Tainari88 wrote:Your point of view about my lack of tolerance for your inability to see that all people are human and share the most basic DNA and that the differences among many groups are not an excuse for a socially constructed series of concepts then don't have to be questioned.
You could also say 50% of human DNA is common to other non-human animals, even plants. Does that make us intolerant of bananas that we just disregard their life function and simply eat them?
Tainari88 wrote:Explain to me in detail how you don't believe in equality but you don't embrace racism and sexism?
Racism and sexism are constructs the Marxist fight. I don't care about them, per se. I just see them as wedge issues in modern politics, because the Marxists failed to win over the working classes. So now they moved on to racism, sexism, homophobia, and any out group they could try to congeal into a movement. That's why Trump's win was so funny, because they were going on and on about having a woman president as if that were more meaningful than the policies of the woman running for office.
Tainari88 wrote:I have explained to you in great detail why men and women think differently but how that doesn't mean that there is inequality in how women are treated in societies that are favoring a different power structure.
Marx and Jefferson glossed over too much. Marx tried to make himself seem more analytical, data driven and deterministic. Jefferson waxed poetic. Yet, people transition in classes throughout their lives. As Franklin quipped, "of what use is a new born babe?" Babies can't do a fucking thing, except cry, suck tits and urinate and crap on themselves and barf up on their parents. Try fitting that in to a political rubric. It doesn't really work. Women's fertility is at its maximum from just after puberty to about 30 years old. Feminism, by contrast, tells women to go to college get a career and have children after the peak of their fertility. That may be ideal in an overpopulated world, but we're all going to be facing economic paroxysms as populations decline. Likewise, women are in difficult straights following during pregnancy, childbirth and raising children. Harry Harlow's experiments on Rhesus monkeys demonstrates that children respond differently to male and female parents--another reason why I think the notion of two homosexual parents takes politics rather than nature into account.
Tainari88 wrote:The same with racism BJ. You don't want to admit that in order for a power structure to be effective in discriminating? You have to have an imbalance of power. Are there imbalances of power between different groups of people in modern capitalist societies? Yes.
Babies don't vote. That's a fact. Why? Because babies aren't equal. Are we going to fight to stop the oppression of babies? I'm sure the Democrats would like to give babies the right to vote.
Tainari88 wrote:You think in ways that are about retaining power because you think your sex, your race and your class is the norm and the standard and somehow you feel either that the society is going to hell in a handbasket because the liberals in their quest to hold on to shaping the power structure have misappropriated all that équality language and it pisses you off?
Women generally slightly outnumber men, white people have recessive genes, and affluent people are a tiny minority of the world's population. No. I don't think I'm the norm by a long shot.
Tainari88 wrote:As a Puerto Rican that is part of a society that is using old legal codes that you yourself labeled as 'bizarre' for justifying inequality under the law?
You'll have to refresh my memory.
Tainari88 wrote:Lack of..that smacks of discrimination and racism to me?
Anglo-Saxon law has a history of class inequalities. Most systems do throughout history.
Tainari88 wrote:Or are you going to hee and haw and say that just because you don't believe in absolute equality doesn't mean you endorse racism?
The idea that I somehow want to take people of another race and sweat them for cotton and peanuts is ludicrous. I've never argued for such a system. Although, I do joke that I don't think female suffrage was such a good idea .
Tainari88 wrote:You wrote incessantly about not caring one damn about our problems as a people.
Apathy is not contempt. You can tell yourself that you care about people whom you don't even know exist, but there are plenty of people you don't care about. It's beyond the capacity of a human to care about virtually every other human.
Tainari88 wrote:No, Relampaguito, you don't get to excuse racism by using the history of the human race as an excuse to not have groups being oppressed historically by slavery/feudalism/capitalism/etc and not seeing a pattern there of change.
I see both a history of exploitation, oppression and a pattern of change. So what? You will not excuse the past. So what? What does that bring to the table, except you are very upset about the past? I mention a past of exploitation of Irish people. They did not feel any sort of "white privilege" in "no Irish need apply." If you want to fight that battle, have at it. I'm just not going to support that fight.
Tainari88 wrote:Societies evolve.
So they do. They also devolve. There are no more Ptolemys lurking about or Caesars either. Sometimes you can go from cities with aqueducts to feudalism.
Tainari88 wrote:But individuals are far more limited than groups that evolve and adapt over time. Do you know why that happens? That groups evolve and individuals don't?
Do you know why telling a 45 year old unemployed coal miner with a high school education to "learn to code" is taken as an insult? Do you know why high IQ people are able to cope with rapid change, but low IQ people are not? Sociologists have studied that too. There is a strong relationship between IQ and adaptive behavior. People also adapt much faster to labor saving machinery than they do to cultural change. Groups are dynamic, and are not bound to biology.
Tainari88 wrote:What do you think colonization is BJ?
British crown colonies were notorious for exporting their surplus populations and retaining their cultural norms to the point of absurdity--like wearing wool suits in the tropics. They most certainly retained their cultural identity. Being subjugated as an aboriginal population is a separate question.
Tainari88 wrote:You reveal a total lack of understanding of what it means to be colonized by Empires.
The colony at Jamestown, for example, settled some land in Virginia. It was largely unpopulated area as the Native American population wasn't large and wasn't a fixed agrarian culture. Native American populations were significantly nomadic societies. So did the colonials of Jamestown lose their culture, language and identity? Not at all. How about the neighboring Native Americans? Not really either. Both groups evolved and learned to trade. Fought. And in the end, the British settlers eventually conquered the all the lands of Native Americans. Yet, that took centuries. The initial colonists and Native Americans learned to trade, and bits of each others language and culture. Yet, they were hardly subjugated at that point. Jamestown barely survived.
