|
Post by kitty on Jul 29, 2009 2:48:16 GMT
What I find most interesting Terre, is how you only care about someone when he/she is successful.
So any non-native who is not successful is on your hatred-list aswell, I s'pose?
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jul 29, 2009 3:17:04 GMT
More or less Kitty, just not quite as much.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jul 29, 2009 3:18:05 GMT
The white mans culture of business and oppurtunistic rape of land is not for everyone. I think candians are slow witted , you see , is that true ? are all canadians slow witted dull and fat? Probably not but I am a culturalist and all.....I hope you see the point. Are all Americans dumb, fat, ignorant, sloped headed, and foolish? It seems that way to me, but American isn't a "race", and the only "race" that can be "Canadian", is the natives.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 3:21:22 GMT
*sigh* Seems to me like we need another Canadian in this thread...
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jul 29, 2009 3:21:33 GMT
Just. Stop. Posting.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 3:22:16 GMT
Ok, good idea.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jul 29, 2009 3:24:45 GMT
Ok, good idea. No, not you! You keep posting. I keep almost making a joke about being "made racist" against white privileged males because of the attitude of a few of the ones on this forum, but eh.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 3:27:40 GMT
Ok, good idea. No, not you! You keep posting. I keep almost making a joke about being "made racist" against white privileged males because of the attitude of a few of the ones on this forum, but eh. Well... As a mixed Social-Working (not privileged) male, I'd like to see that joke. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 29, 2009 3:48:15 GMT
More or less Kitty, just not quite as much. Alright so I understand correct that you hate everyone who isn't successful but if the person also has an indigious background you hate him a tiny bit more? You know Terre, if that's the truth, you aren't just a racist but also a heartless "female dog". Oops, couldn't help the b word in this case...
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jul 29, 2009 5:03:29 GMT
How interesting, your a female cat. What kind words you flower me with, I have two female dogs in fact, they are rather cute. My dog chase is awesome of course. Corey's cool too.
The thing is, is failure is much more universal than success. These natives do not 'succeed', by my standards. And they fail by their own, and by broad human standards.
Huffing gas is not succeeding.
Being born with Fetal Alcohol syndrome is not succeeding.
Being unemployed is not succeeding.
Its failing.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 29, 2009 5:41:34 GMT
^ That's just what the Nazis said.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jul 29, 2009 5:44:31 GMT
Huffing gas is not succeeding.
Being born with Fetal Alcohol syndrome is not succeeding.
Being unemployed is not succeeding.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 29, 2009 6:12:42 GMT
You repeat yourself and still sound shockingly close to the 10 friggin years my history teacher hammered "what is a Nazi" into my head.
Are you proud a little?
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 29, 2009 9:11:39 GMT
Once again though, substance abuse is successful? Being in Jail is successful? Personnally and subjectively I'd say no - as you expect. However if I'm facetious, I'd say that if your goals are to dull your mind into oblivion or get a warm place to sleep and regular food at the expense of a society which you don't like or respect, then yes, one could say so. Whether those goals objectively are worthwhile is a totally different issue. On a more general view: Where is the treshold between use and abuse? Who and what defines that? In general or individually? Going in jail, for what? Under what and whose laws? Who defines the standard - and can one reasonably have or apply another standard? I now of course what you mean - and I'm not contradicting that statistically there is a trend in which a significant portion shows specific behaviours, and that those are detrimental to them individually as to society. A pure racist's view is to apply his own standards as the only one valid, condemn all deviations therefrom and generalize it through a group - the extent and limits of which he defines himself (All X, immigrated X, native X, mixed X, male/female X, X living in.., etc) to suit whatever conviction he chose to firmly believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 29, 2009 9:54:26 GMT
This thread has just reminded me of a recent UK inititive that got snipped off before it could get too much headway.
