• "Whiteness burning": UCT Students are throwing “colonial” art on the pyre. Forgot College education
    442 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;49780612]Take a stance, honestly, there's nothing more annoying imo than the neutral poster that wastes everybody's time making an argument about nothing.[/QUOTE]Sure. My stance is that these people are problematic and that this entire situation sucks, but the only way to prevent this from happening again is to understand why they're doing this, confront them in a way that doesn't make you look like the distant head honcho enemy, and immense amounts of self-reflection. The best way to fight an enemy is to make them your friend.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780594]Yup. I don't agree with their actions at all, but I'm hoping someone will consider their intentions and convey to them that while their actions are awful that their intentions are being considered. This is especially important because it's reached a point of extremism and simply wishing it away isn't going to happen.[/QUOTE] Here's the thing: I don't think they actually have any intentions with this. No honest intentions, at least. The same kind of thing happened here in the United States in Ferguson here in Missouri. I went there. It wasn't a case of people making some kind of grand political gesture against racism in America; maybe it started that way, but it became by the end just a clusterfuck of bullshit. People were looting and burning things, yelling and carrying on. There wasn't a point to any of it. It was just a matter of people trying to capitalize on a situation and get what they could out of it: using it as an opportunity to loot and destroy things because that's what they like to do and it gave them an opportunity to do so and probably get away with it, using it as an opportunity to feel like they were a part of something larger than themselves and as a social environment where they could try and fit in, etc. Basically, the majority were doing anything but making a valid political statement/gesture. Likewise, with this. I don't buy that they're angry over apartheid and they're just poor, helpless, misunderstood people who are wanting to vent their rage. I think this is just another case of where assholes are coming out of the woodwork and using the veil of political activism/fighting as an excuse to burn and destroy things, act violently, yell and carry on, etc. Basically, assholes are behaving like assholes because they know this provides them with an opportunity to do so. Again, if you're trying to make a statement against the colonial era government, then I suggest you don't burn paintings by your own people who were opposed to apartheid/segregation (as in the case of that one artist's work), you don't burn the portrait of the first woman to attend a university, and you don't burn the portrait of a moderate politician who actually moved over towards your side. That's like them defacing that war monument with spray paint, the one to South African veterans and casualties of the First World War and Second World War. What the fuck was the point of that? None. It's just stupidity and violence and shitheaded opportunism to behave stupidly and violently. There's no validity here. There wasn't from the beginning when things started with a "whiteness burning".
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780635]Question: when a serial killer kills someone and that thread is posted, what does your mind go to first: "holy shit what an awful inhuman monster" or "I wonder why they did this"? I do the latter every time, including in personal cases. I don't react as strongly as the next person, I really don't. In this scenario, what happened has already happened - arrest the people involved and start focusing on addressing the situation so it doesn't happen again. That means looking into the psyche of the person that would do this, sympathizing with their concerns, and dealing with it. That doesn't mean you have to lose integrity or suggest they aren't wrong, it just means that there's always more to the story and that the mindset that treats anyone like a 100% enemy is almost always stupid. I'm even guilty of that last part but I try my hardest not to be and even in the worst points of my life I've managed to default to asking why and focusing on the big picture instead of focusing exclusively on how much I disagree with these people. It's kind of why I've dreamed of focusing on psychological monsters, and why I enjoy reading about serial killers. Sure, you could just stop at, "Jeffery Dahmer ate people." But you could also ask why, and give enough sympathy to understand how he got to that point and use that knowledge to prevent it from happening again. All of you people who are remarking about these people and not wanting people to add another dimension to influence the opinion of these people are simply afraid that things will suddenly be more complicated and you can't just say "these people suck". They still suck, but they suck for a reason.[/QUOTE] This whole glob of text is irrelevant to the situation, the destruction of historical art is not justifiable under any circumstance. There is no sympathy to give for the destruction of other peoples artistic work, and I am pretty fucking sure you didn't take the time to note some of the artists that had their work burned. [quote]Among the works they turned to ashes was a 1993 oil painting by a black anti-apartheid artist, Keresemose Richard Baholo. It was called “Extinguished Torch of Academic Freedom”, one of a series of paintings depicting protests at the university. Students defaced a statue of Smuts and a bust of Maria Fuller, one of the first four women to attend the university. She enrolled in 1886, when most courses were open only to men. She went on to play a role in opening a women’s hall of residence. She was, however, white.[/quote] There is nothing contextual about this that justifies this series of events. And to even entertain the notion of sympathy for what they did is absurd. They can let themselves go down in the history books along with the other movements that felt the need to destroy the works of others.
