-dropping violent, hatred, and resentment came to the forefront. What had been a tapestry of more or less self-contained, content, functioning communities dissolved into a violent, chaotic free-for-all because every community was deprived of its backbone (and all of them, black white and Jewish, fought tooth and nail against it) in pursuit of vapid utopianism.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Mate, what do you think inspired white people to beget the idea of white identity? Do you honestly think that a white person, suddenly out of the blue as he sat in his stately office, just thought, "You know what? F*ck black people," for not apparent reason? Or, and this is only supported by a plethora of research, maybe his evolutionary derived tribalistic feelings encouraged such a thought as "white identity?"
Uhhhh I'm pretty sure I just explained this - Protestant planters creating a racial boundary to change the tribalism dynamic to be based on race in order to prevent indentured whites and black slaves from cooperating for their benefit.

There was absolutely no concept of white identity in Medieval Europe prior to this, and even after racial identity was never hard-engrained into much of Europe and doesn't remain so.


You do realise that tribalism isn't limited to skin colour, right? You do realise that experiments, like the Robbers Cave experiment, showed how little humans need to have their tribalistic tendencies trigger?
And? Tribalism occurs due to a variety of reasons, and I fail to see the necessity of being hardline on race. There are several people of X race who were born, grew up in, and assimilated to a culture of Y country. I fail to see the necessity in mandating these people to be discriminated against. Immigration restrictions may be necessary everywhere, but society isn't going to simply collapse in on itself if a person of X race has citizenship in a country of Y race. There's a big difference between hardcore racial identity and demographic displacement as with what's occuring today. 


Yes, there are other factors, too. However, in every major empire for the last 2,500 years, multiculturalism and multiracialism have been present as said empires fell. As to the specific effects of multiculturalism and multiracialism, that really needs it own thread. But, to be awfully terse, those things make people less trusting of each other, causes people to be less charitable to one another, erodes a sense of duty etc. -- none of these things help keep a society functioning.
By nature, empires do expand and encompass a wide variety of cultures. Yes. 

Multiracialism and multiculturalism are, however, different. I fail to see how multiracialism always necessarily causes the latter effects you described. These effects aren't necessarily present in culturally homogenous but racially heterogenous Latin American countries. 


Wow.

How the f*ck do you people even operate?

Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?

And you wonder why I get angry with people like you...

Just get out of here.
Ah, I suppose this is where the argument ends. You sure are a ficety one, Cassie. I suggest you leave this site before displaying your mental problems, lack of anger management, and your b1tchiness. I would advise against you sperging out, then crying about your real life problems and trying to make people feel sympathetic - and repeating the cycle. 

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@triangle.128k
Uhhhh I'm pretty sure I just explained this - Protestant planters creating a racial boundary to change the tribalism dynamic to be based on race in order to prevent indentured whites and black slaves from cooperating for their benefit.

There was absolutely no concept of white identity in Medieval Europe prior to this, and even after racial identity was never hard-engrained into much of Europe and doesn't remain so. 
You're not understanding my point.

It's like staring into water and seeing a reflection of yourself (white identity), but not realising that the reflection is coming from you (evolutionary tribalistic drives).

It's like you think racial differentiation is purely a cerebral conception, which is just laughably wrong.

And? Tribalism occurs due to a variety of reasons
Did you even glance at what the Robbers Cave experiment was? Even if, for some unknown, retarded reason, you thought that I thought tribalism didn't occur due to a variety of reasons (a horrible, unsupportable strawman), you would see that the experiment has nothing to do with racial identity.

and I fail to see the necessity of being hardline on race. There are several people of X race who were born, grew up in, and assimilated to a culture of Y country. I fail to see the necessity in mandating these people to be discriminated against. Immigration restrictions may be necessary everywhere, but society isn't going to simply collapse in on itself if a person of X race has citizenship in a country of Y race. There's a big difference between hardcore racial identity and demographic displacement as with what's occuring today. 
Yes, the society won't collapse if a singular person of a different race (another strawman of yours).

The society will being to collapse if multiple people, of different races and cultures, are allowed into a country. It's not merely "demographic displacement" at play. People's subconscious drives, of which how they determine their behaviour to strangers, is also at play.

