User Controls
The Retarded Thread: Click Here for AIDS
-
2017-08-02 at 5:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon There are two ways to look at history; in the context of its day, and the context of our day.
In the context of its day, white people are fucking terrible. White people have done outright the most atrocious shit.
In the context of our day, white people are great; nearly every big thing that makes modern life so great is either created by white people or facilitated in large part by white people.
The question is, by what thread do we connect those two views, and what does that mean? For example, racism in America was terrible at the time, but America is great today off the back of all of the growth and wealth generated off the back of slavery. The thread that connects the two is that it's quantitatively proven that black communities in the present day are still affected and disadvantaged by Jim Crow laws etc, which we can objectively see leads to ghettoization and creates a large overlap between black communities and economically disparate classes.
So it's not quite so simple to determine either way, like a beam balance of good vs bad.
way too much reason man
white people are shit
black lives matter
stfuThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-02 at 5:16 AM UTC
Holy shit I am fucking dying laughing right now.
Gilbert Gottfried is the greatest thing in the universe. -
2017-08-02 at 5:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Nope, even if you only look at the WW2 period Whites/Europeans have never been particularly violent compared to other civilizations. Humans in general have always been barbaric, and there's an immense amount of evidence supporting this.
This is nothing but a commonly perpetuated and blindly accepted myth that aligns with the leftist narrative, immense leftist biases.
Just about that simple, at its core.
This post is so jaw droppingly stupid I don't even know where to begin. Do you think violent deaths WITHIN a society has any direct reflection on the overall damage done by a given society?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-02 at 5:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon There are two ways to look at history; in the context of its day, and the context of our day.
z
In the context of its day, white people are fucking terrible. White people have done outright the most atrocious shit.
In the context of our day, white people are great; nearly every big thing that makes modern life so great is either created by white people or facilitated in large part by white people.
The question is, by what thread do we connect those two views, and what does that mean? For example, racism in America was terrible at the time, but America is great today off the back of all of the growth and wealth generated off the back of slavery. The thread that connects the two is that it's quantitatively proven that black communities in the present day are still affected and disadvantaged by Jim Crow laws etc, which we can objectively see leads to ghettoization and creates a large overlap between black communities and economically disparate classes.
So it's not quite so simple to determine either way, like a beam balance of good vs bad.
My eyes damn near stroked reading that. -
2017-08-02 at 5:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This post is so jaw droppingly stupid I don't even know where to begin. Do you think violent deaths WITHIN a society has any direct reflection on the overall damage done by a given society?
quality of life within a society reduces violence, but quality of life typically cannot be raised without exploiting and increasing the level of violence in anothehr -
2017-08-02 at 5:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This post is so jaw droppingly stupid I don't even know where to begin. Do you think violent deaths WITHIN a society has any direct reflection on the overall damage done by a given society?
also violent deaths within a society depend on numerous factors anyway like poverty and the correlation between temperature and violence and access to weapons and violence culture. Lots of east asian countries have low rates of violent crimes despite povery because they hate criminals so much and have a really strong groupthink mentality -
2017-08-02 at 5:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra quality of life within a society reduces violence, but quality of life typically cannot be raised without exploiting and increasing the level of violence in anothehr
Yep. Pretty much the whole MO of colonial Europe was to fuck an entire country's shit up while extracting as many resources as humanly possible. -
2017-08-02 at 5:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon There are two ways to look at history; in the context of its day, and the context of our day.
In the context of its day, white people are fucking terrible. White people have done outright the most atrocious shit.
In the context of our day, white people are great; nearly every big thing that makes modern life so great is either created by white people or facilitated in large part by white people.
The question is, by what thread do we connect those two views, and what does that mean? For example, racism in America was terrible at the time, but America is great today off the back of all of the growth and wealth generated off the back of slavery. The thread that connects the two is that it's quantitatively proven that black communities in the present day are still affected and disadvantaged by Jim Crow laws etc, which we can objectively see leads to ghettoization and creates a large overlap between black communities and economically disparate classes.
So it's not quite so simple to determine either way, like a beam balance of good vs bad.
that'd be means vs ends mostly; all of those crimes and exploitation gave them the resources to make those advances in science and technology. was there another way? were they thinking of the future when they were raping and pillaging across the globe?
Something I've been thinking about lately (after playing Amnesia actually) is the class system that was (and still is to a lesser extent) most prominent in France, England and other countries.
The aristocrats had virtually unlimited resources and were more or less immune to the law. Was this development intentional, to give a group of people vast resources on the chance that some of them will be able to use them to forward society, or was it simply greed and nepotism?
There's no way to know who's going to come up with the next world-shaping invention - today's society has more or less mechanized the process.
To secure funding, a person must complete a degree and demonstrate success in other projects. They can alternatively work in the private sector - again, they must get a degree, then work in a low position, demonstrate success with a project, and gradually move up tiers.
