Mississippi Republicans and Miscegenation

[Trippy]

..
Why in the world would you be ashamed about something you have nothing to do with?
Why are beavers building dams natural, but humans building skyscrapers un-natural?
So what? what's so great about being "natural"? It's natural for large numbers of women and children to die during childbirth. It's also natural for large numbers of the young and the elderly to die From the flu every year. And for old people to go blind from cataracts. And for children born with hair lips to suffer their entire lives.

I could go on, but the point should be clear, what's so great about "natural".

This is one of my pet peeves at work, actually, people seem to assume that (for example) all streams should be clean. This is bullshit, there are streams in NZ with Arsenic levels high enough to kill you, and ground water in the US that naturally has a low enough pH to pass as battery acid almost.

It brings this to mind: Tim Minchin, Storm.

Actually, a number of aspects of this ridiculous conversation bring this to mind (not yours, per se, you understand).

 

[Cowboy]

unless its about sex than they get real interested

There's an interesting book about this. I think it's called "The Elephant In The Room", but I don't recall (I could find out, if you're interested). It's about the ideological war that took place within the GOP between the Libertarian-type/limited government conservatives and the religious/family-values big government conservatives.

Guess which side won that war?

 

[Stryder]

Listen to what you're saying, that our physical structure is a matter of choice, like what breakfast cereal one will have today or what color shoes one will wear or what color one will dye ones hair this week. This is the logic of a feminized consumer mind. To hear a moderator say this on a science website is, quite frankly, disturbing.

Pigmentation is only one trait amongst many, a whole explication of which would shock you to the core. To know that it is the contemporary concept of the 'human race' that is the social construct... not the races themselves, and that many of the creatures one shares the street with are potentially more alien and threatening to us and our future evolution than any lion or tiger, that is the reality of our existence.

Darwin showed us that what is bestial about man is not the cause of some metaphysical, horned demon floating around outside of us and trying to deceive us, it is our own physical nature from which the gradual process of evolution is liberating us.

Even if science allowed one to choose the physical characteristics of one's child, those choices would inevitably be the same ones that evolution has already selected for - greater intelligence and self-awareness... greater sentience. Consumerism - in how it conceals race - is only a cheap drug, one that you buy daily with your Starbucks coffee and croissant, and like all drugs it alters our perception of the world, making us the victims of the very economic forces that control it.

You have a twisted perception of what Darwin understood. I'm sure you are aware of the "Survival of the Fittest", however your perception of what should "survive" and what is "fit" is really misconstrued.

The various ethnicities that exist are "Surviving" which means each of them are fit. The only concerns for undermining survival are not with diseases as you might think but with the various weak components that make up society. Those weak components being people that believe that ethnicity is a weakness.

Ethnicity as a whole is a strength, without fundamental differences in humans across the world, there would not be the required deviations in the gene-pool which would increase mutations in an attempt to counteract the inability to utilise variety as an advantage. If we were all the same one bought of influenza could have been enough to take down the whole human race.

I explain this because your attempted philosophies and indoctrinations as a whole seem an attempt to misinform people to your cause, So I warn you as a moderator duty;

if you continue this trend then you will force me to remove you under breach of this websites rules in regards to Inflammation, Racism and Hate speech. You might claim that un-American and spout a whole bunch of "rights", you just have to remember this is an International board, we deal with an international community, so we don't deal with one set of rights over another. You can call it liberal if you like which I'm sure will make you feel better.

 

[iceaura]

There is no separation of culture from race, just as one cannot separate the birds nest from the bird or the beaver from the dam.

Something about separating the trash from the trailer belongs here, but I can't quite put it into words.

From immediately after the Civil War up to the civil rights movement of the 1960's (approx.100 yrs), all political, legislative attempts to advance racial civil rights were put forth by conservative Republicans & continually opposed by Democrats
- - -
One of the greatest lessons to be learned from the era;

The first lesson is that Republicans have not always been the "conservative" swine they are now. Something happened to the Republican Party.

The second lesson is that Christianity was a dominant feature of the Democratic Party. Martin Luther King and all those civil rights reverends were not Republicans. The KKK faction - a Christian group - was like most fundie Christian groups firmly Democratic back then (it's Republican now, going under other names). They burned Christian crosses as their symbol, and defended what are now called conservative family values including Christianity.

It's about the ideological war that took place within the GOP between the Libertarian-type/limited government conservatives and the religious/family-values big government conservatives.

