bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Nooo. It's a false construct perpetuated by unintelligent morons who can't grasp the basic underlying premise of what racism actually is.
The Ferguson thread / additional race discussion
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
- Status
Nooo. It's a false construct perpetuated by unintelligent morons who can't grasp the basic underlying premise of what racism actually is.
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Prejudice racial?
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Reverse racism
v - t - e
“”White men... have been rendered completely powerless in this society
—American novelist H. A. Covington[1]
Reverse racism is a snarl term generally employed by wingnuts[2] and white nationalists,[3] referring to actions and attitudes that ostensibly accord racial minorities the same "preferential treatment" once enjoyed by members of the racial majority — or, indeed, any slight, real or imagined, against whites by those of other races, most often in North America.[4] The term tries to delegitimize the emotions and efforts of those who work for racial equality, and to undercut their efforts.
The term is a favourite of concern trolls, who suggest that those working towards equality take things too far, and in order to avoid the label they must reduce their efforts.
The overuse of this term — especially by white supremacists who attribute all minority advancement to "reverse racism" — has proven frustrating to those discussing more legitimate instances of the phenomenon, such as those (successfully) challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court cases Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Gratz v. Bollinger.
It is also commonly referred to as the "It-sure-is-tough-being-a-white-guy-in-America-today Syndrome" (Sometime shortened to the ISITBAWGIAT Syndrome). It can be found in Great Britain, Australia, and to a much lesser extent Canada, too (under different names, of course).
It is one kind of reverse discrimination. Analogically, so-called "Men's Rights" groups sometimes claim feminists are sexist (or "reverse sexist") towards them.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Why it's a stupid term
2 Sociological challenges
3 See also
4 External links
5 Footnotes
[edit] Why it's a stupid term
We're going to have to link this as many times as we goddamn have to.
Describing anything as "reverse racism" is a good way to look like a racist yourself. Racist views held towards majority groups are still generally considered racism, despite the aforementioned efforts of the sociologists and social activists to exclude them; calling them "reverse racism" implies that there is a "normal" type of racism. It's not too hard to then draw the conclusion that "reverse racism" implies a tacit acceptance of racism against minority groups, almost an accidental admission that there are different (separate but equal) forms of racism.
[edit] Sociological challenges
Many current sociological definitions of racism focus on a central idea of racism as requiring not just racially-charged beliefs, but also the power to affect races differently. The very systems of the Western world have been qualified as racist because of the "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities."[6]
However, by this definition there is no such thing as "reverse racism," as even if a minority held racially-prejudiced beliefs about the racial hegemons, they would be unable to disadvantage them outside of the small scope of their personal life, specifically because they lack the power to oppress in a more covert manner.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
v - t - e
“”White men... have been rendered completely powerless in this society
—American novelist H. A. Covington[1]
Reverse racism is a snarl term generally employed by wingnuts[2] and white nationalists,[3] referring to actions and attitudes that ostensibly accord racial minorities the same "preferential treatment" once enjoyed by members of the racial majority — or, indeed, any slight, real or imagined, against whites by those of other races, most often in North America.[4] The term tries to delegitimize the emotions and efforts of those who work for racial equality, and to undercut their efforts.
The term is a favourite of concern trolls, who suggest that those working towards equality take things too far, and in order to avoid the label they must reduce their efforts.
The overuse of this term — especially by white supremacists who attribute all minority advancement to "reverse racism" — has proven frustrating to those discussing more legitimate instances of the phenomenon, such as those (successfully) challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court cases Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Gratz v. Bollinger.
It is also commonly referred to as the "It-sure-is-tough-being-a-white-guy-in-America-today Syndrome" (Sometime shortened to the ISITBAWGIAT Syndrome). It can be found in Great Britain, Australia, and to a much lesser extent Canada, too (under different names, of course).
It is one kind of reverse discrimination. Analogically, so-called "Men's Rights" groups sometimes claim feminists are sexist (or "reverse sexist") towards them.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Why it's a stupid term
2 Sociological challenges
3 See also
4 External links
5 Footnotes
[edit] Why it's a stupid term
We're going to have to link this as many times as we goddamn have to.