Demonstrating success in some areas does not necessarily translate to solving important problems or making important discoveries...
In that sense, the feudal class system essentially takes a scattershot approach, giving a small group virtually unlimited resources in the hope that one or more will be able to use them to create something substantial, whereas today's system attempts to groom prospective inventors and train them in such a way that they're (ideally) more likely to make new discoveries.
I'd be curious to know which system has yielded more success.
(progabilinposting) -
2017-08-02 at 6:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This post is so jaw droppingly stupid I don't even know where to begin. Do you think violent deaths WITHIN a society has any direct reflection on the overall damage done by a given society?
Oh shit, I did make that mistake. I think it even crossed my mind, but I didn't address it.
My bad.
Originally posted by aldra quality of life within a society reduces violence, but quality of life typically cannot be raised without exploiting and increasing the level of violence in anothehr
This is completely false. Economic growth is not a zero sum game. There's a vast amount of literature on this. Unfortunately this horrendous misconception is ubiquitous.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yep. Pretty much the whole MO of colonial Europe was to fuck an entire country's shit up while extracting as many resources as humanly possible.
AHA! Therein lies the crux of the flaw in your logic! It's such a simple mistake.
What need is there to divide groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture, or nation? It is far more rational to simply view it as man committing atrocities toward man. It follows that as these groups were committing far more harm to themselves, by your logic would they not be far more to blame for their own suffering? What difference does an "exogenous" force being the culprit make? How is it more unethical than an endogenous force?
Even in modern times, simply look at the horror that is Africa. Do you genuinely believe that even without the intervention of Whites they would not be in a similar state? Let us go further, regardless of the harm caused by whites as a group, there have also been immense benefits that have spread to nearly all people. There are countless examples of this. Can it truly be said that the net effect on utility/suffering has been far inferior to other groups?
This is logically unjustifiable. A flaw such as this does not even warrant an extensive exposition. I win again, philosophical savant in the making.
Post last edited by Malice at 2017-08-02T06:06:36.633642+00:00 -
2017-08-02 at 6:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice This is completely false. Economic growth is not a zero sum game. There's a vast amount of literature on this. Unfortunately this horrendous misconception is ubiquitous.
what does zero sum have to do with it?
the simple reality is that no state has infinite resources, and no state has all the resources it needs. when said state finds resources owned by another, it will typically attempt to take them either by guile or by force - by directly using violence or by instigating violence and using the chaos to claim the resources as it's own.
the British Empire, the French and Spanish did it relentlessly - a favourite, well-documented tactic of the British empire was to find a fracture in a society such as conflicting religious groups, castes hostile to each other or similar. They would 'elevate' one side and instigate war between the factions, supporting one side on the condition that they become a vassal-state or that their resources were to be surrendered to the Empire.
It's never stopped, and I can give you several examples of the same tactics being used today. -
2017-08-02 at 6:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra that'd be means vs ends mostly; all of those crimes and exploitation gave them the resources to make those advances in science and technology. was there another way? were they thinking of the future when they were raping and pillaging across the globe?
Something I've been thinking about lately (after playing Amnesia actually) is the class system that was (and still is to a lesser extent) most prominent in France, England and other countries.
The aristocrats had virtually unlimited resources and were more or less immune to the law. Was this development intentional, to give a group of people vast resources on the chance that some of them will be able to use them to forward society, or was it simply greed and nepotism?
There's no way to know who's going to come up with the next world-shaping invention - today's society has more or less mechanized the process.
To secure funding, a person must complete a degree and demonstrate success in other projects. They can alternatively work in the private sector - again, they must get a degree, then work in a low position, demonstrate success with a project, and gradually move up tiers.
Demonstrating success in some areas does not necessarily translate to solving important problems or making important discoveries…
In that sense, the feudal class system essentially takes a scattershot approach, giving a small group virtually unlimited resources in the hope that one or more will be able to use them to create something substantial, whereas today's system attempts to groom prospective inventors and train them in such a way that they're (ideally) more likely to make new discoveries.
I'd be curious to know which system has yielded more success.
(progabilinposting)
Well first, I think when you say means vs ends, there is an inherent implication of intent. I don't think for a second that anyone intended these ends. When I think means vs ends, I think of something like stealing to feed your child. In the case of colonialism for example, I can imagine that most of their territorial conquests were motivated by some idea of serving the glory and majesty of their country, but immediately, the motivation for 99% of this was that they were going to get titles, land and an absurd amount of riches and wealth. So I guess I'd phrase it more like actions vs consequences. It's the difference between your fucked up shit eventually doing something good, and doing some fucked up shit to also ultimately do good.
That was kind of a weird aside.
