Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[pErvinalia]

Slavery was an abomination but I don't hear anyone demanding reparations from African countries for happily rounding up and selling slaves to the West. As such are those who are descended from countries which allowed people to be purchased as slaves responsible for the actions of their ancestors?

Maybe, if it could be shown that institutions and companies that operated in that trade have benefited from it then yes, they should attribute some of their profits to the descendants of those affected.

I'm pretty sure Australia has paid reparations to Pacific Islander nations/families who were brought here under indentured labour to work on the sugar cane fields.

[pErvinalia]

This is actually a good discussion, I don't suppose it could be spun off to its own thread?

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD NO.

[pErvinalia]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong). There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging. I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

Oh please, how fucking naive are you whilst accusing Audley of being a 'romantic, yet (having a) utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech".' Hearing cracker scum might be a laugh amongst your friends but If I hear in in my own city, say Toxteth in the dead of night I'm reaching for my keys (the only legal weapon you are allowed to have in the UK.) Time and place and context matters though that is a concept liberals can't seem to grasp. Free speech is defending that which you would rather not hear but need to no the less. What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

It makes a clear statement that it is socially unacceptable to be an anti-social fuckwit.

Interestingly, a popular political/current-affairs panel show here in Oz touched on this issue in this week's show. I don't know if those of you outside of Australia can see it, but it covered some of these issues really well. It also had the added bonus of the old rich white conservative elitist politician on the show getting hammered from all sides (the panel is usually roughly 50:50 cons vs progressives, but the other night it was 3:2 but the other conservative was against him). It's called Q&A and the episode was on Monday night. You might be able to watch ABC iView from NZ, Samsa.

[Mr.Samsa]

Maybe, if it could be shown that institutions and companies that operated in that trade have benefited from it then yes, they should attribute some of their profits to the descendants of those affected.

I'm pretty sure Australia has paid reparations to Pacific Islander nations/families who were brought here under indentured labour to work on the sugar cane fields.

I think the main issue people struggle to understand when discussing reparation is that they think it's just a way to blame someone for something that happened a long time ago, which is a huge misunderstanding. It is true that part of reparations is to try to acknowledge an historical injustice but the main reason is simply that what happened in the past is still having a huge detrimental effect on people alive today. The point being that you can't just shift an entire population of people to a new country, force them into slavery, then free them and expect them to achieve equality as if the world had magically changed overnight and is now based on merit.

It's really just a spin off of the just-world bias, where people assume that if those descended from slaves haven't been able to succeed in the world after all that time has passed then it must be because they aren't working hard enough and to give them money for things which (supposedly) have no relevance to today's world is to simply "reward" them for their perceived moral failings.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, we've been struggling with this as a (basically racist) nation for the last 20 years particularly. The issue here has been an apology to the "Stolen Generation" - young aboriginals who were removed from their families and placed in white foster homes, or just simply state institutional care. For years no politician would say sorry, allegedly because it was potentially setting a legal precedent for being sued. Not that the majority of racists and conservatives here cared about that. Their real gripe was that it was akin to blaming them (i.e. all of us presently) for the actions of past government/people. So it was the usual story of trying to turn the oppressing culture into the victims. Really disheartening. Anyway, a recent PM made his first significant act after getting voted in to formally apologise on behalf of the government and the nation. It was a real special symbolic moment, and one that not surprisingly didn't lead to lawsuits. And it meant a great deal to the indigenous community.

The next big hurdle we are facing is a likely coming referendum to recognise Aborigines as the first people of this nation, within the Constitution. Actually, another likely issue, just popping up in the last few days in NZ, is the flag issue. NZ will change their flag no problems, and we'll be wondering how did you do it so easily. Then hopefully we'll wake up and be able to create a new flag that represents our Aboriginal and European culture.

[Mr.Samsa]

Not that the majority of racists and conservatives here cared about that. Their real gripe was that it was akin to blaming them (i.e. all of us presently) for the actions of past government/people. So it was the usual story of trying to turn the oppressing culture into the victims. Really disheartening.

Yeah that's basically a real world demonstration of one of the problems I was trying to describe with the use of hate speech in safe spaces above where it becomes clear that the dominant class of people are protected by default.

Anyway, a recent PM made his first significant act after getting voted in to formally apologise on behalf of the government and the nation. It was a real special symbolic moment, and one that not surprisingly didn't lead to lawsuits. And it meant a great deal to the indigenous community.

I remember that. Rudd did some good things in his time even if he wasn't exactly perfect.

The next big hurdle we are facing is a likely coming referendum to recognise Aborigines as the first people of this nation, within the Constitution. Actually, another likely issue, just popping up in the last few days in NZ, is the flag issue. NZ will change their flag no problems, and we'll be wondering how did you do it so easily. Then hopefully we'll wake up and be able to create a new flag that represents our Aboriginal and European culture.

Maybe but I actually doubt the flag will change any time soon, if at all, because not enough people are interested enough to want to change it (as evidenced by the fact that we've had this debate at every election for the last few decades). I don't personally like any of the designs that have been proposed either, which is a shame (the silver fern one is ridiculous)..

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, the silver fern (although a beautiful icon) is like our 'boxing kangaroo'. Some people actually want the boxing kangaroo as our flag.

I think the NZ flag should incorporate some Maori iconography at the very least.