Describing anything as "reverse racism" is a good way to look like a racist yourself. Racist views held towards majority groups are still generally considered racism, despite the aforementioned efforts of the sociologists and social activists to exclude them; calling them "reverse racism" implies that there is a "normal" type of racism. It's not too hard to then draw the conclusion that "reverse racism" implies a tacit acceptance of racism against minority groups, almost an accidental admission that there are different (separate but equal) forms of racism.
[edit] Sociological challenges
Many current sociological definitions of racism focus on a central idea of racism as requiring not just racially-charged beliefs, but also the power to affect races differently. The very systems of the Western world have been qualified as racist because of the "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities."[6]
However, by this definition there is no such thing as "reverse racism," as even if a minority held racially-prejudiced beliefs about the racial hegemons, they would be unable to disadvantage them outside of the small scope of their personal life, specifically because they lack the power to oppress in a more covert manner.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
Racism in reverse -
Msicar?
Autocorrect wanted to say "miscarriage".
Which is a form of natural "abortion". So...all in all I'd say this reverse racism deal is a very emotional one for certain folk.
Emotion being "reverse logic", or so I've been led to believe recently.
Please correct me if I'm making no sense at all
Msicar?
Autocorrect wanted to say "miscarriage".
Which is a form of natural "abortion". So...all in all I'd say this reverse racism deal is a very emotional one for certain folk.
Emotion being "reverse logic", or so I've been led to believe recently.
Please correct me if I'm making no sense at all
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Racism in reverse -
Msicar?
Autocorrect wanted to say "miscarriage".
Which is a form of natural "abortion". So...all in all I'd say this reverse racism deal is a very emotional one for certain folk.
Emotion being "reverse logic", or so I've been led to believe recently.
Please correct me if I'm making no sense at all
Haha
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
You're trying to hang it on a technicality of the word. It does exist- the intended concept.
Yes, I'm afraid of Whites being a minority in lands they've inhabited for a long time. Or I'm afraid of that idea. Blacks may be a minority in the U.S. but they in the world outnumber whites and have many lands where they aren't at all threatened (as in being a minority and not having representation due to that). Of course many ethnicities make up whites and blacks, and others, but so many people don't seem to see that its white countries, or predominantly white countries that are becoming host to all these other populations. I can understand the U.S. and Australia, and don't really take issue there, but I do with it happening in Britain, Germany, Sweden. Etc.
Yes, I'm afraid of Whites being a minority in lands they've inhabited for a long time. Or I'm afraid of that idea. Blacks may be a minority in the U.S. but they in the world outnumber whites and have many lands where they aren't at all threatened (as in being a minority and not having representation due to that). Of course many ethnicities make up whites and blacks, and others, but so many people don't seem to see that its white countries, or predominantly white countries that are becoming host to all these other populations. I can understand the U.S. and Australia, and don't really take issue there, but I do with it happening in Britain, Germany, Sweden. Etc.
Last edited:
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
No. Not a "technicality". Racism related to a massive structural power imbalance. A few isolated incidences where an individual acts a certain way does NOT have the same exertion of power as the institutional impact across an entire class of people. Agency and structure. Two concepts you could do well to try and wrap your head around.
Well that's because you're an idiot. On an evolutionary scale, "whiteness" is an adaptation to the lack of sunlight in the northern climes. Evolution dictates that species will adapt to whatever conditions the gene-pool is confronted with. If people move to those areas and over a period of thousands of years are confronted with conditions that favour the reproduction of "white" pigmentation, then that will happen, regardless. If it doesn't then, fuck it, you swimming against the tide of reality (something you do seem to enjoy doing). You ar not King Canute. You cannot order the tide to go back in. If the populations are faced by the same evolutionary bottlenecks that led to the "white" adaptation then that will happen again. If it doesn't, then suck it, survival of the fittest motherfucker. If your concern is in the short term then, again, suck it because evolution doesn't operate on the time-scale you are thinking in. Meanwhile, there is absolutely NO common physiological traits associated with "white" pigmentation that translates into any degree of difference or superiority of people who share that adaptation. I know you like to point to facts like West Africans having higher bone density but that does NOT translate to everybody with a darker pigmentation to their skin, plenty of black people who share different genetic subtypes have excellent buoyancy.
