28,650 Forum Posts by "poxpower"
This thread needs a good-looking person at long last
Well you sound kind of like an idiot so it'll be hard. From the drug taking to the admission of chronic lazyness and your blaming of it on external factors, I doubt there's a whole lot you can do right now.
Maybe you should clean up your entire life and pursue more interesting activities than staying home watching cartoon porn. Newsflash: It's not easy for anyone.
Yes it is false as the universe is expanding yet its energy is constant, therefore its global temperature has always been going down.
lol
My internet penis is better than my freak mutant real penis.
At 9/25/13 10:40 PM, exudaz wrote: Is entertainment watching hours of the same unintelligent, recycled garbage?
I have compiled lists of what books people read:
http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=stupidbooks
By and large people read things that are simply fiction or things that are full of terrible advice.
Why would you think that people wouldn't read stupid books if they're going to watch stupid tv shows?
I've never known any person who praised book-reading to be particularly smart either. English and Literature professors / majors are generally morons stuck in some archaic Victorian concept of culture and intellectualism. They typically all believe the same kinds of things, read the same books and have the same ideas. They're not open-minded or curious, they just consume vast amounts of ( not even good ) entertainment and think they are geniuses because of it.
It's fascinatingly sad.
Books are the only rational way to spread knowledge and enlighten people.
What did you use to type this? A book?
lol
This guy.... lol.
He'd be surprised at how many smart people believe really stupid things even if it seems like they'd have to be wilfully ignorant or malicious to do so.
That's why, for instance, it's almost impossible to deconvert someone from a religion even if they have a high IQ or work in a scientific field.
More on races and human genetic diversity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuxqrF1rykE
Again things that Naronic and most social scientists ( most likely willfully as this point ) misunderstand.
Naronic's entire argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy
Again, done wasting my time with you son. Sorry.
At 9/25/13 11:35 AM, Elitistinen wrote:
Weird, why do blacks always synonymous with high poverty?
People like Dr Worm will cite systemic racism, historical discrimination, "black culture" and other such factors that we now pretty much know don't account for the whole picture. In fact in American there seems to be no amount of money and attention that can overcome these past transgressions, where they don't affect the Jews, the Japanese or the Chinese very much at all today.
There are a few examples of ( small ) but thriving black groups that all have one thing in common: They were selected genetically for intelligence through stringent immigration policies.
It seems odd that when you do select the most intelligent blacks, systemic racism and a history of slavery, colonialism etc. doesn't seem to hold THEM down.
Anyway I don't want to go much further into Africa because quite frankly I think it's pointless and not that interesting. It's far too easy for anyone to offer hand-waving explanations as to why they suck so badly.
What is actually more interesting and possible to study is Africans themselves and how they do in their own countries and the countries of "others". Race differences are far more well studied and compelling than geopolitical messes which can never be untangled to the satisfaction of anyone.
We can sit here all day long with me asking questions and you answering with plausible but vastly unsubstantiated claims or demanding impossible standards of evidence and we'll get nowhere.
At 9/25/13 01:33 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:
You have to understand that Africa's situation wasn't the same as the others.
No country's situation was the exact same as another, this does not somehow invalidate comparisons.
Most likely because the populations in the Americas were not threated as an inferior race.
Actually that's specious since black people never colonized anything that I'm aware of.. How could you possibly say this is the cause when you have nothing to compare it with?
Almost all peoples throughout history have been treated as second class citizen with the ebbs and flows of warfare yet it's always the same who end up on the bottom after freedom is installed.
The Jews for instance have been massively hunted and persecuted throughout the middle ages and treated as second class citizen ( or worse ) for centuries yet they are now arguably the most intellectually and financially prosperous ethnic group on earth.
Similarly the Chinese in the Americas were every bit as segregated and discriminated against as the blacks;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Discrimination
Because they were helped a lot by their new allies
And Africa isn't helped?
If we tried to do to an African country what we did in Japan, you would call it colonialism.
Instead we send billions upon billions in foreign aid every year.