Anyway, to address your greater point, you might be interested in reviewing the principles behind evolution and compare them to something like genetic engineering through CRISPR. I think that is actually a very perfect comparison between the two things you described. My opinion is that now that we are at our current level of progress, I think we would have more success than ye olden times if we gave someone local godhood in the same way as feudal lords, if we used that process for selection in the same way.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-02 at 6:19 AM UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Economic growth does not necessitate an abundance of resources, it is reliant on increasing efficiency, productivity. The view that it is primarily reliant on resources is an antiquated theory that has been thoroughly disproven.
Look at South Korea, it was one of the countries lowest in resources, had horrendous poverty and a low level of development, yet their growth was explosive and relatively rapidly reached the level it has today. Multiple other examples. -
2017-08-02 at 6:24 AM UTCfuck off you apes
its 2017 no amount of "muh slavery" or attempts to get white apologism is going to make you not trash
literally every demographic has done heinous shit to another, not just whites
what about china getting fucked on by japan? what about literally any muslism caliphate? what about rwanda? i dont see you trying to win pity points for the greeks after xerxes took a dump on them, or maybe for the whites that get disemboweled live on tv by sandniggers... wheres your sense of retribution for them??The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-02 at 6:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Scholarship on the resource curse has increasingly shifted towards explaining why some resource-rich countries succeed and why others do not, as opposed to just investigating the average economic effects of resources.[11] Research suggests that the manner in which resource income is spent, system of government, institutional quality, type of resources, and early vs. late industrialization all have been used to explain successes and failures.[11]
skimming over it (I can't read it all right now) it just seems like a lot of states that find rich resources end up mismanaging them, causing negative effects to their economies. It does nothing to disprove what I said - states need resources to develop, and they largely don't have all of the resources they need.Economic growth does not necessitate an abundance of resources, it is reliant on increasing efficiency, productivity. The view that it is primarily reliant on resources is an antiquated theory that has been thoroughly disproven.
Look at South Korea, it was one of the countries lowest in resources, had horrendous poverty and a low level of development, yet their growth was explosive and relatively rapidly reached the level it has today. Multiple other examples.
South Korea was essentially funded as an American outpost after the Korean war. They were elevated past the point of requiring basic resources, but they're still dependent on oil, metals and the like. -
2017-08-02 at 6:28 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-08-02 at 6:31 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-08-02 at 6:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice This is completely false. Economic growth is not a zero sum game. There's a vast amount of literature on this. Unfortunately this horrendous misconception is ubiquitous.
One, he's not strictly talking about economic growth, he's talking about your (admittedly) asinine chart on violent deaths.
Second, at least understand your talking points before tossing them out; economic growth doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
Do you think that raping India or Africa or East Asia for their resources and fucking them up internally so they couldn't stop them, didn't fuck those regions up while fueling the economic growth of colonial powers like the Dutch or British empires? Do you really think this was not behaving in a zero-sum manner? Or at least damn near close to it?AHA! Therein lies the crux of the flaw in your logic! It's such a simple mistake.
What need is there to divide groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture, or nation? It is far more rational to simply view it as man committing atrocities toward man. It follows that as these groups were committing far more harm to themselves, by your logic would they not be far more to blame for their own suffering? What difference does an "exogenous" force being the culprit make? How is it more unethical than an endogenous force?
The fuck are you babbling about? The initial question was about the "shit to awesome" ratio for white people. We're already operating within the framework of saying white people are a different group than non-white people and comparing the amount of, lets say, the discord they have sown vs the amount of good they have done. If you want to attack his premise, do that. The discussion was never about whether or not harm caused by white people is only wrong or more wrong or anything.Even in modern times, simply look at the horror that is Africa. Do you genuinely believe that even without the intervention of Whites they would not be in a similar state?
i'm not sure what purpose this speculation would serve. The fact is that Africa is still stumbling from its colonial legacy. Whether or not they'd have been the same, better, or worse off is irrelevant; the fact remains that their present condition has been directly manufactured by intervention by "white" societies.Let us go further, regardless of the harm caused by whites as a group, there have also been immense benefits that have spread to nearly all people. There are countless examples of this. Can it truly be said that the net effect on utility/suffering has been far inferior to other groups?
I guess you didn't read my earlier post either, which is fair. But I'm not explaining it to you again.This is logically unjustifiable. A flaw such as this does not even warrant an extensive exposition. I win again, philosophical savant in the making.
Malice, you should just attach a tube that runs from your asshole to your face so you can constantly recirculate your own farts. -
2017-08-02 at 6:46 AM UTCJust flexed my IWC on Instagram and got 20 likes from thirsty hoes lmao
-
2017-08-02 at 6:54 AM UTC
-
2017-08-02 at 7:18 AM UTCOh brother, "colonial legacy". I wouldn't have expected you to actually buy into this excuse.
