Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:02 pm

AutSider wrote:
fuse wrote:
AutSider wrote:A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Both are stupid, but the end result is not nearly the same. A group of people who go on to raise a generation of mixed skin color children is significantly different than the slaughter of those people.

As a scientific term, "extinction" happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.


Ah, another "race is about skin color guy". How unusual. Race is not only about skin color, it is about both physical traits (skin color and OTHERS) AND mental traits.

Concerning physical traits....


Image
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:03 pm

fuse wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Well, human races are clearly subspecies. I'm not clear as to whether or not re-intergrating populations such that the distinction between subspecies disappears counts as 'extinction of a subspecies' or not though. If a coral reef collapses so two subspecies of fish can interbreed, and thus the distinctions between their populations vanishes, do people view that as an ecological crisis and an extinction event?

Human races are not considered subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens. Moreover, extinction is a dying off, not speciation, not continued evolution.

What evidence exists that subspecies of human beings don't exist?
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:10 pm

Amorphos wrote:Race is simply not a philosophical topic - because it doesn’t exist. E.g. the Chinese share the same branch of the r1b gene as Iberian Celts. species is not the same as race!

Racial superiority therefore is nonsense, and without base.

Now I did make arguments e.g. against trixie [whom WWII Nazis would happily kill] concerning Aryanism, but as usual didn’t get a debate.

If some people don’t actually want a debate, then they have an agenda - a racist one. Just spamming the site up!

Do you agree with spamming!

Well if people are spouting out dribble without even wanting to debate the issue, surely that amounts to spam.


Maybe have a spam section for that kind of thing, or it should be posted in the rant house - given that that is all they are doing.

Btw I recognise some of the characters here from skadi [racist forums]. I could be wrong but one has to be careful with the message a site appears to be yielding.

Random Factor wrote:
Merlin wrote:Piss off Marxist censoring control freak. If you want to debate the subject that is fine but you don't want a debate where instead you just want to outright ban specific kinds of conversations altogether. You people want to turn everything into a thought crime that you don't approve of.

Nobody here is a Nazi or national socialist that I'm aware of. I bet you can't even name one member here that is.

I'm an anarchist where I believe it should be encouraged to have an open dialogue on race and culture.


Every open dialogue proves that everyone is equal and calls for the banning of hate speech, racism, etcetera. You don't want an open dialogue, you and others just want to be 'free' to act without consequence, to hate without reason, and have nothing come of it.


Hear hear. some on this very thread make openly racist threads.



My views on race are pretty moderate.


1. Different races are subspecies of one primary specie of homosapians. This doesn't negate the fact that we're all human.

2. Different physical traits exist in different races.

3. I do not have an opinion on different intelligence forms concerning different races of people because I view it to be irrelevant, unproven, and possibly falsified. I don't believe in that whole superiority/ inferiority mental dynamic.

4. Different races of people are also formed by environment concerning evolutionary adaptation.

5. While race is evolutionary and biological there are also a lot of cultural constructs we associate with it.

6. Everybody has the privilege to racial or ethnic preservation concerning culture and the ability to free-assembly. You cannot expect everybody not to be ethnocentric and then cry racist when you don't get your way with them.

7. People I think need the option or choice of living in an ethnocentric cultural environment and a multicultural one. People don't have to be forced into choosing either where instead they can make those decisions independently on their own. People can choose for themselves.

8. If we accept that race is a kind of sub species even then amongst nature it is not unknown or unheard of concerning different subspecies cross breeding with one another.


Polar bear and grizzly bear hybrid.

Image
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:37 pm

fuse wrote:
AutSider wrote:But nothing more than you opening your eyes is needed to recognize the existence of races. If you disagree with me about something as basic as that, it has nothing to do with my arguments, it has to do with your willful refusal to perceive reality, whether it be due to indoctrination, dishonesty, or whatever, I'm not sure.

There are some more complex issues about race which can be discussed, but the very existence of them is something so obvious that nobody who is sane, interested in seeing reality, and not a total dimwit, can't see for themselves.

Just let me clarify one thing: by races in their original form I just meant caucasian/negro/etc. without mixing.