[Gallstones]

Progressive Racism: The hidden motive driving modern politics

Progressive politics is rooted in racism. Look carefully at most social or fiscal policies advocated by progressives and you’ll see that underneath their false public rationales lie hidden racist fears and assumptions — some of which the progressives may be too embarrassed to admit even to themselves, much less to the world.

[pErvinalia]

Is it worth my effort reading that article? Your cut and paste doesn't tell me why I might actually be racist. And given I'm not, I'm not sure what the article could possibly say.

[JimC]

This has twisted into a serious thread.

Someone earlier suggested cutting out the serious bits, and starting a new thread.

I strongly disagree. To me, one of the real strengths and fascinations of Rationalia is how threads twist, turn and metamorphose like living things...

We iz organic!

[pErvinalia]

FUCK RATSKEP!!!

[Hermit]

Is it worth my effort reading that article? Your cut and paste doesn't tell me why I might actually be racist. And given I'm not, I'm not sure what the article could possibly say.

If the title, Progressive Racism: The hidden motive, and three mentions of progressive(s) in the first two sentences won't convince you that the article is a must-read, nothing will. Not even the summaries for each of the eight separate entries. Conveniently colour-coded, they go like this:

GUN CONTROL
White urban liberals are deathly afraid of black gangbangers with guns, but are ashamed to admit this publicly, so to mask their racist fears they try to ban guns for everyone, as a way of warding off the perception that their real goal is to target blacks specifically.

JUNK FOOD TAXES
Progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make healthy food choices.

CLIMATE CHANGE
The civilizational “white guilt” motivating the voluntary wealth transfer to undeveloped nations derives from deep racist assumptions about the innate shortcomings of backward peoples.

THE WELFARE STATE
The true goal of progressive-style cradle-to-grave welfare is to enslave blacks in a culture of dependency and thereby keep them mollified and also a dependable Democratic voting bloc.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
White progressives believe that blacks are intellectually inferior and will never be able to compete successfully in education and the job market, and so seek to create a permanent system in which the assumption of black inadequacy is the starting point for an insulting double-standard of judging blacks on a lower scale.

PLASTIC BAG BANS
White progressives specifically want to stop inner-city blacks from littering, but don’t want to be perceived as racists who further penalize the black community for its behavior, so rather than focus on whom they believe to be the actual perpetrators of littering, they remove from everyone‘s hands any objects which might potentially become litter.

ABORTION
The movement to legalize abortion was from its inception intended as a way to decrease the black and minority population, and the statistics show that a highly disproportionate percentage of aborted babies are black. The desire to preserve “racial purity” and to prevent over-breeding of the “lower” races and classes was the overt and publicly pronounced goal of the pro-abortion progressive eugenics campaign in the early 20th century; only after eugenics fell from public favor did the leftists devise deceptive new narratives to justify abortion. White progressives still believe that blacks cannot control their sexuality and are too irresponsible to use birth control reliably, so the only way to keep them from overpopulating is to keep abortion legal and cheap or free.

NANNY STATISM
White progressives think blacks need constant monitoring and micromanagement to prevent them from misbehaving; but to avoid the perception that they are racists, progressives devise rules which restrict everyone’s freedom, even though the real goal is to control blacks.


(Never has the >Post Bollocks< button been more appropriately labelled.)

[DaveDodo007]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong). There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging. I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

Oh please, how fucking naive are you whilst accusing Audley of being a 'romantic, yet (having a) utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech".' Hearing cracker scum might be a laugh amongst your friends but If I hear in in my own city, say Toxteth in the dead of night I'm reaching for my keys (the only legal weapon you are allowed to have in the UK.) Time and place and context matters though that is a concept liberals can't seem to grasp. Free speech is defending that which you would rather not hear but need to no the less. What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

It makes a clear statement that it is socially unacceptable to be an anti-social fuckwit.

Wow! You really don't get it do you. I'm trying to think of the most blatant obvious metaphor to explain it to you. OK in Nazi Germany it was anti-social to like and/or mix with Jews, gays and gypsies. You can't have arbitrary and subjective standards just because you personally like them without this line of thinking being open to abuse. What happens in the future if an ideological group completely the opposite of everything you stand for gains power and popular influence.

[FBM]

This has twisted into a serious thread.

...

We iz organic!

I know I am. I was picking my nose while reading that post.

[pErvinalia]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong). There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging. I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

Oh please, how fucking naive are you whilst accusing Audley of being a 'romantic, yet (having a) utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech".' Hearing cracker scum might be a laugh amongst your friends but If I hear in in my own city, say Toxteth in the dead of night I'm reaching for my keys (the only legal weapon you are allowed to have in the UK.) Time and place and context matters though that is a concept liberals can't seem to grasp. Free speech is defending that which you would rather not hear but need to no the less. What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

It makes a clear statement that it is socially unacceptable to be an anti-social fuckwit.

Wow! You really don't get it do you. I'm trying to think of the most blatant obvious metaphor to explain it to you. OK in Nazi Germany it was anti-social to like and/or mix with Jews, gays and gypsies. You can't have arbitrary and subjective standards just because you personally like them without this line of thinking being open to abuse. What happens in the future if an ideological group completely the opposite of everything you stand for gains power and popular influence.

Discriminating against minorities is pretty easy to objectively define. And anyone with a brain agrees that it is bad. Discouraging speech which promotes what is objectively bad is a good thing, in my book. Not sure what Nazi's have to do with anything.