Canada Kicks Ass
What's so great about diversity?

REPLY

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next



BeaverFever @ Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:46 am

Vbeacher Vbeacher:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
1) As I said EUROPEAN slave trade goes back to ancient times, long before there even was any organized Arab civilization to speak of.


Drivel. Arabs were enslaving people for over three thousand years before Christ. And are doing so today.

Slavery was known in the very first civilizations such as Sumer in Mesopotamia which dates back as far as 3500 BC, as well as in almost every other civilization. The Byzantine–Ottoman wars and the Ottoman wars in Europe resulted in the taking of large numbers of Christian slaves, especially amongst the Slavic peoples of Central and Eastern Europe.

My point in mentioning this is to point out that slavery was commonplace throughout human history. There was nothing particularly new or horrible about the European/American version. Yet no one else in the world is expected to feel any guilt over their nation/people's history of slavery. Not even the nations which currently have slavery. Only white people are supposed to feel some sort of racial guilt over it. Why?

$1:
African nations and tribes didn’t run massive plantations or build railroads,


How is that relevant to anything? Massive numbers of slaves were taken by Muslims and other Arabs throughout the ages for hard labour as well as sex slaves.

$1:
the US/European demand for slaves completely dwarfed everything else in terms of scale.


The US became a country in 1776. The US banned the importation of slaves in 1808, just 32 years later.

At the time of the civil war there were 4 million slaves in the US. There are estimated to be 25-40 million slaves today, mostly in Asia (incl the middle east).

So no, it did not.

As to why I bring up Arab and African slavery. It's called context. The individual to whom I was replying was denouncing 'white/european' history with the attitude I've read often before, that it was uniquely brutal and cruel. It was not.



Ok aside from the fact that the ancient Sumerians weren’t “Arabs” what do you think ancient Europeans were doing thousands of years ago?

Get this fact straight: All human beings from the time of cavemen have captured and traded slaves. White Europeans included. PERIOD.

I don’t know why we’re even having this silly conversation about who might have traded more slaves because a serial killer who’s murdered 100 people is not more innocent than a serial killer who’s murdered 200 people. The whole exercise is stupid and childish l. The history of slavery in Europe/America is not any less significant than in the Middle East or elsewhere regardless of whatever anti-“Arab” drivel you’re trying to peddle.

   



herbie @ Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:55 am

How else can you argue that King Leopold was one of the good guys?

   



Vbeacher @ Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:13 pm

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t know why we’re even having this silly conversation about who might have traded more slaves because a serial killer who’s murdered 100 people is not more innocent than a serial killer who’s murdered 200 people. The whole exercise is stupid and childish l. The history of slavery in Europe/America is not any less significant than in the Middle East or elsewhere regardless of whatever anti-“Arab” drivel you’re trying to peddle.


You continue to ignore the point of this lesson. All peoples all across the world, throughout all of history did barbarous things to each other and other peoples. They were savages, in more ways than one, at least by our standards.

So why do so many lefties cry every time they see their white skin in the mirror? Why are you all consumed with guilt and desperate to make amends to people of other races and ethnicities for the barbarism of your ancestors? Are you really ignorant of the fact THEIR ancestors were barbarians too? Why are lefties consumed with guilt and shame?

And where do the descendants of barbarians and savages get off accusing us and demanding compensation because our ancestors were barbarians and savages too?

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:10 pm

Vbeacher Vbeacher:

You continue to ignore the point of this lesson. All peoples all across the world, throughout all of history did barbarous things to each other and other peoples. They were savages, in more ways than one, at least by our standards.


My point al along

$1:
So why do so many lefties cry every time they see their white skin in the mirror? Why are you all consumed with guilt and desperate to make amends to people of other races and ethnicities for the barbarism of your ancestors? Are you really ignorant of the fact THEIR ancestors were barbarians too? Why are lefties consumed with guilt and shame?

And where do the descendants of barbarians and savages get off accusing us and demanding compensation because our ancestors were barbarians and savages too?


Well Im less concerned about who did what to whom centuries ago but things like the Holocaust and residential schools and Jim Crow aren’t ancient history. The people with blood on their hands and the people who did the bleeding are still alive; the former still enjoys the profits of their deeds and the latter still lives with the scars.

And say if Exxon poisoned your family through some kind of criminal act then spent years afterward trying to cover it up and drsg out court proceedings. Should you (or you heirs) lose your right to compensation just because time had passed and all the people responsible no longer work there anymore? Same thing for governments. The government remains liable for its wrongdoing just the same way a business or any other legal entity would.