Those were important countries, and they were not kept down after the war. As opposed to African countries. These are kept down on purpose.
Again I see 0 evidence for such a claim.
I already explained that. You have countries with strong cultural/ethnic tensions, wars started ages ago by colonists when they drew the maps.
That is blatantly false. Africa was always a warring continent of tribes long before anyone colonized it.
See, that's another assumption of positivists. They believe, probably based on a "hunch", that time, societies and history is in constant progress. They see evolution as a line, rather then a tree that would branch out in various directions. They are different, not retarded.
Lol again this perpetual and obvious lie that faux-intellectuals tell themselves so they don't feel racist.
They know perfectly well the benefits they enjoy from living in a first world democracy vs a third world dictatorship or a neolithic tribe. To claim these are all just the same, but different, is preposterous.
It's not a "hunch" that humanity is doing better today in all aspects that humans care about vs 50 years ago either.
There is a myriad ways to measure the betterment of a population's condition.
So it might have been population that were splitted up, or the territories might have been created in such way that ressources were not distributed the way it used to be.
That's been the way it worked for most of human history in Europe as well as countries fought each other to expand.
But what happened eventually? Borders were traced for better or worse and the population adapted.
Why aren't Africans able to do this?
Before when? Before the first colonisations? 500 years ago? You do the history research here. You're just blowing this out of proportion now.
When was sub-saharan Africa prosperous exactly?
The way you describe it, we just came in and devastated long-standing peaceful and prosperous status quos.
Otherwise, some countries don't have the natural ressources or the education or specialized labor force to live in a protectionist state. So when they open their borders, they are subject to predatory economical systems.
That's just conspiracy theorist nonsense.
Almost all the websites you will find that talk about this are written by social science commentators and not economists.
Economics is extremely complicated and every economic policy that you will implement will have advantages and disadvantages.
I cannot find data that supports this idea of a prosperous Africa destroyed by the IMF.
This argument is strikingly similar to the "Wal Mart is evil" argument as well.
China has huge protectionist policies and are powerful on countless aspects when it comes to international relations. You are, again, comparing apples with pears...
Yes it does seem that no example I can ever give is a good comparison to black people or Africa for you.
The western world didn't live industrialization the same way Africa lived it.
Once again, strangely enough, Africa is always exempt from any comparison to anything.
You are completely missing the point. Science isn't the only way to true knowledge.
Yeah by definition it pretty much is.
* Even a 0.1% difference is 2000 genes.
That's 20 genes sorry. 0.5% being 100 genes.
Oh and 20 000 is the low estimate and that's for the genes that actually code for protein, which account for about 1.5% of the genome, which means there's 1.3-1.5 million genes in total, most of which are not active, but you can see that a 0.1-0.5% difference in 1.3 million genes is 1300-6500 genes.
I cannot tell you where the genetic variation between humans comes from, if it's mostly in the 20 000 protein-coding genes or in the "rest".
Anyway the point is that even if dealing with tiny percentages you can have massive variations on massive numbers of genes and that small variations on a few genes can combine to cause large effects, as is suspected for instance with autism, which completely destroys a person's ability to think.
Yet an autistic child is not affected by a virus or bacteria and his genome is extremely similar to that of his non-autistic parents, however he is completely non-functional on a level that is far greater than any possible group differences among human races. If autism, which is largely heritable, was a genetically beneficial trait to have in nature, imagine the difference between two populations, one autistic and one not, after 1000 years. The average IQ of one would be 100 while the other would be too low to even count, yet the two populations would be extremely genetically similar.
So yeah, again, the "blabla % variation blabla" argument makes no sense whatsoever.
The main thing that counts are:
- Geographic variations
- Environmental variations
- Time of separation from other groups
These are the actual factors which influence the characteristic of a group be it animals or people. Evolution can be slow or fast and often convergent for two distinct populations who live in similar conditions ( for instance both East Asian and caucasians have very light skin color whereas both Africans and south Indians have very dark skin color, despite being separated geographically by thousands of miles ).
aaaaaaaaaanyway go sleep
At 9/24/13 11:09 PM, naronic wrote:
I'll gladly kick your ass on this subject,
How do you delineate "race" in your view? Because as it's already been established that human genetic variation amounts to .1% to .5%, and within that variation most human genetic variation genotypically and phenotypically is in groups not between them, race isn't useful in human categorization. I'll wait
I can't believe you're still slinging this argument around.
