US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

[Pissed_and_messed]

I like the concept of Anarchism but, in reality, it would just be an endless stream of meetings with some hierarchical class inevitably being formed. Back to square one

yah, pretty much.

 

[Foreigner]

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.

At the root of what you're saying, you're making a sociocultural argument but trying to ground it in a biological basis. As a scientist, your tangent into natural selection is cringe worthy. You say you don't want to indulge tangents about race when your racist remarks are brought up, but then go on to make biologically deterministic arguments that are not actually rooted in science but social darwinism.

Immigration is about individuals being let into countries, natural selection is about population level distribution of genetic alleles that survive based on fitness. Whether an African person has alleles that predispose them to being more muscular or a better runner according to what their ancestors did is irrelevant to their nurtured characteristics in this life. It has zero to do with whether they are a good person.

What does this have to do with whether someone qualifies for immigration? Immigration is about our rules, not their culture. Even if your argument were correct, and I don't believe it is, it's still the government's fault for letting them in and not their fault for being the people they are. Humans will go anywhere that they are allowed to go. Yet your grievances are all about how inferior they are as a people, which I just don't understand. Every single nation on earth has a dominance hierarchy that stratifies society into weaker and more elite people. The immigration vetting process originally tried to pick the elite people because they are less troublesome to take care of. Now we are doing that less.

What about the low birth rates and why the government is letting more low-skilled labour in? You didn't address that part of my post at all.

Again, you gloss over the differences in African nations. Africa is a huge continent, you know? There are completely civilized countries that are overwhelmingly black majority, not "jungle peoples" at all but are economic contenders in the region with high levels of education and social organization. Democracies that are not corrupt. Maybe they are not as "advanced as us" but they are striving to be, unlike some other African nations that are mired in despotism, poverty and corruption.

The advancement of many black African nations really disproves your point, on the whole.

Again, I have no problem with talk about culture war and social divides, but racism here or anywhere is unacceptable. I'm not going to get into wordsmithing about whether your posts are racist or not. You know what racism is and I will not elucidate that for you. Honestly I wish you would just talk about anything other than race because you are normally quite informed on a broad range of topics. You have good points about culture clashes... but when you start talking about natural selection and biological determinism vis a vis stereotyping an entire nation of people, it's just super cringe.

 

[-=SS=-]

At the root of what you're saying, you're making a sociocultural argument but trying to ground it in a biological basis. As a scientist, your tangent into natural selection is cringe worthy. You say you don't want to indulge tangents about race when your racist remarks are brought up, but then go on to make biologically deterministic arguments that are not actually rooted in science but social darwinism.

It is a biological argument. Environment shapes who we are. That is basic evolutionary science, not social Darwinism. By trying to disparage what I've said you're insinuating that all humans are equal in terms of psychology, whether they be 20 generations deep in societal constructs since the Roman-Greek empires or only 5 removed from brutal tribalism. That is clearly rubbish. Even as white people there is a huge amount of our own behaviour and sub-conscious patterns that is directly correlated to our evolutionary past, that stuff doesn't just wash out in 1 generation..

The notion we are all equal psychologically and physiologically is just plain wrong. Nowhere have I introduced "social Darwinism" into the equation, not once have I said anything about being superior or inferior. I have clearly introduced the opposite argument in fact: "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."

Immigration is about individuals being let into countries

And individuals are not wholly unique are they. No. They have constructs from family, community, religion, nation state, race, and other influences. Yes you have to examine every case on its own merit, as I have said already, but if you're picking from a pool of people which have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.. then you're a fool if you give equal measure when compared against say a pool of Japanese people.

Immigration is about our rules, not their culture. Even if your argument were correct, and I don't believe it is, it's still the government's fault for letting them in and not their fault for being the people they are.

And so what happens when you invite a bunch of people here who don't give a fuck about our rules and commit to industrial levels of rape against the native white girls. Is it "just who they are"? Or when they stand up in Parliament and try to claim that first cousin marriage is alright, while adding strain to the NHS because they have high levels of inbreeding complications in their community that contributes to lowered IQ? Is it "just who they are"?