   



herbie @ Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:47 pm

Speaking of missing the point

$1:
All peoples all across the world, throughout all of history did barbarous things to each other and other peoples.

So fucking what, what's that got to do with the issue of diversity?
$1:
So why do so many lefties cry every time they see their white skin in the mirror?

So many? NOBODY does. You so stunned you can't tell someone's exaggerated statement for reality? Memes are truths to you?
$1:
desperate to make amends to people of other races and ethnicities for the barbarism of your ancestors?

You're right, I have no desire to go after Danes and Carthiginians, but you're fucking right I support amends to the Japanese, Chinese and Native Canadians, where wrongs were committed in our parents, our lifetime and some continue to this day.
$1:
And where do the descendants of barbarians and savages get off accusing us

Who's us?

   



ScottMayers @ Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:47 pm

Individualist Individualist:
I know this title is provocative, but bear with me.


...."Why is diversity a good thing?"

"Diversity" is 'good' if this meant people as individuals have value as people who feel, express, and share their ideas through behaviors that are of their own construct and/or choice to associate.

This is NOT what is meant by 'diversity' in our definition of "Multiculturalism" as Constituted. "Diversity" refers to the acceptance of the cults or groups associated with powers as collective individuals, not actual individuals independent of group beliefs.

Also, it is defined indirectly as 'religious' because this IS the default force of powerful groups. And furthermore, it is based NOT on one's self-determined individual beliefs but to an assumption that each of us OWN our ancestral roots, "heritage", regardless of opinion or choice!]

So, I'm NOT for this meaning. The purpose of even using the term along with "Multicultural" is deceptive with intent. It is intended to pretend our government and ALL of us within it 'agree' to a minimal select set of cultures as a means to CONSERVE these groups. Thus these are not actually 'progressive' but rather, 'regressive'. This is because they want to both conserve AND revive select ancestral groups with their religions and distinct languages primarily because the SEGREGATE the potential of any independent individuals from demanding a 'democratic' form of rights based upon the individual.

The state of Israel uses this kind of method of 'segregating' using literal walls and settlements used to isolate the rogue 'enemies' to the culture of "Israeli" Nationalism. Thus our "Multiculturalism" is a form of hideous Mult-Nationalists and are actually more right-winged in principle than the right-winged parties that specifically favor more uniquely MONO-culturally defined laws.

This is because Canada accidentally formed as remnants of the birth of the United States who actually DID attempt to remove beliefs about cultural supremacy through things like Kings and Queens, who arbitrarily rule on the assumption they are privileged only because of some innate fortune of heritage and thus should inherit the Earth.

I'm rough on Canada for this because I cannot determine if this is done due to stupidity or to intent by those supporting it. Either is troubling. Canada's form IS what all societies time and again reach in cycles of differing eras that lead into trouble. All societies of the past fall due to 'cultural' arrogance of ALL those who believe we OWN our cultures through our genetic links.

Why this is problematic is that you cannot accept what is 'best' stereotypically about this rationale by begging others to perceive your own cult as 'good' while abandoning the DEBT of your parent's faults as well. The problem of REAL difference is about wealth, health, and power between people based on accidental genetic fitness or to the environmental coincidence of being born to inherit both the bad and the good of this world. Culturalists are the ruin of all civilizations. The original Egyptians, for instance, only formed accidentally as "multicultural" (they were NOT necessarily polytheistic!) In a BEGINNING, having tribal lifestyles that live by being in constant transition through hunting and gathering, require means to organize initially by accepting other tribes without abandoning their association to their tribes. There was necessarily a transition period because even while settling, this was only itself initially 'temporal' (and thus we have "Temples", for temporary meeting places of the different tribes.)

At some point, when more mixed, the ones elected to 'police' the settlements may tend to think their own particular tribe WAS or should be the ONLY truth that all people should abide to. Thus we get our first Mono-theistic governments. But the backlash to this was to revert to the Mult-cultural form. Regardless, the strength of those who intrinsically BELIEVE in 'tribalism', tend to become the ones using CULTURE in one way or another as apparently 'good' means to advance.

We should NOT have governments that utilize laws that isolate people based on culture, whether they are MONO-Nationalistic nor MULT-Nationalistic. These ARE the groups in power and who actually WANT the diversity of the stronger groups if only to maintain control over the 'free will' of the independents who represent the actual majority with EACH person as the ONLY MINORITY!