Of course I recognize the existence of different races. But I can't see how it is anything other than insecurity and dramatics that would make one claim interracial families are causing white genocide.


Invasive subspecies. Asian carp introduced to the North American ecosystem destroys and kills off domestic (indigenous) fish in a variety of ways. Exhibit A.

The cuckoo bird doesn't build its own nest but instead takes over the nests of other birds displacing them. Exhibit B.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:46 pm

AutSider wrote:
fuse wrote:Of course I recognize the existence of different races. But I can't see how it is anything other than insecurity and dramatics that would make one claim interracial families are causing white genocide.


Ok, that's a start. Interracial offspring by definition participates in the genocide of BOTH the races which are being mixed. Except that it affects more the races with lower birthrates, of course. Cause if one is having offspring with a person of another race, it means less offspring of their own race, which means lower birthrates, which contributes to extinction. What is so complicated here?

Yes, it is a DIFFERENT METHOD of genocide than murdering all of a particular race, but it appears it is far more effective since most people fail to even see it as such. But that's not surprising, is it? After all, this method takes decades to take effect, and most people are short-term thinkers.

As to your other comment, I'm tired of arguing basic stuff with insincere or just plainly delusional people.


That's one way for sure. The other is to give state entitlements (economically) to all races of people except the host race (domestic or indigenous race) and then slowly overtime that host race with less advantages diminishes.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:14 pm

One more thing: sub-species does not mean subhuman. It just implies genetical difference, that's it.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Some Guy in History » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:33 pm

What makes you think at that time that the word sub wouldn't still have the psychological effect of being thought of and seen as lesser. At any given time you label them as a sub-species instead of part of the main species with their genetic malfunctions having the blame put largely where it should be, on us all as we all war in the mind, it becomes so much bullshit beyond bullshit. To say sub-species, or sub-human is to think of them as lesser just for not being able to endure the savagery of the war within, that it brutalizes them from before birth in obvious physical ways and yet, mentally, many of them may be stronger then those seen to be physically strong and fully-abled.

It's just a matter that regardless of what part of language you use that you know, whether it's intended to be racist or not, it's like the combined male and female ability to turn everything into an innuendo. Almost anything you can say can be taken any number of ways; but when it does come down to using words like 'sub', our growing human school for the scoundrels of eternity has been too effective at its teachings. We're all beginning to see all of the worst that is there, all of what lays behind the illusions we've been thrust into.
Image

A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time. A man does not die of love or his liver or even of old age; he dies of being a man. Death is a distant rumor to the young. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:25 pm

Concerning the Canidae the Red Fox and Snow Fox are a part of it.

They're both subspecies of the Canidae but this doesn't mean the Red Fox is inferior to the Snow Fox or vice versa.

Image

Image
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:37 pm

Merlin wrote:Concerning physical traits....


Image


All ugly, but the aryan one gives the vibe of being a kind person, probably would give you lunch. 1 and 3 would rob you of lunch, and 4 would just make up excuses to decline your offer of lunch.
God is dead.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8235
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Uccisore » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:46 pm

Random Factor wrote:What makes you think at that time that the word sub wouldn't still have the psychological effect of being thought of and seen as lesser. At any given time you label them as a sub-species instead of part of the main species with their genetic malfunctions having the blame put largely where it should be, on us all as we all war in the mind, it becomes so much bullshit beyond bullshit.


Yeah, it sucks to refer to different subspecies of humans, it makes a person feel like a Nazi. But nevertheless, that's reality. It's not a reality that has to be said very often, but if politically correct elements are going to insist on declaring "There's no such thing as race!" and other such ridiculous horseshit...well, they have to be corrected, and that's how you correct them.

Imagine if some retarded feminists started insisting the periods weren't real, and menstruation was a myth invented by the patriarchy to make women seem weak and unclean. Well, such a discussion would inevitably lead to a bunch of pictures of bleeding vaginas posted everywhere. It's not like anybody *wants* to spread pictures of bloody vaginas with tampon strings hanging out of them, but that would be the one and only way to confront the idiocy.