As for your other bullshit "I'm not a racist, but..." argument that you prefer white skin and blue eyes. Well good for fucking you. Here's a newsflash for you: even if half the shit your erroneously believe was true and the "white race" was somehow threatened by immigration - it won't make a squat of difference. You will be the calcified remains of a skeleton if your lucky by the time that happens. So who gives a fucking shit about what gets your dick hard? That shit will have rotted away hundreds of thousands of years before it actually matters. It's not going to impact the hundred if not thousands of generations that will pass before that outcome hypothetically eventuates.
So. In a nutshell. Why the fuck do you even care? At least the savvy racists (and I say that with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek - it's quite telling that I think those guys are stretches ahead of you in the terms of the sophistication of their arguments) are smart enough to go beyond race and genes and say it's all about "culture". But you don't even have the nous to latch onto that particular fallacy. That speaks volumes and goes a long way towards explaining why you are pretty much the punchline of numerous jokes on this forum now. You fail so hard at life you can't even construct a good racist fallacy. That's pretty poor form. There are meth-addled rednecks living in trailers with a more sophisticated form of sophistry that you can construct.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Yes, a technicality.
You are denying that the intended concept exists, or dodging it, which is bullshit.
Culture? Yes, that's definitely part of it. I just don't quite know how to articulate it regarding in a way that I'm satisfied with. Anyways I'm not so closed minded to think that we shouldn't keep an open mind and adapt certain things to our own lives if it works better, or gets around some unnecessary limitation in a way that's good. But, my cultural tradition is something I hold highly, and I'd prefer it to continue in ways.
Survival of the fittest mother fucker? If Bill Gates didn't contribute the aid he did tons more Africans would have died of malaria. If it weren't for Whites many people wouldn't be alive right now. We spread medicine. Or they did. They provided food aid. If whites didn't let people into their countries, all those babies wouldn't be born and have the chances they did. If whites didn't use their tax dollars to buy meals for those seeking amnesty... And shelter them... Where would they be?
I never said that there aren't exceptions in any population, or people of all kinds, but there are differences. More of some trait might be found in one population or the other. I just favor keeping some separation. I'm for diversity. I'm for continuance, but also creation of new. I don't hate others. I don't hate mixed people. I just prefer they happen more here in America/outside of European nations where everyone seems to want to go. But, I guess I would be fighting the flow of things... But so do Salmon, and they are my favorite fish to eat. And so did the people fight off invaders in the past. What? Should they have just welcomed others in? Bent over for the Ottoman Empire because their invasions were 'reality'?
You are denying that the intended concept exists, or dodging it, which is bullshit.
Culture? Yes, that's definitely part of it. I just don't quite know how to articulate it regarding in a way that I'm satisfied with. Anyways I'm not so closed minded to think that we shouldn't keep an open mind and adapt certain things to our own lives if it works better, or gets around some unnecessary limitation in a way that's good. But, my cultural tradition is something I hold highly, and I'd prefer it to continue in ways.
Survival of the fittest mother fucker? If Bill Gates didn't contribute the aid he did tons more Africans would have died of malaria. If it weren't for Whites many people wouldn't be alive right now. We spread medicine. Or they did. They provided food aid. If whites didn't let people into their countries, all those babies wouldn't be born and have the chances they did. If whites didn't use their tax dollars to buy meals for those seeking amnesty... And shelter them... Where would they be?
I never said that there aren't exceptions in any population, or people of all kinds, but there are differences. More of some trait might be found in one population or the other. I just favor keeping some separation. I'm for diversity. I'm for continuance, but also creation of new. I don't hate others. I don't hate mixed people. I just prefer they happen more here in America/outside of European nations where everyone seems to want to go. But, I guess I would be fighting the flow of things... But so do Salmon, and they are my favorite fish to eat. And so did the people fight off invaders in the past. What? Should they have just welcomed others in? Bent over for the Ottoman Empire because their invasions were 'reality'?