Genuine small government libertarians have never been more than a fringe presence in either the Democratic or Republican Parties. The war was not ideological: the corporate powers found a way to coopt the bigot vote, and bring the formerly Democratic white male fundies into the Republican Party, as part of a long campaign to get control of government with its powers of taxation and regulation. The only struggle since has been between that voting base and the corporate money, for control and representation. No actual ideology is involved - neither group bothers with such stuff.

 

[birch]

And what happens to the fate of a minority population when it is encouraged to breed with a majority?

Your naivete is the same as that which believed in WMD or that targeted air strikes are a good way of avoiding civilian casualties.

so what is your point to all this or what do you want to happen?

as for superior/inferior, i don't base it entirely on race or even culture categorically because the things i find valuable in life and enjoy can't always be measured on a superior/inferior scale and what i do like is found in many different cultures around the world. it's the same as with what i dislike which can also be found in so-called advanced cultures or have been produced there.

for you, it may be different and you really are that fuking boring.

 

[chimpkin]

Birch said:so what is your point to all this or what do you want to happen?

I think he's just here to sneer at us, Birch, and I, for one, should have put his ass on ignore immediately at soon as I smelled the Nazi-ating stench of his ideology...but people like him just really, really make me outrageously angry.
So he's baiting his hooks very well.

See, Emptysky has indoctrinated himself to believe drivel, so there's no use talking to him.
His mind is closed to new opinion.

Wellwisher said:
The white straight Christian male has to walk like a lone wolf. If he tries to associate, have pride or even help only those who are similar to even part of this self, he is a racists, sexists, homophobia, anti-semetic.

If the Straight white Christian male has pride, that's normal. If he associates only with others like himself, that is normal. If he only helps other straight white Christian guys, that's normal as well.

He might not notice, probably wouldn't be really motivated by racism. It will just happen that he ends up not going to church or work with anyone who's not straight or white...and well, being Christian, he's going to be reserved about associating with women...and women, well, since he doesn't know them that well, he's not going to help them get the good jobs at his company before he helps his straight white male Christian buddies that he hangs out with and fixes cars with on the weekends, or goes fishing with...
Not out of malice, it's just that he knows Bob over there so well, Bob would be just perfect for the job that ...um, that black lady, what was her name? just left at the firm...

So it happens that straight white Christian guys end up helping each other and associating quite effectively...

And while this isn't really meant to do so? it has the effect on those of us who aren't straight, white, male or Christian of making us more alienated and giving us a less prosperous life.

Can you turn around and look at it from the perspective of someone who can't fit comfortably into those informal networks that give one a great advantage in life?
Or are you going to maintain whining about your hurt feelings ?

 

[birch]

i think it's that some whites feel their culture is being changed or their is no homeland for them that is all-white. that is up to whites as a majority to decide and the immigration policies.

that said, what is the cause of these problems is when people really do think another has a right to oppress or violate others based on ideas of superior/inferior. just because one can, why would they unless there was good reason and in what measure and what exactly needs to change?

the problem is i've read the opinions of white supremacists and nationalists and they tend to think anything that is not of their culture is inferior. that is not even intelligent. that's like if an alien species came to earth and decided to wipe out or oppress everyone because it could or deemed it all unimportant because it does not apply to them or they are not interested in it. that would include all the history and work of humans as well as life on this planet.

every race and culture has it's own unique individuality that is unlike another, no matter how advanced technologically it is or isn't vs another is a different matter. the differences and variations is what diversity is about. also, not everything in a technologically advanced culture is going to be without problems, faults or it's own brand of inferiority contexually or blatantly.

i recall a story of a retired professional who decided to live a simpler life in a less developed country. this is what makes him happy now and he prefers that lifestyle. he even cooks using a wood stove and believes that food is just as good. what is superior to you is what makes you happy, not what always makes another happy or what someone deems you should be happy with. emptysky is as much a sheeple as those he calls a sheeple and is narrow-minded.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

There's an interesting book about this. I think it's called "The Elephant In The Room", but I don't recall (I could find out, if you're interested). It's about the ideological war that took place within the GOP between the Libertarian-type/limited government conservatives and the religious/family-values big government conservatives.

Guess which side won that war?

Who cares? They are both retarded.

 

[chimpkin]

i think it's that some whites feel their culture is being changed or their is no homeland for them that is all-white.

Their culture is changing...that happens very quickly these days, but there's no stopping that. And there is a white homeland. Scandinavia!

what is the cause of these problems is when people really do think another has a right to oppress or violate others based on ideas of superior/inferior.