To give some evidence to my point (certainly not exhaustive), here is a thread wherein I outline the role genetics plays in political discourse, of which these genetics encompass racial identity: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107). 

By nature, empires do expand and encompass a wide variety of cultures. Yes. 

Multiracialism and multiculturalism are, however, different. I fail to see how multiracialism always necessarily causes the latter effects you described. These effects aren't necessarily present in culturally homogenous but racially heterogenous Latin American countries. 
You don't think trust, charity, duty, unity etc. are important in maintaining a society?

Ah, I suppose this is where the argument ends. You sure are a ficety one, Cassie. I suggest you leave this site before displaying your mental problems, lack of anger management, and your b1tchiness. I would advise against you sperging out, then crying about your real life problems and trying to make people feel sympathetic - and repeating the cycle. 
I mean what's the point in discussing this with you, when you make horrible strawmans? When I have to repeat myself, it's a lot of effort and time wasted. I'd much rather be expanding on my points or having them tested.

Seriously, please respond to this, because I think any rational person would see this as arguing in horrible faith:

"Seriously, after reading this: "Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not," why did you decide to think that this applies only to race? Where does it even HINT at that?
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@disgusted
Yeah it's a product of love and respect

anathema to wingnut godists.
Who are you talking to, and what on Earth are you calling them, lol?

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think that subsidiarity helps with managing diverse subgroups.
But there's no point in managing these subgroups, when not having to manage them is preferable.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds: no political subsidiarity, self-segregation is illegal, no enforced universal culture, and a drive towards ever-increasing diversity. The entirely predictable outcome of this, for anyone with an unclouded mind and two brain cells to rub together, is a violent backlash the likes of which will shatter our society and result in atrocities.
Yes, but I'm not sure even hardcore segregation, let alone subsidiarity, will suffice in preventing this violence. Humans have an alarmingly low threshold for incorporating out and in-groups to any given population. If people don't divide on the ever popular race, then they'll find something else to divide on. To me, given the current state of humans, this violence appears unavoidable.

I'm still haunted by a historical retelling of Boston's busing policy and the violent, neighborhood-dissolving backlash which followed. Not just white against black, but black against jew and every other ethnic combination. Pretty universally, minorities were tolerated with politeness. One teach, a black women from the West Indies who taught in a white school, testified that nobody had every called her a nigger in all her years of teaching. But as soon as any school reached a point where there was no clear minority, it triggered those deep limbic systems that humans have and jaw-dropping violent, hatred, and resentment came to the forefront. What had been a tapestry of more or less self-contained, content, functioning communities dissolved into a violent, chaotic free-for-all because every community was deprived of its backbone (and all of them, black white and Jewish, fought tooth and nail against it) in pursuit of vapid utopianism.
This theme is common throughout every population I've seen. The first generation immigrants seem to try their hardest to integrate (I think I'm safe in assuming this black teacher did), and those who don't quickly find themselves in a world of trouble.

However, once the population's demographics change (to the point where there is "no clear minority"), there suddenly becomes an instinctive drive towards in-group dominance, so that more resources can be acquired for the in-group (and therefore, the individual of the in-group gets more resources, too, which would facilitate survival, hence why all this happens instinctively). So, whilst the black teacher is content with being accepted by the white majority, her instinctual part is a bubbling cauldron of tribalism, ready to erupt when her in-group is capable of seizing power.

"A bad peace is even worse than war" - Tacitus



disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
It's like staring into water and seeing a reflection of yourself (white identity), but not realising that the reflection is coming from you (evolutionary tribalistic drives).
Otherwise known as follow the leader, most people are indoctrinated to not think for themselves but to follow the mob. Most humans aren't nearly as evolved as they might want, if they were they wouldn't need religions.

Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@disgusted
Otherwise known as follow the leader, most people are indoctrinated to not think for themselves but to follow the mob. Most humans aren't nearly as evolved as they might want, if they were they wouldn't need religions.
Right.

Now what? Attempt to completely ignore how people are with an assimilation model of 'let's all get along?'