   



Tricks @ Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:45 pm

Holy fuck that random capitalization is mind numbing. How fast do you go through shift keys?

   



ScottMayers @ Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:50 pm

Tricks Tricks:
Holy fuck that random capitalization is mind numbing. How fast do you go through shift keys?

It's not 'random' but I hear you. I might understand this better if you assumed I was using a thumb to text this in with a smart phone though! :D

   



Tricks @ Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:57 am

When you try to emphasize a word in virtually every sentence, your goal of emphasis is lost.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:49 am

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
The history of slavery in Europe/America is not any less significant than in the Middle East or elsewhere regardless of whatever anti-“Arab” drivel you’re trying to peddle.


Good for you, Beave. You finally got the point.

Which point?

This one:

Vbeacher Vbeacher:
As to why I bring up Arab and African slavery. It's called context. The individual to whom I was replying was denouncing 'white/european' history with the attitude I've read often before, that it was uniquely brutal and cruel. It was not.


OK, so now hang on to your seat. You too herb. We know how much trouble you two have with the obvious. We're going to advance to the next level of the obvious.

The most obvious conclusion here in the sense of the idiocy Vbeacher is arguing against is that some insinuate a special harm from what we now all realise happens and has happened throughout the world equally multiculturally. White Patriarchy is no special malevolence requiring an intersectional alliance of cultures and identities to deconstruct the evil empire of historical whiteness.

And demanding recompense for historical wrongs is dumb. All it really is, is part of the toolkit to complete that deconstruction of the West. There's no justice here. If you want justice for the sins of history where will you stop? There were Blacks that kept slaves. What will you do with Mulattos? Will half the bloodline be responsible for the historical crimes of the other half.

What these guys who have put the ring in your regressive noses are actually telling you is "West strong. West bad. We all hate West. Kill West." Substitute white patriarchy for 'West' if you like.

Progressives are actually preaching a different sort of multiculturalism where they mean all cultures but Western. They've substituted the idea of 'White' for 'West' and wish you rubes to multiculturally band together to incrementally bring it down.

If you don't think so. Very well, who are you arguing against then? Who's this enemy you seem to think you have?

Here's an example of the end result of your indoctrination to explain it to you more clearly, if you like.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:08 am

Oh and Scott, I think I'm starting to get where you're going.

Are you familiar with Stefan Molyneux?

He pushes a kind of ultimate Utopia of individualistic anarchy.

Laid out it can sound good but it would require an agreement of responsibility from each individual everywhere. But let's be real. That's never going to happen.

You need cultures. People form into tribes for a reason. It's what works. How a society manages these multitudinous tribes from family to nation is the real question.

   



ScottMayers @ Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:25 am

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Oh and Scott, I think I'm starting to get where you're going.

Are you familiar with Stefan Molyneux?

He pushes a kind of ultimate Utopia of individualistic anarchy.

Laid out it can sound good but it would require an agreement of responsibility from each individual everywhere. But let's be real. That's never going to happen.

You need cultures. People form into tribes for a reason. It's what works. How a society manages these multitudinous tribes from family to nation is the real question.

I've seen his videos. But no, although I can agree to some of his points, I can't be certain he'd agree with where I stand on the issues.

Anarchy is not realistic. My position is realistic: The United States Constitution had its First Amendment which introduced this as a reality at the time is was made. It fails in that those favouring culture on all ends politically steal the reigns of power all the time no matter what. I'm willing to possibly concede that it may NOT ever be possible to successfully make a system without such cultural arrogance slipping in upon us no matter what laws we might do. But if it isn't, then we don't have hope, and what I'm trying to point out.

If the stupidity of humanity maintains we need laws to save, protect, or instil culture upon the masses in specific ways by all political powers no matter which ideology rules, society has to accept why we have the kinds of problems we do relating to things like racism and sexism. That is, we'd have to accept the resulting logical outcomes that occur when ANY government remotely presents power to discriminate people based on artistic differences rather than logical ones.

Let me use an example regarding computers of how I'm seeing this.

Within our computers the functioning powers underneath the hood resides a means to communicate in a language based on zeroes and ones through a CPU that has a fixed (constitutional) architecture, called a machine language. This kind of language is "logical" versus "cultural" because it is NECESSARY to function all electronic devices in a way that each part or peripheral connected to it minimally shares regardless of where or what purpose it was made.