This has been explained to you probably a dozen times already in every way imaginable yet you keep on repeating the same defeated notions.
What is it that you don't understand about the fact that it's useless to try and quantify these differences in percentages? This "in-group vs out-group" argument is such an obvious and blatant fallacy that I simply cannot understand what you don't understand about it.
Just take the easy example of dogs. Their genetic variation is incredibly small and yet their physical attributes are vastly different. All dogs are more closely related to each other than wolves or foxes yet some dogs are physically far closer to wolves than other dogs. This fact remains true whether there is a 0.00001% of a 10% genetic difference between breeds.
Simply switching a single gene on or off in an individual can have gigantic effects, in fact the whole theory of evolution banks on exactly this fact as mutations with large effects routinely happen in nature for better or worse.
A famous case is the Belgian Blue cow which has a simple mutation of a gene that causes it to have vastly increased muscle mass. The human genome contains 20 000 genes. Even a 0.1% difference is 2000 genes.
These mutations are in fact this is how human ancestry is traced; by mutations on the mitochondrial DNA.
http://www.kerchner.com/images/dna/mtdna_migrationmap_(FTDNA2006).jpg
The relevance of a "race" is simply in its power of prediction, and it has vast powers to do so indeed even based on such non-genetic and rough estimates as self-reported ancestry, meaning even knowing nothing of genetics you could group humans well enough by eye to predict things about different groups.
A "race" is not a scientific term ( this has been explained to you time and time again) the concept of a human race is no more real than the concept of a cat breed or a variety of cucumber. But there exist clear historical and largely homogenous ( even to this day ) genetic groups of humans with distinctively different DNA makeup and physical characteristics, so much so that they can be identified solely from their bones, as is done in forensic anthropology.
So clearly we have several already existing methods and standards for defining race that are relevant and have predictive powers. Only fools such as Naronic claim that there is no such thing as a race, you'd never see koreans, africans, native americans, tibetans or australian aborigines make the claim that they are not members of a distinct group of humans from caucasians and others. Yet you'd never see Naronic go up to an African American to let him know that he's not really Senegalese in origin, he's just "a human" indistinguishable from the British or the Mongols.
What Naronic really has a problem with is not race, it's potential intelligence differences between them. Any other difference he would never care about ( namely Athletic ) but he knows where this discussion is heading so he is pulling the parachute cord as early as he can and tries to negate the entire concept of a racial classification, just in case it might work this time around.
If this debate was about boxing or basketball, Naronic would be the first in line to tell us that african-americans have a distinct genetic edge over, say, the Chinese and that it would be stupid to implement a basketball affirmative action program which we'd use to fund more Chinese athletes and less black ones. This is absurd on its face to everyone.
Again this has all been explained to you many times yet you somehow do not get this. I'm done wasting my time with you.
At 9/24/13 10:05 PM, naronic wrote:At 9/24/13 10:00 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:I guess that's true but as usual Poxpower makes a terrible argument weaved out of low resolution statistics and correlations and expects people to take her seriouslyAt 9/24/13 09:38 PM, naronic wrote: poxpower is the argument your trying to make here that this man is in the right?wait a second I thought that was a given
Big talk from a guy who got smashed to bits by the owner of http://humanvarieties.org/ recently.
I guess it's easier to talk shit than to get demolished a second time on the same subject matter.
You were impossibly rude to this guy who took time out of his busy schedule just to come here and debate with you in a civil manner. It did not take him very long to exhaust his patience and realize you had no idea what you were talking about whereas he spends a large amount of his free time reading and reviewing the relevant literature.
At 9/24/13 07:08 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
The evidence massively supports that they've been suffering colonisation over hundreds of years, and that they are now getting their economy destroyed by powerful capitalist economies.
