The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)
Welcome to the General Discussion thread. If you have a topic that doesn't warrant its own thread, post it here. Have a free form discussion going that no longer fits in the original thread? It may be moved here to give it a place to wander. Also, general chit chat is welcome!
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 fr
You agree with me here???
Cause none of You says anything.
ALL OF YOU KEEP THROWING "RACIST"
AROUND LIKE IT IS NOTHING.
BUT WHEN AN ACTUAL RACIST SPEWS HIS TOXIC POISON HERE; YOU ALL SAY NOTHING!!!
So a multipolar world without a strong worldwide pax americana will yes have more instances of genocide, and plunder, among countries and within them, but won't automatically and necessarily descend into a disastrous hell.
Well, it wont necessarily work out poorly as long as you aren't the person being genocided and plundered. There is a lot of people in Sudan, Aizerbaijan, Ukraine, Syria, etc. who probably aren't thrilled how things are going right now and the prospects for the future.
Regardless, very good post. Always important to have some perspective.
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)
U talk like hitler STRAIGHT UP IN
MEIN KAMPF. WHATS UP WITH THIS?
OR DAVID DUKE.
ITS VIETNAMESE!!!
You agree with me here???
Cause none of You says anything.
ALL OF YOU KEEP THROWING "RACIST"
AROUND LIKE IT IS NOTHING.
BUT WHEN AN ACTUAL RACIST SPEWS HIS TOXIC POISON HERE; YOU ALL SAY NOTHING!!!
Washoe? Calm down. I don't mean this in an offensive way but I suspect you're on medication and have neglected to take it. Maybe do so and you'll feel better, cheers.
Well, it wont necessarily work out poorly as long as you aren't the person being genocided and plundered. There is a lot of people in Sudan, Aizerbaijan, Ukraine, Syria, etc. who probably aren't thrilled how things are going right now and the prospects for the future.
Regardless, very good post. Always important to have some perspective.
If i have to point to the biggest risk when/if pax americana disappears, it's Pakistan v India imho.
I don't see anyone else taking in , if the USA stop being interesting in the area completly, in a way that allows for a stable equilibrium.
For Ukraine for example in theory the EU alone could be enough.
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 fr
Obviously it was for many areas?
Afaik he didn't CONDEMN muslim colonialism, he mentions it when people only define white colonialism as bad.
His point is a very normal one, you either criticize muslims as well (which you do) as horrific monsters who genocided people, or you can't only use that to vilify western whites.
But if we get to the point, like you do, where colonization is inherently bad all the times, as it happened basically everywhere and all or almost all current countries exist because of it, then your claim is basically "humanity is terrible!!!" which i mean, you can think, but what's the utility of that?
Yeah I'm not going to miss the past two decades of American military adventurism.
-- 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.
---I dont know what country this is, but I doubt it was thousands of years of awesomeness, punctuated by a brief, horrible period of "white" colonialism that nothing good came out of, and then immediately went back to new heights of awesomeness.
I'm Irish, so I'll let you make your own mind up. Last I checked we were also white. Keep proving how your views are due to your white supremacist ideology.
Obviously it was for many areas?
Afaik he didn't CONDEMN muslim colonialism, he mentions it when people only define white colonialism as bad.
His point is a very normal one, you either criticize muslims as well (which you do) as horrific monsters who genocided people, or you can't only use that to vilify western whites.
But if we get to the point, like you do, where colonization is inherently bad all the times, as it happened basically everywh
He always engages in whataboutism re Muslims and has condemned Muslim colonialism more than once, usually by wailing that far leftists say nothing about it. I stated earlier that colonialism sucked balls regardless who did it...see how easy that was?
And there's plenty of white Muslims too, despite both the far right & far left's apparent presumption that they're "brown people".
If outcomes are different between differentethnic groups that's not necessarily because of racism. That's a completly false assumption, and it's usually false unless proven true.
Nigerian americans don't have higher incomes than vietnamite americans because of racism, do they?