Last edited:
No, I'm not "hanging it on a technicality of the word" - I'm making fun of the term because of the ugly bigotry masquerading as a "concept" that the misuse of language represents.
My mockery of the word is centred around it being meaningless drivel.
It is a waste if time trying to open your eyes or your mind, because you've made your worldview pretty clear.
I couldn't care less that you have attitudes that I find ridiculous.
I'm not trying to insult you, because I don't see it achieving anything, and I'm not naive enough to think that racism is uncommon or that most of what you say is that extreme.
It isn't. I think it's misguided and kind of sad, but it's not what is relevant or important to me.
You're not the only racist, or the even the most racist person on bluelight. People's views on such matters come flowing out in threads like this - and in some ways it could be interesting to explore them. But that isn't - and hasn't - been happening in any constructive way.
There have been some interesting points made by a bunch of different posters from various points of view.
There has also been some pretty blatant racist shit.
Now the fact that I disagree with what I call "racist shit" is not what matters.
What matters - as I see it - is that racist shit doesn't belong on bluelight.
This is not my personal opinion - if you read the Bluelight User Agreement, you will find that #4 in the conditions of use states that you must not;
Now, i am not saying that your posts necessarily "victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate" based upon those criteria - but it should be pretty clear that the subtext of this part of the User Agreement is that bigotry - in any of the specified forms mentioned - is not welcome on bluelight, if expressed in a manner deemed unacceptable by the relevant moderators.
I hung up my mod stick some time last year, so I am not speaking of behalf of the forum's staff when I say this, but I would have to say that my time spent moderating the AusDD subforum gave me a lot of different perspectives on the forum.
Now, I'm not accusing you of breaking the BLUA or suggesting you be banned for your beliefs or anything like that.
What I am trying to make clear to you is that this is really not the place to be continually pushing/exploring/discussing (or whatever your motivation is) your admittedly racist beliefs.
I'm sorry to single you out what 23, because you are certainly not the only bluelighter that is openly prejudiced against certain racial/ethnic/religious groups - but it does seem to be a dominant and recurring theme in your contributions to discussions.
The reason I personally bring up this section of the BLUA is because there is - to me at least - a very clear reason why bigotry and racism should not be acceptable on this forum - this is a harm reduction website that fulfills what many of us consider to be a vital function in the online world - educating drug users on matters of safety and awareness, as well as breaking some of the taboos associated with drug use that make such a community relevant in the first place.
In many cases, drug users are discriminated against for simply being drug users; by numerous sections of society (legal, medical, professional etc etc etc) and it is important that bluelight be as safe and welcoming an environment as possible for as wide a cross-section of the global community as possible.
It seems obvious to me, but if bluelight exists to support and educate people who may already be ostracised from their families and/or communities for their drug use - shouldnt we make this as welcoming an non-threatening place as possible, if we are serious as a community about achieving our aim to reduce the harm associated with drug use?
i feel strongly that bluelight should be a safe place for men, women and everyone in between from across the world to seek advice and knowledge without having to contend with prejudice, wherever possible.
obviously this is not going to be possible without the members of the BL community itself taking responsibility for their own contributions to the site - so please give this consideration.
Some people have a lot to say about certain religious or ethnic groups' "intolerance" or hardline approach to various social matters.
if this really concerns you, perhaps you could try putting yourself in the position of, say, a young Muslim person, for example, who wants to better understand the drugs their peers are taking, or wishes to know if a specific combination of drugs is safe to consume - or is looking for support to free themselves from an addiction to drugs that are shunned by their family and religious community.
This is a classic example of the sort of person that needs the information provided by bluelight - as reliable sources of information can be hard to come by in these Prohibitionist times.
Do we want to welcome such vulnerable members into our community - or do we wish to let some bastardised notion of "free speech" allow sentiments of small-minded bigotry permeate the discussions and alienate some of the very people that need information and support from bluelight the most?
