[Zyx]

What other countries? If you mean the French comment, then that was an intentional misunderstanding. There is a French (?) philosopher who is reputed in the U.S. for protecting freedom of speech. Something like how he doesn't care for what you have to say but how he'd fight for it. I intentionally made that confusing because it gives the impression of me calling myself an American philosopher without me saying it. Furthermore, I plainly do not remember the Philosophers name. I'd like to throw out Descartes, but I plainly do not know anything besides that he was likely from 'the West.' What prejudice towards other countries do you mean?

[Ombrageux]

As to a recent French philosopher, you might be thinking of Alain Finkielkraut who is very skeptical of multiculturalism. I don't think it is a question of nation or philosophy though.

[Zyx]

No, no, no. The phrase is from the colonial ages. Anyway, what do you mean that I have a prejudice towards countries?

[Ombrageux]

Your statement implied France was uniquely tolerant of reactionary (racist) opinion.

The author you are thinking of is an apocryphal quote of Voltaire (I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it). That was a long time ago.

[Zyx]

Indeed, that's who it was! Voltaire may support reactionary opinions, but I'm not Voltaire. That's what I meant to say. I forgot his name and created the narrative to make it seem like I was somewhat insulting you by insulting France, but that's what I meant all along. "What one says is as important as how one says it."

Either way, what I am saying is that I never did agree with Voltaire.

[QatzelOk]

The world does not exist without imagination.

And yet our science tells us it existed millions of years before mankind's "imagination" started to "create" another version of it.

Media performs the same function as imagination, lying to us in socially convenient ways.

And yet, with all this "convenience" we're on the brink of war and extinction, and millions starve on a planet with enough food. Perhaps imagination - and the media that stimulates it - have no function for a survival-oriented species other than to defend death and misery as "positives."

Caror Thatcher is so much easier to lambast than commercial media because she's simply one of us, and not some shiny multi-billion dollar enterprise with its own PR industry.

You can fire a thousand Carol Thatchers, and it won't change anything. Our media will continue to exploit legal loopholes and continue to manufacture racism and hatred when it's convenient for the elites.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Just whose country is it anyway? Does it belong to the British people, or the "golliwogs"?

And this is the kind of racism that Carol Thatcher encourages. There are no 'golliwogs', among people, anyway. They are old dolls. But Thatcher's insistence on calling Tsonga a 'half golliwog', and Dave's glee in repeating it, show they want to class someone purely by the colour of their skin, and use a demeaning term for them - an ugly doll, and a word containing the offensive 'wog'.

As for Dave's actual question, stripped of the racist term: Tsonga was born in France, to a mother born in France, and a father born outside it. He's as French as Obama is American. France belongs to him as much as to anyone. The same goes for Britain. Those who have taken British citizenship have a similar claim too.

[Dave]

That's correct. I am perfectly happy to classify people by their skin color. Europe is a white continent, and non-whites should not have been permitted to reside there in large numbers. It's no different that Japan being for the Japanese. All experience in any country shows that multiracialism is a complete failure. It only continues because of Big Business and their willing left liberal ideological stooges. Here in America we've struggled with race for hundreds of years, and as Enoch Powell said, you Europeans must be absolutely mad in trying to replicate our problems in your own countries. Enjoy.

[Zyx]

I should clarify my statement with 'to people,' meaning that although there are truths, there are not inherent truths to people. Hence, what is perceived as true is what is best communicated. I agree that the Earth is some 13 billions years old and humanity is some two-hundred thousand, but it is plainly lazy to assume that people already know as much without education (formal or in-). It took humanity some two-hundred-thousand years to 'domesticate' fire, knowledge is important to disseminate. I do not know why we are talking about this, though.

[QatzelOk]

Europe is a white continent

Yes, Dave, and America is a red continent.

What a disaster the influx of white immigrants was for the natives.

And you're right, business interests often see immigration as a divide-and-conquer strategy. But these same business interests will only be succesful in dividing their workforce if the workforce is as racist as the media the elite create for them.

[guzzipat]

guzzipat, I would not criticize QatzelOk therewith. He makes some sense and he is being deductive. That is, applying the theory before collecting the evidence

No he isn't being deductive, that's my complaint.
Applying theory without evidence isn't deduction, it's posturing.

Not only on this issue, but several, he has totally ignored physical realities and any form of evidence, to produce theories. What matters isn't reality or evidence, only what goes on in his mind is important. That is destructive posturing not deduction.

It is a denial of all scientific method and all rules of evidence. In reality what it says is nothing matters outside of what I think. That is about as far from deduction as it is possible to get.
It is innefectual posturing and jouvenile intelectual vandalism of the worst kind.

Don't worry about me criticising him again, I don't suffer fools gladly and I don't suffer pompous fools at all, so I won't bother any more.

[NoRapture]

In reality what it says is nothing matters outside of what I think. That is about as far from deduction as it is possible to get.

Expressing and communicating what you think is about the highest an individual can hope for in a forum such as this. And, judging by countless posts, no small accomplishment. World peace and cancer cures may depend on formal rudiments of political and scientific debate, but ideas, speculation, and opinion are what keep the wheels greased.

[guzzipat]

Expressing and communicating what you think is about the highest an individual can hope for in a forum such as this. And, judging by countless posts, no small accomplishment. World peace and cancer cures may depend on formal rudiments of political and scientific debate, but ideas, speculation, and opinion are what keep the wheels greased.

I would not disagree with a word of this. Seems that I didn't explain what I meant well enough.