Women have periods and humans have subspecies. The sooner the left stops being retarded, the sooner we can stop talking about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby fuse » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:16 pm

From what I've read, modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are already a subspecies group of Homo Sapiens. Although the terms race and subspecies have been used interchangeably in some instances, it seems that race is not a widely used term in biological taxonomy, though it has become a prominent term in the classification of human beings. For humans, racial classifications seem to signify something other than subspecies groups. I looked at a few research papers to get a better understanding, but I don't know whether the articles I found are representative of the biology/genetics/evolution scientific communities. If anyone is interested, they could look around at the research to see for themselves. Anyway, some of the key points I found:

Genetic variation, classification and 'race' wrote:The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities19, 42. Thus, populations are never 'pure' in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g., 'races') will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary. [...]

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

Conceptualizing human variation wrote:We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.

Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:59 am

fuse wrote:From what I've read, modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are already a subspecies group of Homo Sapiens.


That's interesting. SUbspecies are defined in relation to each other (i.e., you need at least two), so I'm not sure how that works when only one subspecies still exists. If you count extinct populations when defining subspecies, I'd have to imagine virtually every existent species is a subspecies. The other thing to ask is, what's the difference between homo sapiens sapiens and other (former?) subspecies in homo sapiens, such that we can justify calling them different subspecies without calling, say, african blacks and eskimos two different subspecies. I can't imagine what it would be, even in theory- geographic isolation? Check. Morphological differences due to a lack of interbreeding? Check.

Although the terms race and subspecies have been used interchangeably in some instances, it seems that race is not a widely used term in biological taxonomy, though it has become a prominent term in the classification of human beings. For humans, racial classifications seem to signify something other than subspecies groups.


I can't find a reason other than civics: i.e, it seems more polite to refer to human races than to human subspecies. I'd like to know what the actual material difference is.

The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities19, 42. Thus, populations are never 'pure' in a genetic sense, and definite boundaries between individuals or populations (e.g., 'races') will be necessarily somewhat inaccurate and arbitrary.


My experience with turtle subspecies tells me this holds for other creatures as well, though. It's a well-known trait of subspecies that their populations will often border each other, and along that border you have interbreeding. It's called a subspecies margin or something like that. I'm going by the definition cited in Wikipedia so far:

"A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species."

I think the fact that humans cover the whole world also complicates things, because it makes population borders so much less distinct. If there were only two groups of humans- the ones who live in Japan and look Japanese, and the ones that look in Sweden and look like Vikings, no unbiased observer would have any problem at all concluding that there are two human subspecies. If you then transplanted the Japanese subspecies to, say, Norway, so that interbreeding becomes more common, I suppose the question then becomes at one point, if any, do their cease to be multiple human subspecies? Is it when the interbred population exceeds either of the two 'pure' populations, or is it when one of the two 'pure' populations goes extinct? If you're right that homo sapiens sapiens is considered a subspecies even with all others extinct, the answer may well be never.


Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.


My problem here is that I can't find any reliable source that says percentage of genetic population has anything, anything at all to do with how subspecies are defined. From what I can tell, genetic variation has fuck all to do with subspecies, and fuck all to do with traditional understands of race. This will sound crass,and I only have a minor in anthropology, but it really seems to me that anthropologists started to treat percentage of genetic variation as a determinate factor in these things purely to justify saying race isn't a real thing.

So, to take the classic example: two islands, one species of bird on both islands. On Island A, the birds are blue, and on Island B, the birds are green. It's established that they are one species- this is the only real difference between them, they can interbreed, and when they do interbreed the offspring are healthy and fecund (and teal). Would a biologist really have to decode their genome and measure the percentage of genetic variation between the two populations before deciding whether or not that is an example of subspecies? And what exactly are they looking for- what's the objective criteria that such analysis will reveal, such that just looking at the birds and their color may be decieving? That seems silly to me, and I see no evidence that it is done this way. I could be wrong though, I'm no biologist.

Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.


Now this bit I agree with. It's pretty obvious that racial distinction is not/was not done with any attention to science in mind. We look at people, see they are physically different, note that that physical difference corresponds to where they come from, and we have a word for that phenomenon. Guys from Boston have a way they talk, we note the 'Boston accent', most of us know what that sound like, I'm told linguistic experts can tell where somebody came from down to the neighborhood based on their accent- and at no point is science involved or consulted in any of this. Difference being that racial differences are genetic, of course.

Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.
[/quote]

That's a great point about the Amish; are they a subspecies? They certainly are an isolated breeding population. There is certainly some subjectivity there: how different the Amish have to be before it would be right to call them a subspecies is not going to have a precise answer. I suppose what it would come down to is, could a taxonomist look at a human corpse and reliably determine that it was the corpse of an Amish person, in the way that they could determine it was an oriental or a sub-saharan African or what have you. My impression is no, but I am uncertain.

Ultimately what I am looking for is consistency. Here are the subspecies of Canis Lupus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

What is the consistently applied methodology that tells us Canis Lupus has 37 subspecies, and Homo sapiens sapiens has zero? My wager is that in the absence of politics, there isn't one. Are Steppe Wolves and Eurasian Wolves really so different from each other in a way that people from Okinawa and people from Brazil are not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Pandora » Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:24 am

Uccisore wrote:
That's a great point about the Amish; are they a subspecies? They certainly are an isolated breeding population. There is certainly some subjectivity there: how different the Amish have to be before it would be right to call them a subspecies is not going to have a precise answer. I suppose what it would come down to is, could a taxonomist look at a human corpse and reliably determine that it was the corpse of an Amish person, in the way that they could determine it was an oriental or a sub-saharan African or what have you. My impression is no, but I am uncertain.

I think they can, but through genetics (although polydactyly, dwarfism and microcephaly also happen in their populations). Amish population is affected by Founder effect, so I suspect that genetic testing can isolate them from general population:
http://www.biochemgenetics.ca/plainpeople/view.php

Though, I think a breed would be a better term for them, rather than subspecies, since this population with their particular genetics is produced by artificial manipulation, not natural environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3800
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:17 am

Yeah, breed makes sense. Hell, maybe all the human races are more properly defined as breeds than as subspecies for all I know. But race is certainly *something*, it's not just an idea evil people got in their heads like progressive anthropologists want to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:20 am

There is nothing supremacist saying there are different subspecies of human beings. There is nothing supremacist speaking of dogs, cats, birds, and fowl either.

Honestly the left is fucking retarded when it concerns subjects on race, culture, and ethnicity.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby AutSider » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:13 am

Merlin wrote:One more thing: sub-species does not mean subhuman. It just implies genetical difference, that's it.


Yes. Usually when a race is called sub-human it is because there are some traits which are characteristic of humans (compared to other animals), so if one race is called sub-human it means that race on average embodies some typically human traits, like intelligence, to a lesser extent than some other race, or to a lesser extent than what is average for all races.

And just to clarify, despite of everything I said here I'm not a white supremacist, though I do prefer whites to other races it is because they are more like me, not because they are supreme, just like I prefer my own brother to a stranger regardless of who is supreme. What Sam Dickson said definitely has some truth to it too:

I often am attacked by Liberal lawyers. I go to bar association functions and at the luncheon table, somebody will say, "I've heard of you. You're a White supremacist." And when I get that from a White person, I reply, "You've heard wrong! I do not believe White people are superior at all." And they're kind of shocked and puzzled at the vehemence with which I say this. ... [Then] they'll say, "You don't believe that?!" and I'll tell them, "No, any race that could produce a Liberal like you is obviously not mentally superior to anybody. You are one of those rare cases where you have personally proved your proposition - that we're not superior."
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:31 am

Shouldn't preference be grounded in superiority?
Do you not have respect for excellence?

Egoism, tribalism, nepotism, etc are symptoms of too much testosterone. Typical for nomads (e.g. gypsies, Jews, negroes, Muslims, etc)
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby AutSider » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:45 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Shouldn't preference be grounded in superiority?
Do you not have respect for excellence?


There is no objective answer to questions of what should or should not be - what should or should not be itself is a matter of preference.

From what I see, regardless of what people say and their pretenses, ultimately all their preferences are based on unconditional self-love. I'm not saying I think it's good or bad, just how things are. I already wrote a lengthier post about this elsewhere, I'll paste it into tab to avoid cluttering the thread:



About the recent debate between MGTOW and Alt-right. I haven't been keeping up with it too much, haven't even watched the video yet ( Embarassed ) but I read the comments in my free time and these are my thoughts so far, mostly from the comments I left on the video.

