General

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Freedom4Me73986 — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:07:26 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Consumariat — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:06:59 GMT

Diversity is a terrible thing. Case-in-point: New Hampshire is 95% white and it has the highest quality of life of any state, and is the most libertarian by far.

Cats have four legs, cows have four legs. Therefore all cows are cats.

Thats all nice but you haven't responded to my argument. I said non-whites in America tend to be extremely statist in their voting patterns.

Then again, voting is by definition statist.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

tckb909 — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:55:49 GMT

That's true but I thought the entire country seems to be statist is their voting patterns? With a few exceptions here and there.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Freedom4Me73986 — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:50:11 GMT

Thats all nice but you haven't responded to my argument. I said non-whites in America tend to be extremely statist in their voting patterns.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

tckb909 — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:32:19 GMT

Why write non-whites off so quickly though? Many more of us younger non-whites are open to libertarian ideas but most of us never had a chance to know what libertarianism even is. Nowadays with the internet and all this information at our hands its much easier to convert people to libertarianism. In my parents generation, all most Mexicans/Hispanics/Blacks knew was the mainstream conservative vs liberal paradigm. People are brainwashed. I find a lot of non-whites to be much more opened to libertarian ideas these days, especially the younger generations because they have not been brainwashed as much yet. Most of my peers have a favorable view of Ron Paul. I'm not saying they're all 100% libertarian but I do see potential.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Bert — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:59:14 GMT

Trolling is, by commonly-accepted definition, intentional.

Trolling is intentional, but I believe there are those who just so happen to live life in a way where they are trolling whether or not they think they are. Freedom4Me believes he's making legitimate points and should be taken seriously, but outside his little boxed in world everyone's probably thinking "lol wtf r u srs?!". I think in the scholarly world these types of people are called "quacks" with "crackpot theories".

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Mtn Dew — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:52:01 GMT

I took a class on the history of labor law at the law school back when I was in college. The professor, who told us he was a socialist on day one and that he refused to wear ties because they were the clothing of the bourgeois, state that racism did not exist until capitalism became popular in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Autolykos — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:50:51 GMT

To the OP:

I think modern-day racism correlates rather strongly with colonialism. This would support Birthday Pony's assertion that modern-day racism didn't appear as a social phenomenon until after 1600.

My thinking is that the advancements in technology and wealth enjoyed by Europeans and their colonial descendants led them to believe that they were inherently superior to other "races" of the world. Apparently they thought that, if other peoples were just as good as them, the other peoples would be just as advanced. Since they aren't, they must be inferior.

The term "race" itself doesn't have the same meaning everywhere it's used. Ancient sources the contain the word "race" in their English translations most likely were referring to nations - that is, to groups of people (presumably) sharing common ancestors. Hitler and other Nazis also used the word "race" in this way.

And this leads me to the impetus behind colonialism (and ultimately racism). Colonialism was driven by the desire for one group to profit at the expense of other groups. In other words, colonialism was just a form of imperialism.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Autolykos — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:41:12 GMT

Bert:
Holy hell, Freedom4Me has done it, he's surpassed the most absurd post beyond any actual troll. This guy is trolling whether or not he even knows it.

Trolling is, by commonly-accepted definition, intentional.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Bert — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:37:58 GMT

Holy hell, Freedom4Me has done it, he's surpassed the most absurd post beyond any actual troll. This guy is trolling whether or not he even knows it.

HK was ruled by whites for a long time which is why I'm assuming its so free market. Everywhere else in Asia (aside from maybe Singapore) is ruled by Asians and is not libertarian at all.

Isn't Japan leading in technology and making the most ridiculous material things possible?

All you need to do is take a look at the statistics. Why are the most diverse states in America the LEAST libertarian? Why is California (the most diverse state) so statist to the point where businesses are leaving and the state is spending out of control? New Hampshire is the most libertarian state by far and its 95% white. No diversity. When I'm in NH I rarely ever see a non-white.

Canada is filled with whites, Sweden is filled with whites, Norway is filled with whites, Germany is filled with whites...they have not historically (or currently) been very libertarian.

