Racism and dogs...

HT, explain why everywhere you go cultural groups tend to click together.

And then please explain why it is beneficial for a national society to within that nation import a totally different culture.

I could understand it if it's people from Japan going to Guatemala to teach them martial arts.

What I fail to understand is why a rather successful nation would benefit from opening up their borders freely, for people who don't even know the alphabet?

I do understand that the well-doing nation should accept political refugees if they go in the host nations notion of what is right.

What I do not understand is why a well doing nation have some obligation to take care of the people of nations who do less well (unless it's caused by natural disasters or so).

Would I happily give everything I have to make Norwegians safe after a meteor hit? OF COURSE!!

Would I happily give my job to a Somali person who hasn't even been involved in some movement against their state... No.


Does that make me evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

On the whole the US has done extremely well assimilating migrant groups.

.

---

Oh strike... I tend to ignore you, but once in a while you offer these little gems.

When you say the US has done well assimilating immigrants... Are you referring to the now common practice of a "peace pipe"?

You know, reading your post some people could get the hilarious idea that the USA is an example of how immigration is GREAT!!

But of course everyone intelligent enough to turn on a computer is intelligent enough to understand that the natives (or "Indians" as you call them), isn't as happy.

As an American, you are free to be pro-immigration only when you get a native to say "Thank you for the blankets"*.

EDIT: I don't think it's 100% proven that natives were handed contaminated blankets. We do however know that USA has acted rather bad towards the ethnic people, and we know that the ethnic people have no or very little say in political questions.

"The blankets" is a fallacy. Germs spread through benign contact. I believe there is one recorded instance of weaponizing germs in the colonies, only after the effects of smallpox had been recorded. So it was really moot, the Indians were already dead. Please try not to attribute the spread of germs in the new world as some sort of master plan, because it wasn't.

I also don't understand you point. American-Indian relations in no way resemble modern first world immigration policy. Unless of course your understanding of immigration only extends to "people were someplace, they are now someplace else". This is entirely possible given your lack of mental faculties. The power balance is totally reversed. Immigrants from 3rd world countries don't come with advanced technology and state backing.

Isn't it also well documented that the "problem" is not with the immigrants but with their children? This would point to a cultural explanation rather than your psuedo science. You talk about the illiterate masses but isn't that what Europe needs? High education+ a low birth rate creates a need for low skill labor. Why would an educated or high skilled worker emigrate to a lower rung? Now if you don't like bringing in that kind of labor, so be it. Run for office and draft a bill.

Until then please keep your "OMG WERE ALL DO BREEDS" bullshit to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

"The blankets" is a fallacy. Germs spread through benign contact. I believe there is one recorded instance of weaponizing germs in the colonies, only after the effects of smallpox had been recorded. So it was really moot, the Indians were already dead. Please try not to attribute the spread of germs in the new world as some sort of master plan, because it wasn't.

I also don't understand you point. American-Indian relations in no way resemble modern first world immigration policy. Unless of course your understanding of immigration only extends to "people were someplace, they are now someplace else". This is entirely possible given your lack of mental faculties. The power balance is totally reversed. Immigrants from 3rd world countries don't come with advanced technology and state backing.

Isn't it also well documented that the "problem" is not with the immigrants but with their children? This would point to a cultural explanation rather than your psuedo science. You talk about the illiterate masses but isn't that what Europe needs? High education+ a low birth rate creates a need for low skill labor. Why would an educated or high skilled worker emigrate to a lower rung? Now if you don't like bringing in that kind of labor, so be it. Run for office and draft a bill.

Until then please keep your "OMG WERE ALL DO BREEDS" bullshit to yourself.

---

Uh... Yeah... That would summarize my position quite well.

"people were someplace, they are now someplace else" <- Yes that is indeed the position I am trying to defend.

Sorry I skipped through your probably drunken rambling and went straight to the point.

Are you ACTUALLY thinking that the natives of America benefited from immigration? No really, that was pretty much the question I asked.