The scheme in question basically entailed treating disavantaged children as though they were going to be criminals and thus ostrsize them somewhat, and make it more likely that they would be. With what it's many opponents pointed out is that there's no way to tell from someone's background whether they are more or less likely to be a criminal. What it completely failed to address was the environment that they were living in, instead it seems to be trying to punish them for the worlds mistakes
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Jul 29, 2009 11:33:49 GMT
I am not a White nationalist, former SS officer with an agenda (Unlike our board administrator, Heinrich Himmler, also known as Elliot Kane >.>), but I do take prejudices on some groups of people based off what race they are. How can you connect an honorable, law-abiding citizen like Elliot with the Ghastly Head of a Horrible Monster? Modding a Forum does not make him guilty of Genocide/"Ethnic Cleansing" by any means, and he himself even said that if necessary, he'll stop modding this forum. So why lash out at him? Do you find it amusing?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 29, 2009 11:42:12 GMT
I think that was supposed to be an attempt at humour
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 29, 2009 12:13:26 GMT
It is Terror being amusing, yes.
***
There is actually a very important point here which at least most of you and possibly all of you are missing. I would go so far as to say it is the actually interesting part of this entire thread.
I was hoping that another Canadian would step in first with some facts and figures (Which I admit I don't have) either in support of Terror or opposing him.
But let us for one moment consider that he might be right. Not in condemning entire races of peoples (Of course not! And Native Canadians are no more a single people, truly, than 'Blacks' or 'Asians' or 'Whites' and one would have to be pretty ignorant to say otherwise. But still...) but in that 'the majority' - or at least a highly significant number - have a lot of problems with substance abuse and lead lives that they can scarcely consider fulfilling.
Why could that be? If Terror is right, they are not taxed and are given free money for their whole lives just because they are born. And is it not possible that that is, in fact, the real problem? That by treating them differently to the rest of the population, the Canadian govt has created a permanent sense of difference and alienation and by constantly throwing money at them, it has taken away their need to aspire? How many people would honestly work if they had enough money free, on tap, all the time, that they didn't ever have to? And how much resentment would you want to take from your co-workers when they found out you weren't paying tax and they were?
DPR touches on this with his note on the stupidity of the UK govt in basically teaching young people they are bound to become criminals and thereby greatly increasing the chances that they will become so.
There is one lesson above all that should be applied, here: when we teach our young people to aspire and to follow their dreams and to want MORE out of life, the number of them who do well increases. When we tell them we expect nothing of them and will give them everything and they need never aspire, the reverse is true. When we treat them as alien to the rest of the populace and tell them they will never fit in, they don't. In short, a great deal of what we teach our kids, the majority of them will believe, however true or false it might be.
If things are as Terror says, is this not in fact the result of generations of instiitutionalised stupidity by the Canadian govt? And on a somewhat different note, what does it tell us about the sense of flooding other nations with money from aid programs?
Is it not the case that many actions of govts worldwide, prompted by guilt rather than sense, serve merely to make a bad situation worse?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 29, 2009 12:59:22 GMT
However I think that in our genetic history we are programmed to help those that are currently not able to help themselves. But not to the point of harming our own chances of survival. The more we feel responsible for the other's plight, or the closer they are to us, the more we will give.
This is a great survival mechnism in a tribal situation where people only take gratitude when they really can't survive on their own, and every member of the tribe is expected to contribute to the survival of the tribe. But in our international society, with modern media, a little from a lot of people turns into a lot for a few people (and with exchange rates can turn into a lot for a lot of people). And in this situation it turns into a survival mechnism itself to try and get more people to give a little.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 29, 2009 13:37:42 GMT
Yes indeed, it is more effective (and cheaper in the long run) to teach someone how to make a fishing rod and how to fish than giving him a fish a day.
Now that in itself is not news - so why the far spread institutionalized stupidity Elliot mentions?
Because it's easier - you just shuffle money across, from which you can get interest or other benefits (mining rights for example).
You don't have to worry about finding teachers, the cost of such personnel, and not the least, in more area than one, about the safety of these people.
A quick and dirty quid pro quo - and you can still vociferously proclaim how 'generous' you are (to the one side) and how much you did get in return for your investment (to the other side).
Germany is one of the big shots in global development aid, and the first mentioned approach actually is guiding principle (help them to help themselves), however when asked why we spent so and so many billions of tax payer's money there, the answer is not "because we are good guys and they are in dire need" but rather "we are a country dependent on exports and we are developing future markets" (which is not very 'humanitarian', but certainly true).
{Note, I do not want to speak little of many projects from various countries, and the deep personal commitment of a lot of people - though I doubt that any of them is over funded}
|
|