As you can see, I am not advocating censorship or saying we should not discuss issues where sensitive topics may arise.
What I am trying to say is that constant attempts to justify your prejudice (or whatever you call it) is not - to my way of thinking - consistent with the intentions or purpose of bluelight.
A forum made up predominantly of white, heterosexual males may be missing some vital contributions from people who do not feel welcome because of some of the bigotry that some members are wont to post.
The experience of a diverse membership base is one of the things that has made bluelight what it is.
I'm sure I am not the only person who would hate to see this diversity suffer because of a few vocal, unenlightened bullies.
Some of the content of this thread in particular would be enough to turn a lot of people off possibly joining this community - no matter what their background, beliefs or other demographic categorisation.
Ultimately the decision to be a community of acceptance or of petty bullying comes down to each of us as individuals.
if you have a bone to pick or a grievance - perhaps bluelight isn't the best place to voice it. The Internet is a huge information resource, and not every point of view needs to be represented here - especially not those that are cutting pretty close to the specified limits to what can reasonably be discussed.
I think this thread shows that in some cases, the boundaries are pretty wide, and so long as you take a bit of care, it shouldn't be too difficult to stay within the BLUA.
But if you want to talk about how the inner workings of your racially divisive thought patterns, perhaps you should consider starting a blog or a support group for confused racists - because I don't know if you realise the impact some of the rubbish you spout affects people; and again, my view is that this should be, as much as possible, a community that practices the sort of tolerance you criticise others for not having.
If you get a lot of friction from other members regarding the expression of your self-confessed "white supremecist" attitudes maybe take a moment to reflect why we don't want that trash in our online community.
is it really that hard to understand?
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
So your answer is to ignore/suppress?
I put my thoughts in this thread. I don't like mass immigration. I don't like it for multiple reasons. Its not that I hate the Pakistani, but I wish the Pakistani could go home... And had a place where they could prosper there. I can still be friends. I may fall in love with one. But the whole world can't be in the same place. When the trend is that there is something unbalanced.
Even still, I know its not 'black and white'. I'm okay with mixing, to degrees. But I don't see things as at all balanced now. Africans and Indians so desperate to reach other lands that they in number risk death and do die on boats to get to places like France and the U.K. or Australia. And these numbers will only continue to grow. The North American Indian is almost extinct due to something similar (though not same) happening, and my people are responsible.
I just think people should look out for number one. And I can respect when people do. Survival of the fittest, aye?
I'd love for separate but equal relationships to exist. Where a tolerant Iranian culture and a tolerant British culture could exist, and have exchange programs, and limited amounts of people from each country could exist in each country. I'd love if we could cycle around. I'd love to spend time in places alien to me. But I don't want my culture and people encroaching on these places with our way of life. I want their place to remain their's. Exchange sure... But more balanced exchange. Its an ideal.
I'm getting threads mixed up now.
So here, do we deny that blacks in America commit more violent crime, when you take into account their numbers? Why is white on black, or interracial crime against blacks more emphasized in the media? The story about the 1400 children sexually assaulted by 'Asians' in the U.K. that I posted, about how authorities turned a blind eye because they were AFRAID OF BEING RACIST is sickening, and is similar to how our media enflames/sensationalizes White on Black crime but suppresses black on white... Which is multiple times higher. People are afraid to be racist so much. So PC. Somebody needs to not worry about offending people.
I put my thoughts in this thread. I don't like mass immigration. I don't like it for multiple reasons. Its not that I hate the Pakistani, but I wish the Pakistani could go home... And had a place where they could prosper there. I can still be friends. I may fall in love with one. But the whole world can't be in the same place. When the trend is that there is something unbalanced.
Even still, I know its not 'black and white'. I'm okay with mixing, to degrees. But I don't see things as at all balanced now. Africans and Indians so desperate to reach other lands that they in number risk death and do die on boats to get to places like France and the U.K. or Australia. And these numbers will only continue to grow. The North American Indian is almost extinct due to something similar (though not same) happening, and my people are responsible.