I don't understand that either. I tested 99th percentile on a lot of things( that don't include math) in minimal-skills exams...does this mean I get to treat large segments of the population like shit? no!

And what constitutes superior and inferior depends on who is measuring and how...I can get on the internet, effect minor car repairs, and maybe get a master's degree at some point... but can I survive a winter on the Arctic tundra? or build a masterwork-level cabinet?

Probably not-certainly not with all toes and fingers; and no, respectively.

The point being we survive and move forward as a species!

Racists choose not to understand that.:wallbang:

 

[Giambattista]

Most people have unconscious racial segregation tendencies.

 

[birch]

Most people have unconscious racial segregation tendencies.

i think this is natural to some extent but it's also natural to share common ground and culture just the same. it's like a dance that some people understand how to do and some don't.

life would be boring without diversity and it would be boring without sharing since that also produces interesting and new results. it's also natural to want your own culture too or not let another totally override your own.

technology can be shared and utilized by everyone. culture is more personal and every culture has their own twist on things subtle or overt.

for instance, there is some wonderful street food culture in some countries. these don't need to be replaced with exactly fast food western franchises but pragmatic knowledge of safe food handling, better technology in food preparation etc., can be utilized or incorporated which many do. on the reverse, western societies are opening up to the joys of varied street food now in major cities.

 

[chimpkin]

life would be boring without diversity and it would be boring without sharing since that also produces interesting and new results.

I know!

My town's a really ethnically diverse place...if I move from here there are a few things I am going to miss-and that's likely one of the biggest ones right there.

No good Vietnamese tofu dishes at 2 am on a Saturday? No Chinese supermarkets? No variety mix of people from everywhere? No vuvzelas? (well, maybe there would be good things...)No Pico de Gallo? No Topo Chico? No African-accented English?

I wonder if I'll get to go to a Holi festival-those look like enormous fun... and I ought to make myself go to one of the Buddhist Temples at least once.

 

[birch]

when i look at a world map, i can't really feel sorry for the concept of the white race. this is because they are everywhere. they are all over the american continent and even south americans are mixed mainly due to spaniards. then there is australia, new zealand, russia and east/west europe. they also have south africa. the only place that hasn't been miscegenated by whites is still asia and mostly africa. the rest of the map shows whites have been trodding around everywhere and even taking over others lands. also, most everyone speaks english and is rather flattering to western culture or at least i would be flattered and feel honored knowing they look up to my culture to take the lead in many ways. i certainly wouldn't look at it with hostility or arrogance but rather amazement and humility.

 

[chimpkin]

when i look at a world map, i can't really feel sorry for the concept of the white race. this is because they are everywhere. they are all over the american continent and even south americans are mixed mainly due to spaniards. then there is australia, new zealand, russia and east/west europe. they also have south america. the only place that hasn't been miscegenated be whites is still asia and mostly africa. the rest of the map shows whites have been trodding around everywhere and even taking over others lands.

Well, racists argue that shows their superiority.
I'd say it shows viciousness.

 

[Bells]

Well, racists argue that shows their superiority.
I'd say it shows viciousness.

I see it differently.

It shows how ridiculous their sense of victimhood actually is. The classic gripe and whine for white supremacists is the following:

There is black history month, gay day and women's month or whatever. If we wanted to add white male week, only that week will be called racists, sexist, homophobic, etc, even if they model that week on all the others. One is not dealing with honest or rational consistency. ​

The complaint is that there is no "white male week". Which would entail what exactly?

It would encompass the wars fought in history and the present, colonialism, their role in the slave trade (as the traders, ship captains and slave owners), the history of politics...

The failure to recognise that the rest of the year aside from "black history month" (which is closely connected to white history), "gay day" and "women's month or whatever"... all are connected to or in place because everything is else about "white male" from a historical and cultural standpoint. Even more curious is how he states that having a "white male week" would be deemed homophobic.. Apparently white homosexual males do not qualify, nor should they be included in "white male week"..

Apparently this is a liberal deceptions - the deception by blacks, homosexuals, women to deceive the white males of the world. The horror that they (white males) get everyday of the year while blacks get a month, etc. The irony..

Wellwisher then goes on to talk and walk the walk of classic white supremacists:

The white straight Christian male has to walk like a lone wolf.​

Poor boy..