Are you out to get me?
Are you trolling?`
Are you having a problem accepting your own morality in immigration issues when you suddenly remember that you are part of a immigration force that more or less totally wiped out the ethnic population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

HT, explain

---

No. After reading your childish accusations towards Papewaio, I'm done replying to you until you've shown some maturity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Would you go with the same logic on dogs? Do you see anthropological and psychological factors in, say, what dog is more likely to kill a human? Or do you accept that some breeds of dogs are more likely to attack?

---

Uhm, yes on both accounts? If I'm going to determine what adult dog with a determinable history (aka I'm not taking a gamble buying a puppy) to have around my child I'm a idiot if I'm only going by the breed.
The violent puppy that was later abused from the calm breed are more dangerous than the calm one raised well from an aggressive breed. In the case of the extremely bred dogs we do have unique genetic factors to take into consideration, like when you have practically zero overlap in size, but in humanity that factor appears to be insignificant in comparation.

That's why the breed becomes irrelevant on an induvidual level.

Also, last time I checked, humanity isn't stuck with their jobs from birth (outside the caste system and some smaller exceptions) and aren't bred for it, so we aren't exactly puppy buying.

We have something to take into consideration then, as inbreeding is very normal in north-africa and the middle-east, with all the consequences. More prone to mental and physical disease, significantly lower iq, et etcetra

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Very correct.

US Civil War
World War II or as GC would name it EU Civil War
Syrian Civil War
Australian Coffee Festival

Pick the odd one out. Oh look three very blood thirsty wars fought by very similar genetic and cultural populations. The fourth a multicultural festival. Your thesis is gaining ground with speed.

---

his post didnt make sense in the first place =_=

My response was sarcastic. Civil wars are the least civil.

Look at the US Civil war. Cousin vs Cousin, brother vs brother.

It wasn't a battle between vastly different cultures it as close as you can get with only a tiny divergence.

More Americans died then every other war combined.

The idea that we are automatically against those who have different genetics isn't very scientific and ignored that most violence in history has been genetically similar neighbor on neighbor violence.

The biggest racial divide in all humans based on genes is men and women.

That X vs Y is the biggest chromosome variant out there. Does that mean we should be wary of women.

Of course you should be wary of women

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Of course you should be wary of women

---

specially your mother :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

We have something to take into consideration then, as inbreeding is very normal in north-africa and the middle-east, with all the consequences. More prone to mental and physical disease, significantly lower iq, et etcetra

---

The lower IQ only comes into play when there's retardation and similar (aka a not properly devoloped brain), not for the average person, from what I've red (that's also what makes most sense). So while those cases goes up with a factor of 2-3 for the worst regions, the effect on general IQ seems to be quite low. There's also low correlation between cousin marriage frequency and those national IQ maps.

It does certainly influence other factors like fertility and child mortality as well though.

Had they been breeding systematically for specific traits, then you would probably see a clear difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Attachment 10325

Let's face it. People vote by moving.


Would I happily give my job to a Somali person who hasn't even been involved in some movement against their state... No.

---

Pardon me sir, it seems that it is a valued patriotic maneuver when white people move away? Why can't that be the case when blacks do? It matters not, you're a racist, self-admittedly. You seem to imply in the OP that in your country that it is illegal to behave in a racist manner. Is this true? In my country we cannot discriminate on the basis of race when it comes to service, employment, and other public business type stuff. That does not mean we have a legal obligation to not discriminate in our personal affairs. There are laws that govern you personal behavior? Or are you simply upset that most of your community aren't racists like yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

Pardon me sir, it seems that it is a valued patriotic maneuver when white people move away? Why can't that be the case when blacks do? It matters not, you're a racist, self-admittedly. You seem to imply in the OP that in your country that it is illegal to behave in a racist manner. Is this true? In my country we cannot discriminate on the basis of race when it comes to service, employment, and other public business type stuff. That does not mean we have a legal obligation to not discriminate in our personal affairs. There are laws that govern you personal behavior? Or are you simply upset that most of your community aren't racists like yourself?