Two comments I made in response to the MGTOW argument that goes along the lines of 'If white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then they should let Asians immigrate into their countries and breed with them'. This was an interesting argument to me because it is something I have been thinking about for a while.

Comment 1:

I think that ultimately there are 2 reasons for our preferences:

1) subjective reasons - an emotional/instinctive preference we have little to no control over. This is because it was present in humans for much longer through our evolutionary history, back when humans were animals. Essentially, it is unconditional self-love and, by implication, a love of everything that reminds us of self to the extent it does remind us of self. It had to evolve because an organism that doesn't love self despite objective reasons, will by necessity do worse and be less likely to reproduce self, than an organism that does love self despite objective reasons.

2) objective reasons - this is a more rational preference formed due to our more recently developed parts of the brain dealing with higher mental faculties such as the capacity for abstract thought. This is a preference based on some objective facts regardless of our self - IQ, strength, beauty, to name three.

This is not an absolute distinction, since with regards to 2) it is again the subject who is doing the judging and valuing, but I think it will do.

One of Colttaine's point is that since white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then why not prefer other groups, like Ashkenazi Jews or Asians, who embody that high IQ even more so than white people?

And I do think it is true that ultimately, every race's preference for itself is primarily based on subjective reasons - unconditional self-love. If my race is among the highest IQ ones, or the more beautiful, stronger ones, these objective reasons surely add to why I prefer my race, but they are not the foundation of the preference. They act more as an ideal that I strive to drive my race towards without changing my race on a subjective level too much (basically making it less of my race by diluting it with genes of other races).

Honestly, I think that NOBODY is capable of having their life choices based purely or even mostly on objective reasons. Following the idea that objective reasons should overcome subjective reasons to its end, it means that Colttaine, if he was attacked by somebody with a higher IQ, who is stronger than him, and more beautiful, wouldn't defend himself but would let himself be killed instead, since that person embodies his favored values more than he does himself. Of course, that's absurd.

In conclusion, I agree that ultimately our preference for our own race is primarily based more on subjective reasons, but so what? Again, I highly doubt that Colttaine himself would follow the logic of 2) to its end.


Comment 2 (addressing Colttaine)

When white nationalists claim they value IQ, I doubt that they mean that they value IQ above all. I do agree that ultimately, my preference for my race is subjective in the sense that it is based on unconditional self-love. But don't we all function according to that principle in the end?

For example, I presume you too value high IQ Colttaine, right? So if a person with a higher IQ than you attacked you, and your options were to die or to kill in self-defense, what would you do? If your ultimate value is high IQ, then you ought to let yourself get killed, since that person has a higher IQ than you. If your ultimate value is unconditional self-love, then you ought to defend yourself.

So yes, I would agree that ultimately the preference for one's own race is based more on a subjective (particular to each individual) unconditional self-love, but... so what? Does it take away from it in some relevant way? As I said, and I believe I proved this point with my example above, ultimately 99.99% of humanity (and I'm not even shy using such a statistic in this circumstance) acts in accordance with the principle of self-preservation first, value-preservation second. So there may be somebody who embodies some things we value more successfully than we do ourselves, but that usually means we strive to improve ourselves to the extent we can so that we (or our offspring) can eventually overcome them, not that we just decide to self-destruct by race-mixing and/or assisted suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from that, there are 2 additional problems I can perceive with allowing the immigration of other races:

Since we have established that every race works in its own interest, if we import another race, they would necessarily also work in their own interest, which can sometimes conflict with the interest of our own race. For example, Asians might earn money in our countries, then give it to their families in their countries instead of spending it in the country they work in. Also, they might simply begin advocating for the kind of ideals that benefit them over whites. It would create all kinds of unnecessary problems and tensions that can be simply avoided.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Uccisore » Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:57 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Shouldn't preference be grounded in superiority?