Tainari88 wrote:They were told their religion, their land, their language, their customs, their families, their rituals, their symbols, their art, their ENTIRE LIFE was null and void and everything they shaped their lives by? Is seen as NOTHING. NOTHING.
That sounds an awful lot like how the establishment feels about blue collar workers in the Midwest. It also sounds a lot like governors who see some people's work as "non-essential."
Tainari88 wrote:You have no idea what that shit was like for a group of people to have to adapt to such traumatic events.
And you do? You grew up with running water, electricity, etc., but I'll bet I'm going to get a lecture about how being a "colonized" person from Puerto Rico means you understand how some Mende or Bantu people felt about their circumstances. No?
Keep in mind, you've already used terms like English and Anglo-Saxon. Britain was Celtic, and faced colonization by Rome. Invasion of Vikings, Jutes (Danes), Angles, Saxons, and Normans among others. The reason English is such a twisted language is precisely because it has been both colonized and a colonizer. From being colonized, English has too words for feeling unwell: ill (English) and sick (Danish). Yet, we also have words picked up from empire, like Pajamas or Shampoo. We just don't seem to be as butthurt about it as everyone else is. France, for example, freaks out on terms like e-mail and insists people call it communique electronique
lest they stop being French. Yet, the Germans call a cell phone a "handy". Some people adapt and some people resist change.
Tainari88 wrote:It was HELL ON EARTH. You say it casually. Displaced and enslaved.
For blue collar working class people, they have been displaced and disregarded--made to feel like they are not even worth exploiting for their labor. I can say that casually too, because I'm not one of them. Would you like me to work myself into a maudlin dither and express my deepest emotions effusively? Is that what's needed?
Tainari88 wrote:You are inspected. Your teeth, your ass, your penis, your chest your hair, and your entire human quality is invisible.
Like the TSA, huh? Pecker checkers at the airport grabbing your junk? Checking out your bits and pieces with their scanners...
Tainari88 wrote:You don't study shit about African history or African American histories.
I think most Africans were illiterate. Hell, at that time, probably a good chunk of Englishmen were illiterate too.
Tainari88 wrote:They got sick of having to go to separate bathrooms.
I think they got sick of substandard facilities. These days, they seem to prefer segregation.
Tainari88 wrote:But in the USA race was used to keep African Americans in the lowest socioeconomic position for generations.
Yes, by importing cheap immigrant labor and giving them the jobs over African-Americans. The European laborers had a hierarchy too, preferring protestants over Catholics, Northern Europeans over Southern Europeans, etc.
Tainari88 wrote:Capitalism is internationalist BJ.
So is communism.
Tainari88 wrote: But you still don't really want to accept the truth about the betrayal that capitalism represents to homegrown and loyal nationalists like you are.
Sure I do. That's why I said the two issues that propelled Trump to the presidency were inherently nationalist issues; namely, controlling immigration and the border; and, imposing tariffs. Capitalists hate tariffs even more than the income tax. Yet, capitalists don't give a shit about the nation state until their very corporate charter which depends on the nation state is threatened.
Tainari88 wrote:You had Jehova Witnesses being dragged off to the gas chambers and etc, along with Jews, Communists, Socialists, Gypsies, Gays, and all kinds of people seen as undesirables by some purist forms of nationalism BJ.
Nazis were national
socialists. They hated internationalists. So they naturally hated communists. They were natalist, so they naturally hated homosexuals--along with the tendency of homosexuals to embrace communist ideology. I don't think their hatred of Gypsies was anything exceptional. Europeans are protesting George Floyd. Let's talk about the treatment of Gypsies in Europe.
However, much of their extermination policies was more about selective breeding of humans as part of Eugenics. It was sort of a pseudo-science.
Tainari88 wrote:But there are universals in all societies BJ. I hope you realize what they are.
Death and taxes?
Tainari88 wrote:That you think they won't use what is in their sphere of influence to keep perpetuating their own values at the expense of your nationalism is what I find incredibly strange that you don't seem to get.
Oh, I most certainly think they will. That's why they want Biden in the White House. He will do their bidding much more readily than Trump.
Tainari88 wrote:I have been debating you and you feel I don't understand you truly?
Well, you consistently argue I've said things I haven't said, and then when I query you about it, you insist that your inference must be true.
Tainari88 wrote:NO. You are a nationalist and it is not about diversity and mulitculturalism.
It's civic nationalism. It's not ethnic nationalism. It's certainly not multicultural.
Tainari88 wrote:That the government did not protect the property or the businesses or the lives or the work of the African Americans who followed all the rules of success to have an American prosperous life. They only respected the achievements and property of the white owners in Tulsa. Not the black ones. They were not equal under the law. They were not free. Not free. No matter what they did. And to expect them to believe in a system that never was a meritocracy with them or with my people the Ricans, or the Native Americans, and others? Is to live in denial BJ. About systemic racism and lack of meritocracy.
You refuse to acknowledge that BJ.
Yeah. It was the damn Democrats who did that to them.
Tainari88 wrote:If you feel frustrated with me? Be honest about why?
Attributing to me things I've never said is probably the highest on my list, along with wanting to debate anything other than the topic I post. My topic is that the left and their Democrat party fellow travelers do not care about black people. You want to talk about me instead.
Godstud wrote:He's trying to deflect this and gain peace of mind in the delusional belief that everyone is racist, even when they aren't.
The point of the thread is that the left doesn't care about black people, while trying to get other people to think they do. The Democratic party machine does this as well, and is so effective that they can literally have a Democrat governor, Democrat county commissioner, Democrat mayor and black Democrat chief of police, and still charge people under their command with racism while claiming they have virtually nothing to do with said racism.
"I'm Joe Biden's husband. Joe Biden."
-- Joe Biden