Then why is it that most non-black colonies are doing quite alright? Hong Kong for instance? Or India. Almost all of South America were European colonies but they are doing decent today, at least far better than Africa.
You also forget that the Americas were colonies. Why did colonialism make those countries the most prosperous on earth yet somehow crippled black nations to this day?
How did Germany and Japan rebuild so fast after world war 2 despite large sanctions from the rest of the world and massive devastation and loss of life? Unified Germany is now one of the strongest countries on earth a mere 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall.
And once this system of domination is established, how the hell do you think they are supposed to get out? Their economy is held remotely by powerful corporations.
What corporation is holding Haiti hostage exactly? How are "corporations" keeping THE ENTIRE CONTINENT as well as scattered islands from achieving the prosperity that you claim they would achieve if only they had ruled themselves from the get-go? At what point in their long history were black nations prosperous?
So they have cultural groups who don't get political representation.
But the cultural groups who do get political representation in black countries and who are black don't achieve prosperity either. And the blacks who live under white rule are more prosperous than those who don't, irrespective of how "represented" they are in that country's government.
These boundaries were traced not following cultural development, but following purely economical interests of the colonists. Today you have minorities getting politicaly destroyed by majorities, which doesn't help the local economy and keeps these countries in civil war...
In what way is the tribal nature of the African continent, which emerged millennia before any invaders, the fault of "colonialists"? Furthermore, there are plenty of countries today that are vastly multi-ethnic and yet seem to do quite well; Canada, USA, France, China, India to name a few.
Since you are such an astute student of history, perhaps you would care to tell me also how such wide and multiethnic empires as the Roman and the Greeks managed to dominate for so long despite being nothing but a vast collection of conquered territories. Why did that model work for an aggressive Roman invader ( as it did for the Muslims btw ) but somehow it fails when applied to Africa?
Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse continents on earth, if you separate each group into its own country Africa would be hundreds if not thousands of countries. Explain in what way this would solve any of their current problems.
They had local economies,
Oh ok so before they had local economies that thrived and produced tons of scientific advancement, high GDP and high standards of living?
but then industries who can produce more, for cheaper costs are forced upon them by the IMF policies.
Forces them how?? Who's forcing them? With what? Guns?
??
Forcing these kind of politics on them, pretty much kills any kind of possibility for a democraticaly-oriented system to ever establish itself.
This same process of industrialization was brought to China decades ago. Now they are one of the first world economies. How exactly did they manage to do this and yet no African country is able to escape these evil "corporations" who "force" themselves onto them ( somehow )?
But having unfair competition opposing local fishermans and farmers to food corporations like Monsanto pretty much kills the economy.
Again this same thing is happening all over the world, how is it that it's only keeping Africa in the stone age?
Why was industrialization a bounty for the west but some horrible curse for Africa?
Familiarize yourself with the concept of Dumping or better, read one or two chapters of Jean Ziegler's L'empire de la honte. You'll learn about predatory economical strategies used to kill local economies.
He sounds like a dumbass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ziegler
"former professor of sociology"
Well there's your problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ziegler#Criticisms
I am also familiar with dumping and don't know of any evidence that it can ravage an entire country's economy, let alone African countries.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?23989-business
As with everything in economics, there is no simple answer.
Like that means anything. Not being a "science" in the modern meaning of the word, is pretty much a good thing when working in human and social fields.
Well that's ignorance on a level that is pretty impossible to counter lol.
In this day and age to think that psychoanalysis of all things is more relevant than neuroscience to the betterment of humankind of flat-out mind-blowing.
At 9/24/13 05:58 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
Well, if you haven't noticed... Africa's situation is kind of bad on various aspects.
I did notice, but who's fault is it?
Is it their ineptitude that is causing this in the first place, or is this causing their ineptitude? The evidence massively supports the later hypothesis.
They are stuck with boundaries established by colonists hundreds of years ago.
So?
They have violent dictatorships.
Again who's fault is that?