And then the feelings of being victimised:

If he tries to associate, have pride or even helponly those who are similar to even partd of this self, he is a racists, sexists, homophobia, anti-semetic. If you contain any of the favorite groups, that gets a different standard that includes name calling. The name calling is only a hate crime if you are white, male, straight and Christian. The other way around has a different standard. ​

I do not think I need to point out how ridiculous this proposition and whine is.

He is too busy being the victim, the "lone wolf", to recognise that it is only bigotry, racism, homophobic, sexist and anti-semitic if you view non-whites, women, homosexuals and Jews other non-Christian as being beneath you and not equal to your white male self. If you go out of your way to ensure that those who are not white Christian males remain disadvantaged and support conditions that would ensure unfair and unequal treatment for anyone who is not a white Christian male..

No.. instead, it is easy to just play the victim because people will call you out on your bullshit when you spout racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic and anti-semitic drivel. Poor baby..

And then he goes on to talk about a solution. Equality and how Republicans believe in true equality and how Democrats are the true racists..

There needs to one standard for all. The liberal dual standard creates the impression, without all this cheating, these other groups could not create an illusion of equality. I don't believe that liberal racist conclusion. Only the Dems think that way. Repulicans would prefer all have the same rules since they believe all are equal. ​

Equality for whom exactly?

Has he forgotten that the survey was of Republicans who believe inter-racial marriage should be illegal?

So you see what I mean Chimpkin? It's not that it's viciousness. It's that it is pitiful whining about how white supremacists now have to share the front of the bus with the coloured folks and history isn't only just about "white male" history but now encompasses all.. Welcome to the victimhood of the white Christian male supremacist.

 

[chimpkin]

Well, as a queer...and figuring it out when AIDS was an untreatable disease and homophobia was raging...
Having pride in yourself as such is a choice-society wants to make you feel shame and self-destruct.
But a straight white guy doesn't have to choose to take charge of an identity that society tells him is shameful and say "No, I'm a good person, I deserve to feel proud of who I am..."
And straight white Christian guys that say stuff like the above are really that clueless, I guess...because to them, their own supremacy is the natural state of affairs.

 

[pjdude1219]

There's an interesting book about this. I think it's called "The Elephant In The Room", but I don't recall (I could find out, if you're interested). It's about the ideological war that took place within the GOP between the Libertarian-type/limited government conservatives and the religious/family-values big government conservatives.

Guess which side won that war?

neither/both their really isn't a difference. look at the person who is considered the stereotypical libertarian ron paul. anti abortion/ against same sex marriage. both based on religious reasons

 

[Cowboy]

Genuine small government libertarians have never been more than a fringe presence in either the Democratic or Republican Parties. The war was not ideological: the corporate powers found a way to coopt the bigot vote, and bring the formerly Democratic white male fundies into the Republican Party, as part of a long campaign to get control of government with its powers of taxation and regulation. The only struggle since has been between that voting base and the corporate money, for control and representation. No actual ideology is involved - neither group bothers with such stuff.

Legitimate small-government/Libertarian advocates used to have a bigger role within the GOP, even if they were never the majority. Take Barry Goldwater, for example. He got the GOP nomination in 1964, but would get the cold shoulder from today's GOP, just like Ron Paul does.

 

[Cowboy]

neither/both their really isn't a difference. look at the person who is considered the stereotypical libertarian ron paul. anti abortion/ against same sex marriage. both based on religious reasons

Ron Paul isn't a stereotypical Libertarian. He's a very Libertarian-leaning conservative. Or a conservative-leaning Libertarian. He's largely Libertarian, but still retains a few conservative views on "family values" issues.

 

[iceaura]

Legitimate small-government/Libertarian advocates used to have a bigger role within the GOP, even if they were never the majority. Take Barry Goldwater, for example. He got the GOP nomination in 1964, but would get the cold shoulder from today's GOP, just like Ron Paul does.

Barry Goldwater was a corporate friendly racial bigot who favored large expansion of the military wings of government and rigorous government intrusions into almost every non-corporate facet of daily life in America - everything from flagburning bans and government suppression of disfavored political ideologies to antiabortion laws, Jim Crow provisions, and labor union breaking.

Ron Paul is a fringe figure, especially in his actual small-government beliefs (favoring contraction of the military/industrial complex, say) and his libertarian streak runs more to liberties for corporations than for people - check out his actual votes.

There were a few actual libertarians around in the Goldwater times. They did not think highly of Goldwater. For one thing, even the blindest of actual libertarians recognizes that State government tyranny is still government tyranny - "States rights" is not a libertarian organizing principle.