I just think people should look out for number one. And I can respect when people do. Survival of the fittest, aye?
I'd love for separate but equal relationships to exist. Where a tolerant Iranian culture and a tolerant British culture could exist, and have exchange programs, and limited amounts of people from each country could exist in each country. I'd love if we could cycle around. I'd love to spend time in places alien to me. But I don't want my culture and people encroaching on these places with our way of life. I want their place to remain their's. Exchange sure... But more balanced exchange. Its an ideal.
I'm getting threads mixed up now.
So here, do we deny that blacks in America commit more violent crime, when you take into account their numbers? Why is white on black, or interracial crime against blacks more emphasized in the media? The story about the 1400 children sexually assaulted by 'Asians' in the U.K. that I posted, about how authorities turned a blind eye because they were AFRAID OF BEING RACIST is sickening, and is similar to how our media enflames/sensationalizes White on Black crime but suppresses black on white... Which is multiple times higher. People are afraid to be racist so much. So PC. Somebody needs to not worry about offending people.
Last edited:
dankplantgrower
Bluelighter
Te thing I didnt understand was them looting their local businesses in protest of the Brown killing.
"Damn Im mad about that unarmed man getting shot, I deserve that brand new 60" flatscreen from my neighbors electronics store to calm me down."
"Damn Im mad about that unarmed man getting shot, I deserve that brand new 60" flatscreen from my neighbors electronics store to calm me down."
Cliffy78
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,338
Wow! Ummmm... Just wow!
I've shut up because I don't like the aggressive nature of this thread but it's a bit much now.
Everyone's welcome to their own views but I could seriously understand people being offended now that people's racism has been made clear.
Earlier it was veiled and that was fine, uncomfortable to read, but fine.
I'm sure we have Pakistani members here and they now have a right to be deeply offended. How did it go from blacks to Pakistanis? I'm not Pakistani or Arab but I found that what23s post offensive. People of all races and religions should feel just as comfortable as any white person here. Why single out one nationality?
This thread went to shit.
To understand why the black folk tore up that town you have to understand the history of racial animus in the u.s.
Imagine if the rolls were reversed and Africa was America with the natives there in the position of the whites here in the us. Would you not go to Africa to try to make a better life for your family since that's where all the jobs, money and opportunity were? What if the were flies landing in your children's eyeballs and your kids had distended stomachs because of lack of resources, would you not emigrate to try to feed them if there was no opportunity to make a decent living where u live? I can think of thousands of these examples and there's no way you would let your families suffer from hunger if u could possibly find a way to make a living there. And if u say u would then your a liar.
If whites were treated like blacks who knows how we would react, but since WERE ALL HUMAN BEINGS I'm pretty sure we'd act exactly the same way.
You have to remember that you wouldn't have the education u now have. That's the key to this whole thing...EDUCATION!
I've shut up because I don't like the aggressive nature of this thread but it's a bit much now.
Everyone's welcome to their own views but I could seriously understand people being offended now that people's racism has been made clear.
Earlier it was veiled and that was fine, uncomfortable to read, but fine.
I'm sure we have Pakistani members here and they now have a right to be deeply offended. How did it go from blacks to Pakistanis? I'm not Pakistani or Arab but I found that what23s post offensive. People of all races and religions should feel just as comfortable as any white person here. Why single out one nationality?
This thread went to shit.
To understand why the black folk tore up that town you have to understand the history of racial animus in the u.s.
Imagine if the rolls were reversed and Africa was America with the natives there in the position of the whites here in the us. Would you not go to Africa to try to make a better life for your family since that's where all the jobs, money and opportunity were? What if the were flies landing in your children's eyeballs and your kids had distended stomachs because of lack of resources, would you not emigrate to try to feed them if there was no opportunity to make a decent living where u live? I can think of thousands of these examples and there's no way you would let your families suffer from hunger if u could possibly find a way to make a living there. And if u say u would then your a liar.