And to make it even better, the IMF policies are fucking up their economies and as time goes by, their economy is futher and further more controlled remotely by foreign corporations...
I frankly don't buy this argument at all. At no point where they prosperous and then de-possessed. Typically, it's the opposite that happens: They are relatively prosperous under the rule of others and then degenerate when they become independent, despite massive ongoing international charity.
But feel free to explain to me the workings of how we are "fucking up their economies" without their full or partial cooperation.
It seems to me they are fucking their economies themselves quite well enough.
I have a friend who studies psychoanalysis,
psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#As_a_field_of_science
History, women's studies, sociology, anthropology, comparative religions and philosophy are vastly non-sciences as well. They don't do experiments or seek to find new knowledge, generally they are content to repeat the same assertions over and over for decades on end.
Psychology, biology and neurosciences on the other hand have vastly progressed our understanding of the human mind in the last 30 years.
At 9/24/13 04:57 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that being more focused on a culture or another is plain wrong, I'm just saying that you can't argue that blacks are stupid or have lesser forms of knowledge because they aren't winning the Nobel Prize, or at least not as often as whites and asians.
Well feel free to pick whatever metric for intelligence / advancement you want and see how Africans and their cultures fare when compared to other groups.
At 9/24/13 05:05 PM, 24901miles wrote:
Of course it's hilarious when Neuroscientists talk about Ethics, Philosophy, and Morality. They're the ones who are finally learning the truth about how the brain functions at its core, rather than creating needlessly complex pseudosciences which fail to accurately describe the workings of the brain (see Psychology, Philosophy, and Religion).
I like this guy lol.
Though psychology is not really a pseudoscience.
At 9/24/13 04:31 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
You do realize that this price is basically handed out by Western-centric scientifical establishment, right? What you said is like saying that asians do not make good music because they don't win MTV's music awards...
Asian countries have won many nobel prizes ( and people of Asian origin who emigrated to other countries ).
Also if you look at the scientific production of countries; http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php
You see Asians ranked quite highly
This chart is more telling: http://www.sciencevisually.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Scientific-Paper-Trail-770x384.jpg
Again you see that Asian countries do quite well ( as they do in recent Nobel nominations btw ) whereas African countries are nowhere to be found, save for South Africa, who's intellectual production comes predominantly from the white population.
This is telling on two fronts:
1. In their native countries, black people don't produce much science
2. In western countries, black people don't produce much science either
Whereas both at home and abroad, Jews and Asians produce lots of scientific advances.
For instance, Asian Americans have earned 10 nobel prizes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American
That's as much as the entire nation of Japan.
And why is this western bias present in sciences, but not in sports or entertainment? Black people are vastly over-represented in many athletic activities all over the world. There's also droves of successful black entertainers with vast white fanbases. They are much richer and more powerful than any black scientist would ever become.
So.... why this westerner Nobel conspiracy?
Lol this is still going and you guys are still not doing it properly.
I wonder if homework completion is a good predictor of success in life.
Yeah probably.
Well enjoy whatever it is you end up doing after you realize it's not that easy to make a million dollars doing extreme skateboarding or whatever.
Btw notice I said that they had to be the majority and they also had to be in power.
Historically and even to this day, places that have vast black populations don't produce many black intellectuals or leaders proportionally, so that you could easily have 70% black people but expect to have well over 70% of that country's leading minds be non-black.
I fact I count only a single black Nobel laureate in all of history that didn't get it for peace or literature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_Nobel_Laureates
He shared it with a white man and he himself was not born in an African country but a British colony...
Note that there are close to 1 billion black people in the world, though it's fairly hard to count.
By comparison, Jews have won over 135 not including literature and peace... There's only give or take 13 million of them and you'd be hard-pressed to make a case against for a more persecuted and discriminated against people in history.
Not only that but it's only a small genetic and cultural group of secularized Jews who actually produce this bounty of advancements, not even the whole population.
Not to mention that most of the black people who did win a Nobel prize, even if they're stupid ones ( literature and peace are the stupid ones in case you didn't know ) were actually of mixed ethnicity, like Obama and Ralph Bunche or not really black at all like Anwar Sadat who is middle-eastern as far as I can tell.