A 'cultural' type of rationale that does get used in computing is to create distinct unique architectures that are proprietary for some particular company where they intend to keep as few people as possible in the know on how it's particular architecture operates without a greater intimate investment in that company uniquely. An example of this is Apple Computers. They opted to use a distinct different kind of architecture that was as secret as possible to prevent programmers to simply be able to hack in their own programs on their systems. Their approach happens to work only by the accidental nature to BE uniquely appealing to a special clientele: those wanting the EASE to operate computing devises that are user-friendly to the most dumbest potential user. The problem on this is that it biases favor to those who are richer simply because they need to require the user to at least invest in some way with greater significance.

All other computers opted for more 'open' architectural designs that any programmer can easily access and this made these computers MORE shareable but at the cost of the ease to secure it. The security is the biggest problem though and so any system operating through these must constantly be evolving. It makes programs running on them also easier for many to steal and thus tends to require less friendly means of those wanting to use them with the ease that Apple has chosen.

If we think of the open-architectural design in relation to language and culture, it is 'evolutionary' and 'universally accessible', something that the people as a whole CAN share, even if it is not the most ideal system. But notice that you can use the open-architecture regardless of your background, rich or poor. This kind of architecture has to appeal to ALL people using these computers even they can never be as ideal as Apple.

Don't give credit to Apple though for being unique. They depended upon their success on that open architecture existing. The binary logic also rules universal regardless. IF, however, we had ONLY APPLE computers, besides the expense that would limit others from not being fortunate to even have a computer at all, such power of a company with its 'secret' inside language would prevent anyone outside from corrupting them but ENABLE them to have the sole power to BE corrupt themselves. So Apple's 'trust' itself still depended upon the open sourced architectures.

Apple's language would be considered "cultural", even though it is also built upon logic underneath. If we had NO open-architectural entities except Apple, Apple would act like a 'dictator' based upon a select subset of those fortunate insiders to that 'culture' genetically [ethnicity] and/or the ones using them who are wealthy enough to be satisfied with the way it functions without knowing nor fearing its internal secret language which won't affect them as long as they aren't stolen of their wealth because of them.


All governments are like CPU's. If we have distinct languages on the genetic level (the architecture), only those universally understood can be shared and operated on fairly. If we allowed two or more distinct 'official' open architectures, this can be accessible in potential by everyone but requires programming be itself segregated into distinct domains. Regardless, the power to operate across both requires insiders from each kind of architecture to form a third language that translates to each if one wants to run a program for all users of any computer. This is like if we want a 'federal government' to program, they require having the power to the 'compiler' that speaks in both languages. The power resides in those most 'cultured' and, by default, favour the wealthier elites who CAN opt to do this regardless of its superfluity.

Those demanding to conserve their own cultures would favour a type of Apple-like architecture because it puts them in absolute control over those using their devices in a proprietary and secretive way. Programs running on or for these devices are EXCLUSIVE, meaning they necessarily exclude those programs that don't follow their insider design. This is another reason it is more costly: ONLY Apple-accepted programs are allowed to run on their systems making the variety of programs more strict and thus more costly for the user.

We need a universal language though when it comes to government in this analogy. The 'open-source' kind of architecture has to be the rule because it appeals unbiased to EACH person regardless of your background. You can voluntarily opt to use distinct language systems, just as one is allowed to opt to buy an Apple device. We also cannot simply select two distinct languages (like our Bilingual version) because it is like having two distinct proprietary languages that would be worse because it then favour those only running either or both of those architectures from within their private and/or shared cultures uniquely.
We could add a third language to ride on top of that, such as what a compiler would do to translate to each device, but then the power resides with the FAITH in the compiler to actually be trustworthy to translate correctly.

A government for and by the people still requires the capacity to have equal access and power that an open-architecture device does for computing. And any FORCED requirement to favor specific proprietary architectures over others based on treating the individuals as all being segregated into one architecture or another, always biases those of one with respect to the other AND to all those other potential 'cultures' that prefer to use a different language than even these.

