it's your opinion. and, just like my opinion, it's not a fact.
again, please stop.
alasdair
again, please stop.
alasdair
US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread
- Thread starter alasdairm
- Start date
Shambles
Bluelight Crew
As somewhat of an aside… good god do I hate it when right-wing types reel out the “adult conversation” or “adults in the room” bollocks. So fukkin condescending and so indicative of their patriarchal belief system 
they need a hierarchical system where they are above others so they infantilize those they don't agree withAs somewhat of an aside… good god do I hate it when right-wing types reel out the “adult conversation” or “adults in the room” bollocks. So fukkin condescending and so indicative of their patriarchal belief system
Fire&Water
Pumpkin King
Brought to you by the Letter O
I think it's fine to talk about culture clashes, but it is indeed racist to make it about skin colour. Have you ever been to SA? I have. I met some of the most bushwhacking, ignorant, Dutch racist assholes there in my time AND I also met really enlightened thinkers (a lot of them doctors). Same in the black SA community for racist assholes vs. enlightened thinkers. I wanted to go to med school in SA because their training was better than some of the top US schools.
You have a perfectly valid argument about cultural integration and vetting, but then you undermine it by making it about black or white. Culture is programming. Like... here in Canada we have an influx of low level Indian wage workers right now, causing cultural problems. Second and third generation Indians who have integrated are complaining about their image being ruined because they had to go through a vetting process to get into Canada. So that right there shows us that it's not a race issue.
I also don't understand your comments like... the black predilection for violent outbursts. I look at countries like Ghana, Botswana, Zambia and Tanzania... they all have lower violence statistics than the best US states. Then you look at somewhere like the Congo and it's a bloodbath in some areas.
I think you need to very carefully delineate race from socioeconomics in some of your thinking. I honestly get your localized UK experience, the UK is really going through it right now. Extracting your points from your anger, I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just don't think that is evidence about race so much as it is about culture and SES. So you really need to cool it with the racist rhetoric (which you admit you are using).
Last edited:
Shambles
Bluelight Crew
As an even more random aside, a variation of your avatar is the only tattoo design I have ever considered actually putting on my body, O Great Punpkin King. True story.
Fire&Water
Pumpkin King
Your skin is sacred ground
Just let your toes grow regenerating roots
Just let your toes grow regenerating roots
PatriarchyAs somewhat of an aside… good god do I hate it when right-wing types reel out the “adult conversation” or “adults in the room” bollocks. So fukkin condescending and so indicative of their patriarchal belief system
I never made it about skin colour, you guys did. I stated quite clearly that the fact that South Africa, with its notoriously high murder rates, happens to be 80% black is incidental to that fact. If they had purple or orange skin it wouldn't make any difference what so ever, the point remains is that no rational, sane country would choose to have lax immigration policy in regards to that specific country. Clearly they have issues, whatever the root causes may be, but that's not our problem and it's fine to simply say "No. We're going to be extra stringent about vetting people from this country until conditions improve".
Why is that so hard for people here to grasp? I don't want a bunch of Albanian's coming here just as much as I don't want a bunch of South African's coming here. Not unless they meet strict immigration criteria so we are certain we are getting decent hardworking people and not criminals or questionable characters.
I never admitted to such a thing. There's no point in being in denial about the predilections of certain groups of people though, you can make generalizations that inform decision making, but they are generalizations.. there's no need to fly off that handle about that fact. This nonsense about everyone being the same is one of the contributing factors to why immigration policy has become so pathetically weak to the point of suicidal empathy. The colour of skin is incidental, so please can we just drop that bullshit, please. I have underlined already that regardless if it were black or white South African, you still need to vet these people properly.
If you were given the choice to admitting to your country 100,000 South African's or 100,000 Japanese, who are you going to choose? You're god damn right you're choosing the Japanese.
Patriarchy
I never made it about skin colour, you guys did. I stated quite clearly that the fact that South Africa, with its notoriously high murder rates, happens to be 80% black is incidental to that fact. If they had purple or orange skin it wouldn't make any difference what so ever, the point remains is that no rational, sane country would choose to have lax immigration policy in regards to that specific country. Clearly they have issues, whatever the root causes may be, but that's not our problem and it's fine to simply say "No. We're going to be extra stringent about vetting people from this country until conditions improve".
80% of South Africans are black... less than 10% are white. So what do you expect in terms of violent crime, in terms of population demographics aligning with violence demographics? SA is almost entirely dark skinned, so going on about how more black South Africans commit violent crime doesn't say much.
Why not say "South Africans" instead of "blacks" and talking about predilections as though being black predisposes you to violence. 80% of violent offenders being black does not mean 80% of black South Africans are violent. If you compare numbers instead of percentages, you'll find that way more blacks have not committed violent crimes in their lifetimes than those that have, by the numbers.
I agree with you about unvetted immigration and the resulting culture clashes. We generally do not grant immigration status to people with known criminal histories in the Commonwealth nations.
I do grasp that part.
I can deny it because your argument is not statistically logical.
The real immigration issue is that too many are being allowed in at once, which is having a dilution effect on culture, which makes it difficult to assimilate newcomers. In the past, new immigrants were titrated at a much lower rate and this facilitated assimilation. Now because the western nations fear a demographic crisis (low birth rate), they are granting people entry in droves, many of whom are low socioeconomic status in order to fill low-wage labour. At least, that's what's happening in Canada. Contemporary government doesn't seem to care about culture dilution, it's just about the number of human bodies in the globalist enterprise.