No sorry, it takes two to tango. The government left the door open but people still have to walk through it. I'm well within my rights to criticise both parties thank you very much.

I'm bored of this. Goodbye.

 

[Foreigner]

It is a biological argument. Environment shapes who we are. That is basic evolutionary science, not social Darwinism. By trying to disparage what I've said you're insinuating that all humans are equal in terms of psychology, whether they be 20 generations deep in societal constructs since the Roman-Greek empires or only 5 removed from brutal tribalism. That is clearly rubbish. Even as white people there is a huge amount of our own behaviour and sub-conscious patterns that is directly correlated to our evolutionary past, that stuff doesn't just wash out in 1 generation..

It's social darwinism when you attribute sociocultural traits to biodeterministic ones, especially on a cultural hierarchy of inferiors/superiors.

It's interesting because in some ways, you don't tease apart nature vs nurture enough when you should, while in other ways you seem completely convinced that you know which is absolutely nature and which is nurture when the reality is more complex.

The notion we are all equal psychologically and physiologically is just plain wrong. Nowhere have I introduced "social Darwinism" into the equation, not once have I said anything about being superior or inferior. I have clearly introduced the opposite argument in fact: "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."

Nowhere did I say we are all equal psychologically or physiologically. In fact I'm pretty sure I said the opposite when I spoke to the dominance hierarchy. Some people are more elite than others in their capabilities, but we are equal in our humanity.

And individuals are not wholly unique are they. No. They have constructs from family, community, religion, nation state, race, and other influences. Yes you have to examine every case on its own merit, as I have said already, but if you're picking from a pool of people which have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.. then you're a fool if you give equal measure when compared against say a pool of Japanese people.

Correct, constructs... things that are socioculturally and socioeconomically determined, that have nothing to do with racial destiny. Which is why you can have high quality, civilized people and violent savages in the same racial population. Precluding inborn mental disorders, the differences are going to be how they were raised.

The pool doesn't matter as long as the vetting process is good. If your pool from South Africa is well-educated people with no known criminal histories, you're going to get different average propensities than people who grew up in slums and have family members involved in crime. It's got nothing to do with race.

You keep talking about equal measures. I never said anything about equal measures. Vetting processes have to be dynamic and catered to the countries of origins, which is the whole reason for the visa hierarchy. The vetting process is more stringent for people coming from nations that have higher crime indexes and social problems, but that doesn't mean the people of those countries are pre-destined to be violent or that they can't be vetted.

And so what happens when you invite a bunch of people here who don't give a fuck about our rules and commit to industrial levels of rape against the native white girls. Is it "just who they are"? Or when they stand up in Parliament and try to claim that first cousin marriage is alright, while adding strain to the NHS because they have high levels of inbreeding complications in their community that contributes to lowered IQ? Is it "just who they are"?

Those things don't align with my values either, but you have to ask yourself why the UK is devaluing its own culture by letting these types of values proliferate. It used to be that immigrants who came in had to assimilate, but now there is cultural displacement. Who benefits?

No sorry, it takes two to tango. The government left the door open but people still have to walk through it. I'm well within my rights to criticise both parties thank you very much.

We can look down on culture, but you can't make it about inborn race. Every human is born with a clean slate and nurture determines a lot about the values they will one day believe in. You just can't make it about racial destiny.

I'm bored of this. Goodbye.

That's probably for the best. Take care.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

but only the black ones, right? the white ones are welcome?

alasdair

This was my whole point -- what variable are we looking at other than race when we allow white south Africans but not Blacks --- How is that not racism I ask again. Also I get asked to name "one racist policy" all of the time - there you go.

You do know Trump was sued for racism in 1963 (I highly encourage you to read the case - couldn't be more clearcut).

This is race based prosecution. Perhaps even weaponization of the justice system. (Which I think is hilarious Republicans accuse Biden of with the shit going on).

Going after the people that were attempting to prosecute you is clearly weaponization of the justice system. I don't think Trump makes it through his term I really don't. (maybe I'm just an optimist)

**edit, not fair dude never engaged with me, I BROUGHT RACE INTO IT -- ME!** because it umm belongs?