So yah I know where I'd go live if I had a choice between the jew-only and the black-only country.
At 9/23/13 11:24 AM, Sekhem wrote:
bermuda has one of the highest (for some time THE highest - 2007 for example) gdps in the world
Bermuda is 54% black and 31% whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda
By comparison, South Africa is 71-80% blacks and only 9% whites and they're still prosperous.
But take Haiti, where it's 95% blacks and 5% mixed is now a dump where it was once highly profitable ( partly due to slavery ). It has now been stripped of its resources. The Dominican republic, which is literally the other half of the same island, has a much lower black population and is doing quite well.
Here is a list of sub-saharan countries that were never colonized:
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eracolonialism/tp/AfricaNotColon.htm
Liberia and Ethiopia.
That's about it. Those are two of the shittiest places on the planet. Liberia is so in disarray that Vice even did a documentary on it; there's dollar hookers and military generals that practice cannibalism.
Historically there have been no great sub-saharan African empires either. I am not aware that any of the countries Europeans colonized where at one point powerful / relevant kingdoms. Africa to this day is mostly tribes. If you look at the ethnic background of most of those countries you'll see dozens if not hundreds of distinct genetic groups that date back hundreds of years, because they mostly never organized into large kingdoms or city-states and practiced mostly tribal warfare.
Also worthy of mention is the fact that most black people outside of Africa are partly mulattoes, often around 10-25% white due to having lived for so long among Europeans.
So yah there you go, that's the story of that.
Well going by this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
It certainly seems to be based on an older model of running a country ( i.e. Monarchy). In fact it seems to be the same exact thing as a Monarchy...
"The veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism."
That's basically how every powerful empire in history has been run until the 19th-20th century.
Reading further into it, it seems ( as usual ) as if fascism is basically nothing concrete and mostly a word used to either rally against or with people ( kind of like the words racism, socialist, sexism, homophobe etc. which have just about lost all meaning ).
lol:
"Emilio Gentile describes fascism within ten constituent elements:[28]"
Can we all just agree that Emilio Gentile is probably an idiot who wasted his life?
So yah again it's pointless to talk about running a country based on some broad ideology like "socialism" or whatever since it becomes completely meaningless soon enough. Just evaluate policies on a case by case basis and let's all stop with this left-right / conservative-liberl / socialist/marxist/communist/fascist etc bullshit.
At 9/23/13 02:44 AM, Ron-Geno wrote:
The United States is and always will be diverse.
Dafuck you talking about.
The USA is basically a British colony that was built on the back of slavery and genocide, it wasn't based on the idea of ethnic diversity.
At 9/23/13 04:37 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:
Nations didn't exist thousands of years ago. Neither did races, really, though that's a bit more of a point of contention I guess.
Lol what?
Empires and kingdoms certainly did exist thousands of years ago. Races as well, asians, whites and blacks are ethnic groups that diverged genetically during the Neolithic. Just as an example, Native Americans have been mostly isolated on the same continent for well over 20 000 years.
Also, Europe hasn't exactly been accepting those immigrants unequivocally with open arms, what with anti-immigrant sentiments running rampant,
Lol Europe has accepted millions upon millions of these people and they are causing tons of shit. Now you pretend like Europe isn't welcoming the second they realize their mistake?
You can't import 2 million muslims in a decade and expect that they will magically integrate, which they don't. It's the very fact that they are TOO welcoming that causes problems and here you are shitting on their generosity.
I dunno, maybe I'm biased but I feel like Israel's justification for existing is just a smidge more legitimate.
You mean the bible?
Yeah....
I can't even respond to this because I hate invoking Godwin's Law
Lol no you don't. It's the first thing people like you go to when talking about anything relating to skin color.
and there's just no way around it here. Honestly, I find your outlook on this issue to be not just logically wrong and unsubstantiated by science
Science which you know nothing about I can assure you. But you can't be blamed for that really...