Not always. You can prefer your family without thinking they are superior to other families. It's enough that they are yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:41 pm

fuse wrote:
Although the terms race and subspecies have been used interchangeably in some instances it seems that race is not a widely used term in biological taxonomy

Probably because it is inappropriate to do so given that there is only one race. The human race. All of us are in that sense the same race because all of us are human. But words are descriptive not prescriptive and through usage can over time acquire different meanings. So it is with race. Which outside of taxonomic classification means something else. Namely ethnicity or nationality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Pandora » Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:24 am

Since the development of genetic sequencing, many species have been reclassified. As of now, it appears to be mostly plants, birds and insects, but some animals also have been noted: like manatees (genetically closer to elephants than walruses) and red pandas (closer to raccoons than pandas or bears). I can see a possible switch to classification based on genetic grouping in the future, which could mean that some things may get re-grouped. Interesting to note that genetic sequencing of a specie can change its legal status, as many protected and endangered species have become protected under law on the account of their sequenced genetic code (rare birds). This method of classifying may also influence cultural and political views, as was seen in the controversial case of genome of king Tut.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3800
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:37 am

Uccisore wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Shouldn't preference be grounded in superiority?


Not always. You can prefer your family without thinking they are superior to other families. It's enough that they are yours.


Sure. You can do anything you want.

I just think that higher people have respect -- they value -- any kind of excellence.

I love everything beautiful, healthy, strong, etc whether it belongs to my tribe or not.

That is always a factor for me when making decisions.

I don't just go "I just love what I am and nothing else". My love has breadth. I don't fixate on one thing, one person, one group.

Too much self-love and you turn into a cannibal ready to devour his own children when it becomes necessary to do so.

After all, one's self is more important than everything else.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:04 am

AutSider wrote:From what I see, regardless of what people say and their pretenses, ultimately all their preferences are based on unconditional self-love. I'm not saying I think it's good or bad, just how things are.


You can say that. But what is relevant is that different people make decisions in different ways. Possibly because they possess different information regarding the external world.

There are people who see no value in other people. Not because they are so strong they have no need to cooperate. But quite simply because they perceive no benefit/hope in cooperation, only cost/threat.

These are usually people who grew up in dysfunctional families, or no families at all, where every attempt at social interaction was frustrated, punished, discouraged. Consequently, they learn not to trust other people, build a huge wall to protect themselves, lose all of their social skills due to atrophy, and soak themselves in testosterone soup.

They go on to become homeless, travellers, criminals, anarchists, etc.

In one word, nomads.
Over-protective, selfish, arrogant, self-indulgent, brutal, rebellious, over-independent, tribalistic, nepotistic, etc.

How many people on this forum live a nomadic lifestyle?
Turd, Merlin, Zoot . . . that's three of them.
And they pride themselves on it.

They pride themselves on unbecoming human.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Uccisore » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:58 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Sure. You can do anything you want.

I just think that higher people have respect -- they value -- any kind of excellence.


Maybe we are using two difference senses of 'preference' or maybe we just disagree. I think a person ought to show preference to their own family regardless of how excellent they are by some objective measure compared to other families- though of course there are extremes of abuse and neglect and so on where this wouldn't apply. You brought this up as a normative thing "Shouldn't we..." so that's what I'm responding to. One can acknowledge that some other family is superior by some standard or another while still believing they ought to show loyalty towards their own.

I think there are some white nationalists that are that way; they believe they ought to show some loyalty to the white race because that's who they are, not because they think white people are superior to other kinds of people (though certainly plenty of white nationalists think that as well.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

Postby Amorphos » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:21 pm

So how does one become superior? Do you start by creating yourself, then the conditions required to manifest that superiority. Like the family you’re born into, the schools, culture etc, etc, that you go to, not to mention that everything in this world is situational!
Can anyone tell me what specifically they think makes them or anyone superior?

Concerning species/race[?]…
Species can be widely divergent but they can also be almost the same, basically you take some humans from africa and put them in scandinavia, then the lips and nostrils will thin out [to resist the cold]. Then take them back to africa and they become wide again [to disperse heat]. I don’t get how that or any other adaptations can make one group superior to another? You simply move people around and you get the inverse of the same thing. None of us have anything whatsoever to do with that, its all down to the ancestors and evolution.
Such reasons are why race is nonsense, and why superiority [luck of the draw] is also nonsense.

I.e. not philosophy!

You can go to skadi or stormfront etc if you want to talk endless nonsense between yourselves.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users