Look, call me a racist all you want but non-whites keep voting for more welfare and more taxation. That's a fact you can't dispute.

The NSDAP and it's supporters must have been non-white because they erected one hell of a fascist regime. With this logic = NSDAP = non-libertarian = non-white. We've figured it out! Maybe the NSDAP was orchestrated by Jews and Goebbels must have been a double agent for a coming of power Z.O.G.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Freedom4Me73986 — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:27:02 GMT

Rome wasn't built in a day. NH will be Hong Kong in no time. Every single free stater in NH is active in libertarian causes in some way. Schools are on their way to being privatized, gold and silver are making a huge mark, agorism is everywhere and you can always leave civ for the woods at any time.

First, Hong Kong is full of Chinese, not whites. Second, Hong Kong is very diverse. Your premises are flawed.

Third, you seem to assume "diversity" is a word for "not white". North Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone are all far less diverse than the United States, Canada, and Germany.

Fourth, whites are absolutely not "more libertarian", its just that conservatives and pseudo-libertarians often push non-whites into becoming slaves of the state when (a small minority, but a vocal and incredibly irritating one) they claim that whites are biologically superior or that the holocaust didn't occur. Hell, many of the places moving in the direction of libertarianism are distinctly not-white, in places like Central America and Asia.

Fifth, Detroit is bad because of the state screwing everyone over and creating dependants/slaves with welfare. There are individuals there who are altogether making the best of things, and in some ways things are improving there (though not in the sense that the Michigan government is getting better).

HK was ruled by whites for a long time which is why I'm assuming its so free market. Everywhere else in Asia (aside from maybe Singapore) is ruled by Asians and is not libertarian at all.

All you need to do is take a look at the statistics. Why are the most diverse states in America the LEAST libertarian? Why is California (the most diverse state) so statist to the point where businesses are leaving and the state is spending out of control? New Hampshire is the most libertarian state by far and its 95% white. No diversity. When I'm in NH I rarely ever see a non-white.

Look, call me a racist all you want but non-whites keep voting for more welfare and more taxation. That's a fact you can't dispute.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

MadMiser — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:56:52 GMT

But if I said that, I'd effectively be implying that race is a universal, which doesn't really have a nice ring to it now, does it?

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Wheylous — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:18:33 GMT

whilst beauty is a subjective thing, it also has an objective component, in that the majority of people would agree that a very attractive person is very attractive, and that a very ugly face is very ugly

Careful with your terms. This is called "universal", not "objective." There's an important difference.

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

My Buddy — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:56:26 GMT

Rome wasn't built in a day. NH will be Hong Kong in no time. Every single free stater in NH is active in libertarian causes in some way. Schools are on their way to being privatized, gold and silver are making a huge mark, agorism is everywhere and you can always leave civ for the woods at any time.

First, Hong Kong is full of Chinese, not whites. Second, Hong Kong is very diverse. Your premises are flawed.

Third, you seem to assume "diversity" is a word for "not white". North Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone are all far less diverse than the United States, Canada, and Germany.

Fourth, whites are absolutely not "more libertarian", its just that conservatives and pseudo-libertarians often push non-whites into becoming slaves of the state when (a small minority, but a vocal and incredibly irritating one) they claim that whites are biologically superior or that the holocaust didn't occur. Hell, many of the places moving in the direction of libertarianism are distinctly not-white, in places like Central America and Asia.

Fifth, Detroit is bad because of the state screwing everyone over and creating dependants/slaves with welfare. There are individuals there who are altogether making the best of things, and in some ways things are improving there (though not in the sense that the Michigan government is getting better).

Re: Racism: Biological or Cultural?

Marko — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:26:52 GMT

Generally, anthro and history departments are teaching that racism wasn't a codified or easily recognizable social phenomenon before around the 1600s with the publication of the first anthropological study that classified humans into (I think) 5 different hierarchized subspecies.

Sounds like (European) racism is distinct from other kinds of chauvinism in its attempt to link itself to science. Ancient Greeks for example were famous chauvinists but they didn't try to bring science into their disdain for Barbarians.

It would be interesting to know if racism of the Japanese and Chinese was also "scientific" like that.