There is nothing wrong with ideas or speculation.
What is wrong is to come to a conclusion about an actual event or history without taking the least account of existing physical and witness evidence. I am not talkling about abstact ideas, I am talking about theories on actual events that have no basis in evidence or physical realities. Theories that depend on nothing more than an individuals own thoughts. I am not talking about selective use of evidence, it is constructing a theory without reference to evidence, then denying the validity of all evidence against you with a catch all meaningless phrase. It is the essential denial that evidence has any role in ideas that is the basis of my objection. The elimination of all evidence by claiming biase is myopic. All evidence is biased, the constuction of a reasonable reponse to that depends on taking that baise into account, not the cavalier rejection of all physcial and witness evidence.
While claiming that the obvious biase, means you are free to constuct any load of bollocks you like.
That isn't "greasing the wheels", it's building a new track that leads nowhere. It places individuals thoughts above all else, it is basically "look at me aren't I clever". It posturing no more.

[Dave]

Yes, Dave, and America is a red continent.

What a disaster the influx of white immigrants was for the natives.

Correction, America was a red continent. And indeed, the influx of white settlers was a disaster for them. I personally do not want what happened to the Indians to happened to us. This is now the white man's continent, and so it should remain. Curiously enough, American Indians more strongly opposed to immigration than almost any other group. I guess they don't want to lose their country twice.

And you're right, business interests often see immigration as a divide-and-conquer strategy. But these same business interests will only be succesful in dividing their workforce if the workforce is as racist as the media the elite create for them.

Other way around. The media is explicitly anti-racist and celebrates a fake world of diversity, which damages the workforce far more by depriving them of their identity. The working classes are only united across racial lines in the minds of doke-brained leftists.

[QatzelOk]

The media is explicitly anti-racist

Islamoterrorists would like to disagree with your meme, Dave.

As would all the injuns on those John Wayne movies.

And the black villains in film and TV.

And the non-stop villains of Eastern European, Asian, and Arab background in different strategic eras in Hollywood's brilliant history of ethnic representation. Marlon Brando kind of touched on this point while intoxicated.

The ethnic stratification of American media is similar to the teachings of Hitler and the Zionists. The only way to create a super-nation is to normalize racist media, that America has been truly gifted in this regard.

[Dave]

Islamoterrorists would like to disagree with your meme, Dave.

Islamic terrorists attacked us.

As would all the injuns on those John Wayne movies.

John Wayne is long in his grave and stopped making new films in the 1970s.

And the black villains in film and TV.

White people are disproportionately shown as criminals on film and TV, and black people disproportionately as good guys. Blacks have 7 times the violent crime rate of the rest of the country and 8 times the homicide rate. In many crime dramas adapted from true stories the black criminal is changed to a white man.

And the non-stop villains of Eastern European, Asian, and Arab background in different strategic eras in Hollywood's brilliant history of ethnic representation. Marlon Brando kind of touched on this point while intoxicated.

Eastern Europeans are white, and what about all those British and German supervillains?

The ethnic stratification of American media is similar to the teachings of Hitler and the Zionists. The only way to create a super-nation is to normalize racist media, that America has been truly gifted in this regard.

Ridiculous. Maybe it's because you don't watch TV (which is good), but media today is mostly a carefully constructed multiracial utopia, and minorities are dramatically overrepresented. The news is very careful to usually not mention the race of criminals, even when they are fugitives, and illegal aliens are usually called "undocumented workers". This doesn't reflect at all how most people live or think, and it deprives them of their racial and national identity. As I'm sure you will agre, if you deprive people of their identity all that's left is mindless consumerism.

[NoRapture]

... but media today is mostly a carefully constructed multiracial utopia...

Yeah, a carefully constructed multiracial utopia where everybody speaks the same color-of-the-day, American slang english, desires the same ideal sexily coifed and clad sex partner, drinks the same beverages, has or covets the same iPhone, BMW, and home entertainment center and is a quirky, madcap original at the same time. Coincidentally, every production is dictated, managed, and groomed in some monolithic hi-rise for mass consumption by a fat, pasty white guy whose receptionist gives him blow jobs and he drives home to his gated community in a fortressed suburb of New York or LA.

[JRS1]

As far as I can see the question is should you be sacked from a public service for saying something that is arguably racist. There should be time for people to explain themselves. The demand for an apology (i.e. admission that you are racist) rather than an explanation is as good as a dismissal for anybody with principles.

As it happens I dont think it is racist to compare somebody to a doll. I have never taken offence when black people compare white people to a barbie and ken.

QuatzelOk's point about negative stereotypes - it seems to me that in the US its the poor whites (rednecks - a directly racist term that is PC) and italians (my mother, my fucking mother) bear the brunt of this.

[Dave]

Yeah, a carefully constructed multiracial utopia where everybody speaks the same color-of-the-day, American slang english, desires the same ideal sexily coifed and clad sex partner, drinks the same beverages, has or covets the same iPhone, BMW, and home entertainment centre and is a quirky, madcap original at the same time. Coincidentally, every production is dictated, managed, and groomed in some monolithic hi-rise for mass consumption by a fat, pasty white guy whose receptionist gives him blow jobs and he drives home to his gated community in a fortressed suburb of New York or LA.

You forgot that the fat, pasty white guy is usually jewish

QuatzelOk's point about negative stereotypes - it seems to me that in the US its the poor whites (rednecks - a directly racist term that is PC) and italians (my mother, my fucking mother) bear the brunt of this.

Redneck isn't a racist term, it refers to the healthy tans that hardworking white farmers developed. Similarly, "blueblood" describes how the leisure classes often had exposed blue veins due to the lack of sun exposure.

[NoRapture]

You forgot that the fat, pasty white guy is usually jewish...

Oh, so not only are we monitoring race, but religion too? Wow. Eugenics gets complicated.

And the second quote isn't mine. Somebody named JRS1 made it.