This example could be better expanded upon. But the point is that 'culture' is like a proprietary language of a computer that favour those companies creating them uniquely and most powerfully at the expense of users ability to have open access and control. While they have advantages that provide the power when voluntarily available, if they had also the power to control the laws of all computer architectures, they'd be a conspiracy of one or small set of proprietors empowered uniquely to control ALL users regardless of background to conform to their standards of 'culture' or be left out. We'd also require trusting them blindly if we only depend upon using them without concern. This may still favour the more fortunate who could care less. But even their own 'class' of wealth would likely belong TO those proprietors if no single universal language existed.


I used 'language' here as one example to show the distinction. We all logically require a universal language and such would be 'logical' without bias. If we allow systems of government based upon 'culture' as we do, the universal power of communication would go specifically to those particular proprietary groups authorised uniquely to control how all others behave top-down. This is non-democratic, favours the wealthier regardless of how many finite segregated groups you have and most dangerously, isolates us who don't conform to those proprietary 'owners' of the cultures empowered.

Culture should NOT be a function of government because it always interprets logical issues as artistic ones. "Culture" laws do not interpret the poor as poor because they are logically without resources but because of some cultural favour or disfavour of another against them or to others. This irrationality left unchecked will result in our doom because if forces those of us intellectual enough to understand this at a loss to join in with the stupidity of the crowd or lose power to our vote.

   



N_Fiddledog @ Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:49 am

I have an argument to all that, of course, but first I want to make sure I understand the specifics of what you're proposing.

How would this be applied in the real world?

$1:
We need a universal language though when it comes to government in this analogy. The 'open-source' kind of architecture has to be the rule because it appeals unbiased to EACH person regardless of your background. You can voluntarily opt to use distinct language systems, just as one is allowed to opt to buy an Apple device. We also cannot simply select two distinct languages (like our Bilingual version) because it is like having two distinct proprietary languages that would be worse because it then favour those only running either or both of those architectures from within their private and/or shared cultures uniquely.
We could add a third language to ride on top of that, such as what a compiler would do to translate to each device, but then the power resides with the FAITH in the compiler to actually be trustworthy to translate correctly.


For example how would courts work? Where would the law come from and how would it be applied? Or would there even be law as we know it?

I am on board with you on the interweave of Politics and culture though. We just don't agree on which controls what.

   



ScottMayers @ Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:05 pm

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I have an argument to all that, of course, but first I want to make sure I understand the specifics of what you're proposing.

How would this be applied in the real world?

$1:
We need a universal language though when it comes to government in this analogy. The 'open-source' kind of architecture has to be the rule because it appeals unbiased to EACH person regardless of your background. You can voluntarily opt to use distinct language systems, just as one is allowed to opt to buy an Apple device. We also cannot simply select two distinct languages (like our Bilingual version) because it is like having two distinct proprietary languages that would be worse because it then favour those only running either or both of those architectures from within their private and/or shared cultures uniquely.
We could add a third language to ride on top of that, such as what a compiler would do to translate to each device, but then the power resides with the FAITH in the compiler to actually be trustworthy to translate correctly.


For example how would courts work? Where would the law come from and how would it be applied? Or would there even be law as we know it?

I am on board with you on the interweave of Politics and culture though. We just don't agree on which controls what.

For my example above, I used language as one cultural factor that our own government is using NOT to actually enhance understanding by all but to impose cultural distinction. Laws of ANY country require ONE and ONLY ONE official language or is proof of some kind of bias.

How could we fix this? Have only ONE 'official language'. There is no 'alternate' science or math, for instance. We don't (or shouldn't) allow our children in school learning these to simply pick their own language based upon their 'feelings', though this is the stupidity of many today almost literally by some parents! When things lack solidarity to an official language, we run into trouble like this metric/imperial measure mistake....https://www.wired.com/2010/11/1110mars-climate-observer-report/

I'm guessing you didn't interpret this of my argument because it seems obvious that you cannot speak to another without some means of common language or trust in some translators in between. International organs are forced to do this in things like the U.N. because the members are representatives of clearly distinct political governments and represent a whole Nation. Can you see that by us doing this here, it is like treating us as necessarily a Nation of Nations? It's already difficult for us to communicate using the same language, as you pointed out about how earlier. Segregating us into cultural organs with distinct languages only makes things worse.

   



herbie @ Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:11 pm

$1:
Laws of ANY country require ONE and ONLY ONE official language or is proof of some kind of bias.

Oh fuck what are you ninety-seven? Gonna gripe about the Maple leaf flag and the metric system next? Or a conspiracy deep state nut claiming the Criminal Code and Charter of Rights in French is different than the one in English?

   



REPLY

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next