---

First of all, I completely agree that the issue isn't some "white" tendency, yes of course all the races (/cultures) choose to separate themselves from the rest. I fail to understand how you could have read anything else in my arguments?

Me being a racist.... Tricky question. I admit to being a racist by the swedish definition (in Sweden you are a racist if you dare think things such as "uncontrolled immigration from countries with high rates of HIV will result in economical means being removed from the well-fare state.)

I am probably not a racist by your definition. Mainly because I don't seek confrontational solutions, and that I am very much for some level of immigration and international solidarity.


What makes me upset when it comes to Sweden's view on nationalism, immigration and such questions, is different factors on different levels, so I am afraid I can't give you a short answer. Mainly because I assume our cultures are different, and no one can comprehend another persons problems in their culture, without understanding their culture as well, no?

If you are interested in a longer answer though, I'd say my grievances would be, in order of importance:

A) You do still have some sort of freedom of speach here, but that only protects you in your role as civilian. The state is, however, trying hard to kill freedom of speach in the society we actually act in.

Remember that this is Sweden, WAY more jobs than you are used to are state jobs. And many instances in society (railroad, hospitals, schools and so on) were very formerly under the states control, not private hands. As part of the state selling out to private business, part of the deal was that the private business had to keep to the states "Plan for every persons equal value).

So, eventhough you have freedom of speach, you have little freedom of actuall expression.

As an example, You could not keep your job in a school, if you as teacher among other teachers said that you believe women and children should get off of sinking boats first.

As a truck driver, you can not be a member of the truck drivers union (remember unions is still a BIG thing here), if you commit thought crimes such as thinking thinking that illegal immigrants shouldn't have free health and dental care here.


B) It's a very hostile debate climate. You are either PC or Hitler. I'm not joking, there is absolutely no grey areas to keep a open debate in.

Problem is that Sweden only ever had 2 major movements politically the last century. The "right" (or socialists as you all would say), and the "left" (the communists as you all would say), it's all on a red scale though, remember.

The left took the question of immigration to their heart in the 80's, and used that to be the "good and caring" side. It was great!!!

We were a rich country, we needed more people to come to work, we had had rather positive experiances with previous immigration (mainly work oriented). And wouldn't it be AWESOME if we could make more people Swedes?!

The right then did something COMPLETELY unexpected, and started cheering on immigration even MORE than the left. However, they didn't want qualified labour, no, they wanted drones to dump wages in the factories and for the working men.

Aaaaand... This created some sort of political meltdown.

The right support big business, so of course they LOVE the idea of the uncivilized third world coming here to dump wages for the workers, and as a bonus they get someone to walk their dog and clean their home.

The left started the whole immigration thing to have a weapon against the right. They took a VERY strong position about how helping the third world by moving people here is "good", and that everyone is equal and thus doesnt it matter what countries we migrate people from.

So, the absolute ONLY ones having any type of critical or at least questioning attitude, was the very darkest powers of the brownish right, the extreme nationalists, racists, nazists...

And the debate hasn't stepped up from there.

Can you see why that can be problematic for a person where politics is way more about grey scales and slippery slopes than good vs evil.

Kad, are you unhappy because people like yourself are being unfairly branded as 'racist', or are you actually advocating racism?*

*To avoid confusion over definitions, by 'racism' I mean the idea that humans can be categorized into a clear and (probably) hierarchical system of races. Indeed, it seems to me that part of your frustration stems from the fact that the term racism is being used loosely to apply to other things like not liking certain cultures etc. And yet, you seem to advocate some real racism as well. That's why I don't quite get where you are coming from.

A person who likes to see things in shades of grey?

Rarely have I seen a more black and white representation of reality than your post. Anti-immigration opinions are nt hunted down and silenced in Sweden. Sweden has by far the largest neo-nazi representation in Scandinavia, who regularly march around. You even have a neo-nazi party represented in Riksdagen! Truckers and teachers have all sorts of opinions on immigration, and are still members of unions. That some douchebag with retarded opinions got kicked out does not equal "impossible to have divergent views". Still, unions are political organizations with political programs, and I don't really see why unions should be forced to include members who do not share the unions political agenda(they still do though).