Yeah that’s totally unrelated to what I wrote. Not everything is about ethnic demography despite your repeated attempts to make it so. You don’t understand demographics very well.
ok so which colonization are you hating upon, the recent british one ? vikings? normans? celts?
if you are against all colonizations you are saying you hate your gaelic heritage as it came from colonization by celts? you think your island would have been better off if no one ever came violently after the first settlers 8-10k years before christ?
He always engages in whataboutism re Muslims and has condemned Muslim colonialism more than once, usually by wailing that far leftists say nothing about it. I stated earlier that colonialism sucked balls regardless who did it...see how easy that was?
And there's plenty of white Muslims too, despite both the far right & far left's apparent presumption that they're "brown people".
there are a lot of white muslims especially if you accept that calling berbers white is reasonable, but you know that "white" is usually only about western whites.
Why is this minimizing in your mind? This doesn’t make gender any less real than any other trait which are ultimately “just” mental states we have.
I think he just objects to the moderator setting up arbitrary boundaries on how this topic can be discussed.
Generally, I find it pernicious how leftists try to stifle very real debate by saying, "if you disagree with me, you are harming x,y,z group, so I must censor your"
It is not like there is some moral consensus on this topic, and Luckbox is coming out of left field with some hot take. Navigating progressive gender ideology and how it affects the real world is very much a topical "politics and society" question.
Why is this minimizing in your mind? This doesn’t make gender any less real than any other trait which are ultimately “just” mental states we have.
Well no-- not all traits are the same. Some have a biological/genetic basis and some have a social basis.
All of the ones that have a social basis I'm happy to minimize, not just gender. If we had a thread about how important race is (which we've had) I'd be there talking about how race is artificial as well. (which I've done).
ok so which colonization are you hating upon, the recent british one ? vikings? normans? celts?
if you are against all colonizations you are saying you hate your gaelic heritage as it came from colonization by celts? you think your island would have been better off if no one ever came violently after the first settlers 8-10k years before christ?
The recent British one as its effects still permeate Ireland, unlike the vikings and Normans and Celts. See how that works?
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
Wait this is Victor's thread?
there are a lot of white muslims especially if you accept that calling berbers white is reasonable, but you know that "white" is usually only about western whites.
No, you "know" that as you're on the opposite end of the spectrum from far leftists who wail about how bad "white people" are as if they're a monolithic entity and disregard that there's white Muslims, the way your lot wail about how evil Islam and by extension Muslims are, as you disregard that there's white Muslims also. Two sides of the same coin.
No, you "know" that as you're on the opposite end of the spectrum from far leftists who wail about how bad "white people" are as if they're a monolithic entity and disregard that there's white Muslims, the way your lot wail about how evil Islam and by extension Muslims are, as you disregard that there's white Muslims also. Two sides of the same coin.
I don't think I disregard the existence of white Muslims, I am pretty sure I talked about cechen terrorism for example in this forum in the past
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.
Your whole thesis about racial superiority is, apart from being repugnant, very childish.
I just hope that everybody realizes that Churchill was neither as irreplaceable or as essential as Alan Turing.
As a less opaque answer, I'm not convinced. We can think of at least one person who could have replaced turing. Not sure anyone could have replaced churchill and turing's achievements needed churchill.
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 qua
Technology doesn't quantify a culture. Having a better gun means it was a better culture than the Renaissance or the artwork of Irish monks or Indian literature? There are many aspects of culture, some admirable, some not so much. Recognising some of the achievements of colonial powers doesn't equate to colonialism being ergo justified.
Why don't you just admit you see the colonised as "mud people", ergo they deserved what they got due to them being inferior? Be honest and own it.
There is no race involved in my thesis, just culture.
What's repugnant is to see race everywhere
You keep using the word "superior" when describing colonialism when instead you know you should say something like "more advanced". This is quite deliberate because you're staying just within the margin of racial superiority.