I won't even argue with you about it
Again if black people wanted a blacks only nation, you wouldn't give a shit.
And Japan is a mostly Japanese-only nation. They have extremely restrictive immigration policies. Why aren't you outraged at how asian supremacist they are ( and they are btw)?
Because you're basically ignorant and you think that being offended makes you right. Nope it doesn't.
"Black people meet.com" exists because every other dating site is by default pretty much "white people only".
Completely false.
I've been on dating sites, there's tons of people of all races.
The truth is that even black people don't want to date other black people on those sites. Black women reply the LEAST OFTEN to black men, out of all races. Black males have the lowest reply rate among all races and it's Asian females who reply to them the least, not white females.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/
With that in mind, a "white" dating site would be absurd, pointless and redundant. How are white people not already more than adequately represented by mainstream sites?
Who cares if the website is economically viable?
If it made money, then by definition it wouldn't be "absurd, pointless and redundant.". Who the fuck are you to tell people who they can and can't live their romantic lives with?
but all things considered their existence really just isn't as problematic.
Black people murder white people far far more often than the opposite, yet it's never called a "hate crime" but the second a white man murder a black person, the media jumps at the chance to call this a racism-motivated action and then they blame "white supremacists" like in this tiny town for it.
http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/the-hate-crimes-you-dont-hear-about/
But this is different of course because "white people are in power" etc etc, right?
The only "systemic racism" there is against black is their own failure to succeed in a system that props them up above all over races today both through welfare and affirmative action.
This idea that "systemic racism" is keeping them down is absurd. There's dozens of countries where black people are the majority and where they are in power, those countries are all shit. They have always been shit except for when they were colonies. As soon as they regained independence, they became shit again.
Yet they receive billions upon billions in foreign aid. They get troops, medicine, water, food, technology. But their countries remain shit decade after decade.
It took the Germans and the Japanese almost no time at all to get back to being among the top countries in the world despite sanctions and devastation on a scale that no African country has ever seen.
This notion that the bad fortune of every black on earth is somehow due to outside factors is impossible naive and false.
At 9/22/13 06:17 PM, SevenSeize wrote:
I don't understand how anyone, on either side, can have such hatred for someone based on simply the color of their skin and no other reasoning. But that might be because I have boobs. I don't understand people who kick puppies and such either. Stop being fuckheads and love each other damn it.
You should go watch JP Rushton and Jared Taylor videos on youtube.
It really has nothing to do with hatred.
There's tons of places where only black people are allowed, no white person WANTS to go there. But when it's the reverse, when it's white people who create something, black people want in. Why is that?
At 9/15/13 07:42 AM, lapis wrote:
I'm willing to bet that a Canadian philharmonic orchestra actually has more in common with a Japanese philharmonic orchestra than with a Canadian dubstep formation, who in turn have more in common with a Japanese dubstep formation. So what is 'Canadian music', other than the completely tautological definition of music made in Canada? And is dubstep culture also a culture? And is 'multiculturalism' then also something witnessed in a country with both a dubstep scene and philharmonic orchestras?
Finally someone gets it.
Lol.
How can there be "benefits to multiculturalism" distinct from simple cooperation when a culture can literally be defined as ANYTHING?
There's simply cases where it's good to pair two or more things, cases where it makes no difference and cases where it's bad. It has nothing to do with culture, language or ethnicity.
Remember, if you see anyone on the news talking about "multiculturalism" what they mean is that they should get their way and not you. They don't want to share or cooperate, they want you to step aside and give them your spot.
Hey come on, hipsterism allows all the socially awkward loser groups to pull together into one mass of pretentious "independant" faux-intellectuals!
Comic book nerds, goths, angry lesbo feminists, hippies, social outcast... Now they can all form a stronger community of DoNotWants :D
I mean, no one cares if I ban him for 30 days right?
It's been long enough now?lol
At 9/13/13 04:42 AM, AxTekk wrote:At 9/12/13 10:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Are you crying right now because you can't read Greek tragedies in ancient greek? No you don't give a damn and just turn on Breaking Bad because that's what you can understand.Hmmmm true, but I think I would feel pretty robbed if I were to lose someone like Shakespeare whose work is both beautiful and genuinely relevant to my country's history.