And the bottom line: Swedes should be banned from whining about immigration until you end your colonization of Grünerløkka and Grønland. Take back your 50.000 migrant workers, you lousy, penniless foreigners.

Well Rhy, how to put it...

I do believe there are differences between the races, skill colour is one that pops to mind. Are the racial differences enough to make it impossible to co-exist with a set geographical border, imho def no.

As I see it, a racist would see it as a problem if two Swedish parents adopted a negroe child, no? Whereas I wouldnt.

A racist also probably wouldnt both date and have loads of friends from very various parts of the world.

Do I believe that, say, yellows are more intelligent than blacks? I have read interesting theories from both sides of this perspective, and I fail to draw a clear conclusion.

There's too much political spinning and wishful thinking in that line of research, and to much personal emotion for it to be relevant in many years to come.


However, I am against moving big blocks of culture and just dumping them down somewhere else, hoping for the best. And it's hard to tell, at times, what are racial and cultural questions as they quite often walk hand in hand.

If two cultures meet, and there becomes problems because of it... It really doesnt help the national identity if the groups can be so clearly seen apart that it's not about colour of shoelaces, or the pinn on your breast that tell you apart. But what keep you apart is something so basic, that we are born with it.

Look at where ever people from different groups for different reasons have been forced to live together. Has it worked out well?

So here comes the problem... It's hard to tell race apart from culture at times. Look at those maps of the USA, is it racial or cultural factors that have dictated where people choose to live and who they choose to have around themselves.

Ask yourself this:

Black parents in Harlem adopts a Chinese kid. Would the kid have had a better chance of finding his place in the world and building relationships if he would have been adopted from Africa?

So racial FACTORS can still play a role in society, mainly because it doesnt take an Einstein to understand that 2 different populations looking different and acting different WILL create friction. We can accept it, or we could pretend we are all the same wonderful starlights that HT wants to have people think.

So, yes... Races can definitely play a part in, say, how we psychologicly characterize others. And if it influence important things like that, it surely influence society at large.



TL:DR

NO, I am not a racist as I don't think one race has supremacy, neither do I think any race should strive for it. I am very much for immigration from all over the world (around 10% of any nations pop should be people from other countries imho, so good ideas and thoughts can spread).

YES, I am a racist as I acknowledge that there are racial differences (such as skin colour). I am also a racist because I don't think you can take a shovel to an ant mound, grab a big piece of the mound, and dump that piece on another mound.

I really want the Ant Starlights to at once happily start working together, but the racist in me can't help but think that this idea creates problems in at LEAST one of the two mounds.

Funny thing is I like 98% of Australians am an Imigrant.

I like 25% of Australians was born over seas.

I like a huge chunk of Aussies married outside my ethnic group.

Which is to be expected considering I have a Welsh mum and a Kiwi dad and a Swedish surname.

Every statement made about ethnic groups not getting along is falsified by my daily commute, my daily meals, my daily work, my daily life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Funny thing is I like 98% of Australians am an Imigrant.

I like 25% of Australians was born over seas.

I like a huge chunk of Aussies married outside my ethnic group.

Which is to be expected considering I have a Welsh mum and a Kiwi dad and a Swedish surname.

Every statement made about ethnic groups not getting along is falsified by my daily commute, my daily meals, my daily work, my daily life.

---

Aborigines?

Is the native population doing well? Is their culture respected in the country? You are all one big happy family?

Is crowding as much a problem in Australia as it is in other parts of the world?

Can you accept that there are many viewpoints on these issues, and that yours by no means must be the correct one.

The 2% who aren't immigrants would be the Aboroginal Australians.

Like most indegionous populations history has not treated them well.

It however does not mean that individuals do not get along well with each other.
"Indigenous Australians have a high interracial marriage rate. According to the 2000 Census in 1996, 64% of all married or de facto married couples involving an Indigenous person were mixed (i.e., only one partner was indigenous). In 55% of such couples, the Indigenous partner was female" - Wikipedia

Australians only removed aborigines from the wildlife census in 1967. They still deal with horrendous racism. The overall vector is improving, but it certainly isn't perfect. It does not however counter the idea of multiculturalism, it tempers it with programs to improve the institutionalized apartheid like racism of the past.