So they are basically letting in the most disenfranchised groups to whom higher crime rates are attached due to their SES.
It's got nothing to do with them being black or having predilections, and everything to do with them having low SES, which means low education. Our governments are letting them in specifically because they are low class, because they know they will not climb the socioeconomic ladder easily and will instead fill menial labour roles.
If your conclusion is truly that we need to vet everybody, then we are in agreement and there is really no need for further argument. I just take issue with them being black South Africans playing a factor in your analysis. Furthermore the blame should go to our governments for opening the immigration floodgates, rather than denigrating the people who are just taking advantage of our looser immigration policies for a better life.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if you just said, "We should more strongly vet immigrants from countries with high rates of violence because there will be higher chances of a criminal element trying to immigrate." I believe some countries can contain more violence than others, but not races. If every "race" is raised with good conditions, equal community treatment and equal opportunity, they all turn out as well-adjusted human beings.
Last edited:
jasperkent
Bluelighter
I really don't want to indulge this tangent about race because no one here is going to see eye to eye on this issue, but it's still kind of relevant to immigration. Africa as a whole is just not as culturally advanced as the West and other parts of the world; we've had many more generations of people living a more domesticated lifestyle whereas they haven't and have been closer to tribalism not long ago (and still are in many parts).
The fact they are black again is incidental, but you can't expect people who are not far removed from jungle psychology to be on-par with where we are psychologically. Even physiologically, it takes time for behaviour patterns to even out and then be reflected through genetics. Like come on, get real man. There's a reason why black men tend to have more muscle mass, and others are able to run absolutely ridiculous distances. Or are we just going to pretend we don't see that reflected in sports and the Olympics?
Absolutely there is a predilection towards violent outbursts. Are you going to deny the statistics on violent crime? Look at London. It is well known and has been for a long time. You can scream about education and poverty all you like, but there's kids who are white (and other) in just the same circumstances too.. the statistics don't lie, it's the black kids who are stabbing each other. Even if it's all a CIA conspiracy (drugs, rap, etc).. that still doesn't change the fact they bought into it either, they didn't have to indulge that cultural pattern, but they did (and still do).
Why not? If the black race is the one closest to the harsh brutal reality of tribal psychology then is it not fair to understand why they might be more predisposed to violent outbursts than those races who have had longer to chill the fuck out? I think there's this unspoken assumption here that I (and others you perceive are like me) believe that it is inherent to black people (or another group exhibiting behaviour), rather than something that is a natural consequence of environmental conditions and as such can be domesticated out over time, as happened with the other races.
Where's the hatred in that? We all grow at different rates, history had to happen to someone first, right? I'm not the one blowing this up into a big deal, you see. I just recognise we're not all equal and there's no judgement attached to that.
Give it a few more generations and the right environmental conditions, and things can change. And the opposite is also true mind you, we can all go back the other way if the lights go out.
behavioral patterns impacting genetics? how does that work
Why do you think the Kenyan's produce many of the worlds best distance runners, for example? Because generation after generation they have reinforced that particular pattern, and their physiology has adapted to those demands. They have thinner ankles and calves, so even visibly the changes are perceptible. Where else is that going to be carried other than genetics?
Personally I believe the dynamic is more plastic than we currently assume too. I think it's possible for emotional and mental behaviour to influence genetics. But that's a whole separate discussion.
I'm an Anarchist. " No man shall rule over another." Politics is one big fukn illusion. They're all on the same team. The real owners? Think about The Wizard of Oz movie. There's other people of power pulling the strings. " Follow the Yellow Brick Road". Gold. Y'all are being duped. Go down the rabbit hole.
I would agree with you that environment and context seem to promote certain intergenerational variability that adapt to the climate/behaviors/cultural norms of a people.
A few years ago, I had a sinus infection that prevented me from breathing through my nose. I have a relatively small nose because I'm mostly of northern european descent. As a result of this infection, I noted that there was a lot of heat in the area of my head behind the nose which happens to also press upon certain parts of my brain (temporal lobe IIRC).
During this period, I also noticed that I felt more impulsive, less empathetic than normal, more angry and prone to argument. As you know me on here, I tend to be a pretty congenial person who doesn't like to bicker or argue. I have convictions, but I go out of my way to avoid confrontation if possible. At this time, I found myself getting into a lot more heated arguments and feeling angry at things that I normally wouldn't be bothered by. It occured to me that my nose wasn't cooling off the part of my brain that is involved in emotional reactivity and impulse control due to the infection, and the heat generated by the swelling and congestion was further warming up a part of my brain that is traditionally cooled by nasal breathing.
It made me think about how certain areas of the world produce people with different sizes of nose, and I looked into some studies around nose size and cultural behaviors and how noses are involved in the cooling of the brain: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ose_Might_Be_Involved_in_Cooling_of_the_Brain
It made me wonder if some of the reason people from areas that have bigger noses may also be people known to be more reactive or 'hot blooded'. Perhaps large noses evolved in certain regions as a sort of... heatsync to accommodate individuals residing in climates where it was difficult for the brain to cool off. I wondered about how climate change was increasing heat and how that might effect the baseline behavior of people in unrelentingly hot regions, and why it might make people feel the need to emigrate from those regions to cooler climates as an escape.
Lots of thoughts, no idea what it all means, but your comment about cultural connections with behavioral physiology made me think of it.
You said a lot of things that seem both haughty and also give me no further idea what you're trying to say. You seem confident about whatever it is, but your point is vague and unclear.