How would you lose it since you already have it?
The only people who'd "lose" it are the next generation of people who simply would never hear about it and they would not care one bit.
It's so self-centered the way people think their traditions and preferences are so important to the rest of the world that an effort should be made to preserve them.
If you like something, go ahead and do it, no one's stopping you, but no one who doesn't care should be helping you and no one should force you to be entertained by what they find entertaining, especially by trying to trick you into thinking it's "culturally important" which is basically what people do when they make you read Shakespeare.
I mean you do realize it's basically Harry Potter from 350 years ago?
And similarly, history beyond a certain point becomes no more relevant than fiction. There is no difference for you today between Game of Thrones and the Roman Empire. Neither "heritage" is any more worthy of interest or conservation than the other, they are now both just things we do to entertain ourselves.
As far as I can tell, the only tangible difference is this "star fucking" quality that humans have about "true events" in which we like to do stuff like own Leonardo DaVinci's underwear and imagine what he must have been doing with it. But even then you could buy some Game of Thrones prop and think about that redhead chick rubbing her boobs on it.
Again none of this has any value beyond one's own personnal entertainment. It's not important at all nor does it add some kind of mystical diversity of thinking that makes the world better.
It's just fun for some people to think about. It's a curiosity. A hobby. That's what history is and that's what culture, at most, is and thus "multiculturalism" means nothing more than having a bunch of hobbies to pick from and again, I remind you, that "culture" means so little that it's pointless to even talk about "multiculturalism" as someone who'd entertain themselves strictly with Canadian cultural products wouldn't feel like they're missing out on anything and I guarantee you it won't make them worse at any actually tangible things like chemistry, sports or blowjobs.
LET ME PUT IT YET ANOTHER WAY.
Say there is an apocalypse tomorrow.
The products of "culture" are all wiped out. Would our quality of life be diminished at all? Yes, but only because we had been previously exposed to these. In one generation, the people who grow up in the new culture will be totally unaffected. They'll be just as happy and healthy as if Seinfeld has never been cancelled and went out for 40 years.
But say we lose all scientific knowledge. Actual tangible detriments to our lives will manifest themselves PRETTY DAMN FAST. IT wouldn't matter at all if the only guy left who knew how to operate microwaves was Turkish, Canadian, brown, black, orange or seven feet tall. He'd know how to operate a microwave and give us tangible benefits that cannot be replaced.
What do I mean by replace? If you didn't have Shakespeare, you'd have a million other books to pick from, all roughly equivalent and all entertaining to you strictly by virtue of their novelty to you and not from their own merits. But if you didn't know how vaccines worked, then you couldn't just replace them with some cultural product. You actually need to discover a real fact about the world to use vaccines.
Hopefully this makes things clearer. I am running out of ways to explain this lol.
At 9/13/13 12:36 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:
You have yet to address the non-scientific benefits of culture including music, art, and literature. Certainly you have considered any or all of the humanities?
You are just naming things that exist and ascribing them to culture in a way that, again, makes the word culture mean nothing.
So what exactly do you mean by a culture? What is, say "Canadian" culture? Is it a thing that all Canadians do? Doubt you'd find that exists anywhere. Doubt you'd find two Canadians who can even tell you what Canadian culture is.
You see that as soon as you stop to think about it, the word breaks down. It means something different for every person yet they make policies based on this non-existent phantom of "culture".
What is the difference between "multiculturalism" and just "free choice"?
At 9/12/13 08:51 PM, AxTekk wrote:
I think the cost in terms of how much literature we would lose would outweigh the benefits
You don't even watch most of what has been made this year, let alone 10 years ago and let alone a century ago.
You don't really give a shit about all this "litterature" and all these movies. If we scrap 100% of them right now, in one generation, no one will care.
Are you crying right now because you can't read Greek tragedies in ancient greek? No you don't give a damn and just turn on Breaking Bad because that's what you can understand.