Our treatment of our indegenious people in the past is testament why programs of racial segregation are wrong.

As for land. Yes Australia is huge. As for potable water not so. But I believe with the right infrastructure we could increase carrying capacity by ten times now. Problem is rather then think big our pollies try scare tactics about boat people.

Of course there are many viewpoints on these issues. It's a big grey world with scintillating colour thrown in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Countries of Origin... which oddly all appear to have the same groups year after year, which happen to be a tiny minority.

And Yanks and Carribbeans. A mix of white and black. For all I know that is the optimal mix for sprinters.

Did I say that pointed purely to anything?
And no one sprints int Europe, or Asia...?

I guess winning the 100m has so little fame and money few can be bothered to try...

~:smoking:

---

i give this reasoning some thought, and i would like to ask you a question

if you believe that the current hall of fame on the 100m reflects a biological difference between two races, do you also believe that the hall of fame for let's say Jazz music, reflects a similar biological difference? Or would you say it is a cultural/demographic/socio-economic/insert difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

TL:DR

NO, I am not a racist as I don't think one race has supremacy, neither do I think any race should strive for it. I am very much for immigration from all over the world (around 10% of any nations pop should be people from other countries imho, so good ideas and thoughts can spread).

YES, I am a racist as I acknowledge that there are racial differences (such as skin colour). I am also a racist because I don't think you can take a shovel to an ant mound, grab a big piece of the mound, and dump that piece on another mound.

I really want the Ant Starlights to at once happily start working together, but the racist in me can't help but think that this idea creates problems in at LEAST one of the two mounds.

---

Maybe it is me, but to say that there differences when there are differences is not racist.

Being racist is saying that there differences that matter when they do not, or when the differences do not exist. Being racist is applying value to differences when the differences do not matter. Being racist is making false claims from universals to particulars and the other way around: to claim for example that all negroes are faster on average, you are a negro thus you must be fast or to say you are lazy, you are negro, thus all negroes are lazy. That's being racist.

*does a vood00-necro dance*

2017, where are we at?

How come we are able to discuss genetic traits in dog breeds, but to suggest that East Asians is more intelligent than "white folks" is an absolutely muted debate?

You made me think Kad came back

Both this and Fringemantra are old members with alt accounts, I'd guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You made me think Kad came back

---

No [pending] Sherlock.

*please do note the absolute top thread*

lol hi Kds wb, how are you and your significant self doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlRex

How come we are able to discuss genetic traits in dog breeds, but to suggest that East Asians is more intelligent than "white folks" is an absolutely muted debate?

---

We're too intelligent to fall for dumb old tricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

We're too intelligent to fall for dumb old tricks.

---

Danish military have a problem with immigrants not performing to standards in their IQ test.

Swedish military have a problem with - yadda yadda...

How come some genetic variances are more apt than others?

Might it be because of genetics?

Or do you refuse genetics, thus pushing science back some Ummmmpteenth of deceniums?

Fragony, my dog (wolf) is just AWESOME as ever and forever :D

Game Of Thrones - references are being tossed wildly about as I walk down central Stockholm with him NOT on a leash ;)

You should see the asians and their photo-ops....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlRex

Danish military have a problem with immigrants not performing to standards in their IQ test.

Swedish military have a problem with - yadda yadda...

How come some genetic variances are more apt than others?

Might it be because of genetics?

Or do you refuse genetics, thus pushing science back some Ummmmpteenth of deceniums?

Fragony, my dog (wolf) is just AWESOME as ever and forever :D

Game Of Thrones - references are being tossed wildly about as I walk down central Stockholm with him NOT on a leash ;)

You should see the asians and their photo-ops....

---

IIRC, you were about to embark on some political career (at least you said it was time to do something instead of just talking) before you took sabbatical. Any progress on it?