If whites were treated like blacks who knows how we would react, but since WERE ALL HUMAN BEINGS I'm pretty sure we'd act exactly the same way.
You have to remember that you wouldn't have the education u now have. That's the key to this whole thing...EDUCATION!
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
No doubt I understand why they do and it isn't as if I hate or disrespect them for that, but I don't want whites to be a minority in Britain, Germany, Etc., and as tough as it is, at some point the gates need to shut. In the coming age food and water shortages are going to be a problem as is. If a country I was trying to immigrate to didn't allow me to enter with my family, because they themselves wanted to secure their survival, I'd get it.
Cliffy78
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,338
I hear ya with the shortages and what not. I think it's more of an over population thing, I do get that angle but I don't think were near that yet. I do see what u mean though don't get me wrong. But there's so much money in the west, it's all here, gotta be 90% or near that. We need to learn to share better I think. I don't wanna go the conspiracy route but so few have soooooo fucking much. One person shouldn't have billions and billions while poor children in this world die of starvation, to me that just seems wrong.
If we don't find a way to fix the inequality then the west is doomed one way or another. Food is a fundamental right IMO. If we have to take from the rich to feed people then so be it. Call it socialism or whatever but it's the only moral thing to do. Were all trying to hold on to our way of life so bad that we can't see the big picture. I know I sound like a utopian socialist nut but idk, what's right is right. This world needs to change or we've got big problems ahead.
Are we just gonna kill the poor slowly like we are now? It's only a matter of time before they get fed up and that leads, in part, to the situation in ferguson IMO. People are sick and tired and eventually they're gonna fight back against the system that's placed them in these circumstances after years and years of institutional racism...
I'm no sociology professor but all this shit seems pretty plain to see if we can just put ourselves in the others shoes...
If we don't find a way to fix the inequality then the west is doomed one way or another. Food is a fundamental right IMO. If we have to take from the rich to feed people then so be it. Call it socialism or whatever but it's the only moral thing to do. Were all trying to hold on to our way of life so bad that we can't see the big picture. I know I sound like a utopian socialist nut but idk, what's right is right. This world needs to change or we've got big problems ahead.
Are we just gonna kill the poor slowly like we are now? It's only a matter of time before they get fed up and that leads, in part, to the situation in ferguson IMO. People are sick and tired and eventually they're gonna fight back against the system that's placed them in these circumstances after years and years of institutional racism...
I'm no sociology professor but all this shit seems pretty plain to see if we can just put ourselves in the others shoes...
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
heh, surely. "Welp, the youngest of our children will probably die first, honey. But that's ok. They want to remain racially pure, and I get that."
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
"Their own people" is a fallacious way of looking at this hypothetical situation. It's not the middle ages, we don't have to secure our kingdoms from invading barbarians. We're living in a globalized, interconnected era where borders only really matter as a means to decide taxes and law. Even common culture and language extends well beyond national borders. This ethnocentric worldview, the "us" vs "them" mentality is withering away, very rapidly and will become less and less relevant as the 21st century carries on.
As for food and overpopulation, we have plenty to go around. The US still pays farmers to NOT farm in order to prevent soil degradation as during the dust bowl 80 years ago and we still find ways to waste food. We tried fueling our cars with excess corn. We dump buckets of fresh water on our heads in viral internet memes. The problem isn't the lack of resources, especially at today's population size, it's the administration of these resources. Earth's carrying capacity ranges anywhere from 2 billion to 40 billion people depending on the source. As time goes on, as technology and methodology progresses, we'll probably end up on the higher end of that spectrum.
As for food and overpopulation, we have plenty to go around. The US still pays farmers to NOT farm in order to prevent soil degradation as during the dust bowl 80 years ago and we still find ways to waste food. We tried fueling our cars with excess corn. We dump buckets of fresh water on our heads in viral internet memes. The problem isn't the lack of resources, especially at today's population size, it's the administration of these resources. Earth's carrying capacity ranges anywhere from 2 billion to 40 billion people depending on the source. As time goes on, as technology and methodology progresses, we'll probably end up on the higher end of that spectrum.
- Status