The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

I have to ask if he denies the idea that some group can be superior to some other group in any actual sense, or if, admitting a group can be superior to another one, he dislikes the idea of the superior group dominating the inferior group.

ok so you agree with churchill on the race part?

Are the Irish, Indians, Kenyans and Americans inferior to the British? Considering they were dominated?

No, I don't think the British are a higher-grade race than the Indians or the Irish.

You think it is bad if it is "white" people. You seem mostly agnostic or supportive otherwise.

You certainly have nothing negative to say about any historical Muslim leaders who had much worse ideologies than this during the last 1300 years of colonialism, conquest and genocide (still very much ongoing).

This is one of many reasons why it is so hard to take progressivism seriously at all. At the end of the day there is no first principles at all. It is just hatred of all things coded "white."

I think it's uncontroversial to claim they were at the time when colonization started, technologically less advanced, and in far worse economic conditions.

Which i think is what the "worldy wise" part of the claim was about.

Do we agree at least on that?

Do you think the british were objectively, measurably, rankably, non-controversially better at technology and with a better economy when they started colonizing others?

Or do you deny that?

Keep in mind the reason(s) why that was the case are irrelevant for the claim

Even if the reasons why the british were objectively superior at technology were 100% environmental (let's posit that, it's fine), which has to include culture, then we can say the british culture *at the time* was extraordinarily better for technologial progress than the colonized cultures.

If you accept that, and you accept that technological progress is the only, or at least the main, reason we have any material progress at all in our quality of life, ie it's the source of all that is good for humanity in a sense, then a culture which is better at it is objectively better for humanity, and to have cultures worse than it succumb to it is objectively better for the future trajectory of humanity.

Fair enough. I guess it is more accurate to say abandoning energy production was part of a broader ethos to abandon growth and productivity in pursuit of leftist ideological projects. That went about as well as it always does.

Luci, let me save you some trouble: no one here besides Kelhus and maybe Raffi are going to co-sign this racist garbage.

You guys do you, but I find it terrible unproductive to rewrite history through some progressive morality lens that assigns anything 'white' as bad and everything 'not white' as good. The truth is human history is mostly a long, unbroken chain of populations/cultures that assumed they were superior and had the 'right' to take what they wanted from weaker people.

And the last 80 years of Pax Americana is pretty much the first time in history a 'superpower' has tried something different. And as Pax American fades I expect the world will go back to what it was, which is what we are seeing in China, Russia, Turkey, Sudan, etc. etc. etc. The strong just take from the weak; no moral qualms at all.

ok now we are at the point where saying that the british were more technologically advanced than the indians in 1800 is racist.

Is there anything factually true that you guys on the left won't deny, when it doesn't fit your narrative?

That's a great post. I think in our lifetime people will really miss the USA being the world police. We'll go right back to the strong doing exactly what they want.

No. We don't.

Colonialism sucked balls, whether it was done by English, French, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, Belgians or Muslims.

Well, I think most people will miss the relative peace and prosperity of the last 80 years. I dont think there will be any honest self-reflection about why it went away. That really isn't how the human psyche works, at the population level or individual level.

My country was colonised. I'm not viewing it through a progressive morality lens. You're viewing it from a persecution complex re white people lens.

No it isn't. Anymore than your assertions of how racists are great men are.

You can say this, but most of the time what follows is objectively much worse. And that is the part of the story most leftists leave out. They will go back hundreds of years to argue why some currently sucky place is sucky because of past colonialism, and ignore all the bad decisions made after that to get us where we are today (see Haiti).

No it isn't. Any more than your assertion of how racists are great men is.

I am saying it and I've lots of justification saying it as well, regardless of your revisionist bull$hit, due to you being a white supremacist. You're a hypocrite. I could make the same argument re Muslim colonialism being great as they subjugated weaker people and probably brought a bit of philosophy to go with the mass murder, by your rationale, as in the colonialism you're always condemning because Muslims. Total supremacist hypocrisy from you.

Victor, u allow this racist garbage to take place in your thread?

Im making a little list here who this clown luciom has offended already:

- australian aboroginals
- indigenous americans
- eskimos
- vietnamese (this clown calls them vietmites)
- indians

WTF is the matter with this forum?
ITS GETTING DUMBER AND DUMBER AND MORE RACIST

He gets to **** on all these people here?
Is this for Real??! Cause IT looks like im listening to straight up hitler& david duke combined here. And Meisner I should add...

WTF??! SERIOUSLY

Rick gets banned for offending trans people. This guy gets to **** on everyone else and nothing happened.
I reported yesterday and still nothing happened.

I am italian.

My country was colonized a gabazillion times.

I don't think the Greeks coming to southern italy genociding some local objectively far inferior (culturally and technologically) populations was something that worsened the trajectory of my nation (rather the opposite).

I don't think arabs and normans in Sicily were a bad event either.

Your claim that colonization is all bad should go through the idea something very close to the totality of actual current countries came out of colonization.

The UK itself as well of course.

We might go through a world map and see oddities like Japan which in some sense were never colonized, but those are rare exceptions.

That said it doesn't mean you have to consider the specific colonization in year X by country Y of your country as a net positive. It might very well not be. Belgians in Congo for example were quite probably a net negative for the area.

But unless you tell me your country and which instance of colonization you considered bad , i can't comment further on that.

An indian commenting british colonization without commenting muslim colonization for like a thousands years would be weird though.

I am not insulting or offending the groups you listed at all.

I am unaware of having written vietmites instead of vietnamites, if that happened it must have been when i wrote from cellphone (corrector gets crazy sometimes because it's multilingual).

Now instead you are offending me telling me i am talking like hitler (dunno the other guy you mentioned but i presume him to be a nazi as well)