[QUOTE=Thlis;49780658]This whole glob of text is irrelevant to the situation, the destruction of historical art is not justifiable under any circumstance.[/QUOTE] Why are you focusing exclusively on the destruction on historical art? Don't you think there's more to the situation? If you want to make a scoreboard and jot that down as "unjustifiable", go ahead. I don't disagree with you. But there's a reason why it occurred, and reasons why that psyche exists. If you want to try and solve this situation by making every single one of these people and all of their supporters your enemy while repeating "historical art is precious" every single time, you're never going to solve the problem and you will multiply your enemies. In the situations where a serial killer is on TV on the news, my mind has already processed that they're shit and don't care enough to talk about it. It is what it is. I'm interested in everything leading up to that point. Same thing here. The art-burning is awful. I've already processed that in my mind. It's not interesting to talk about. I'm not debating that. But everything leading up to that point is interesting, as it can lead to the solution for our future. [b]EDIT:[/b] Maybe the idea of "not 100% right" isn't the right way to describe my stance about this. They're wrong, but to leave it one-dimensional like this is not fruitful for progress. You can point to everything and say right or wrong, but it doesn't mean anything without context. Context describes why the wrong occurred and gives the means for correction.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780543]I never defended the Confederate flag or Confederate monuments, but my arguments against them had very little to do with slavery and more to do with the fact that the Confederacy was a treasonous entity that tried to undo the United States through secession and war-- leading to the bloodiest conflict in American history that claimed more than 600,000 peoples' lives-- for no other reason than because they were trying to hold desperately onto a dying way of life that revolved around maintaining their plantation systems and the southern economy on the backs of working human beings that were treated no better than animals and regarded as bought-and-paid-for property that could be done with however their owners pleased. The slavery part was unacceptable of course and deserves mention as a reason against glorifying them and what they fought for (which was states' rights... concerning slaves and slavery), but the bigger thing that overshadows that atrocity to me is that they were willing to split the Union, making themselves traitors, and engage to the bitter end in a war that never should have happened and that pointlessly claimed hundreds of thousands of lives... all because they, again, were trying to hold onto a dying way of life and economics that could not have feasibly lasted much longer against modernization, industrialization, and the rise of humanitarianism/racial egalitarianism. That, and otherwise it just serves as nothing but a ridiculous historical entity that a bunch of tryhards and wannabe rebels like to glorify and pretend was some kind of great cause for change in the United States. And those people enrage me for being so fucking pitifully stupid. As far as the destruction of Confederate symbols is concerned, there's a difference between glorifying the past/memorializing it and doing nothing more than remembering that it happened.[/QUOTE] Don't forget taxation on government infrastructure that the south would never benefit from like railroads.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780651]Likewise, with this. I don't buy that they're angry over apartheid and they're just poor, helpless, misunderstood people who are wanting to vent their rage. I think this is just another case of where assholes are coming out of the woodwork and using the veil of political activism/fighting as an excuse to burn and destroy things, act violently, yell and carry on, etc. Basically, assholes are behaving like assholes because they know this provides them with an opportunity to do so. Again, if you're trying to make a statement against the colonial era government, then I suggest you don't burn paintings by your own people who were opposed to apartheid/segregation (as in the case of that one artist's work), you don't burn the portrait of the first woman to attend a university, and you don't burn the portrait of a moderate politician who actually moved over towards your side.[/QUOTE] Sure. If this is the context, then you delve deeper into figuring out what attracts people to this and what are the means to stop it. Reaction has always bored me. Figuring stuff out is way cooler. My initial question was simply to ask if there was any validity in this whatsoever and people jumped on my case for it. I was simply asking if there were any parallels - if there was any good involved with these burnings - and people got upset that I wasn't calling them 100% wrong. I think you guys might need to chill out on the arguing and suspend enough of yourself to listen to the argument that others are trying to make. I wasn't suggesting that these people weren't wrong, and saying that there's at least some merit to what people are doing if at all isn't me saying they're straight up justified. I think people think the severity is inversely varied by their justification and are way too caught up on that when I really don't care what comes out of that. Same thing with killers. I've actually argued with someone in real life who got super emotional because I wanted to delve deeper into why the woman that ran over people in Vegas recently did what she did. I wanted to see if she had some sort of mental illness, or if she was on drugs, and if so why. She took that as, "Oh, you're trying to remove her of guilt!" Same thing here, I guess.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780635]Question: when a serial killer kills someone and that thread is posted, what does your mind go to first: "holy shit what an awful inhuman monster" or "I wonder why they did this"? I do the latter every time, including in personal cases. I don't react as strongly as the next person, I really don't. In this scenario, what happened has already happened - arrest the people involved and start focusing on addressing the situation so it doesn't happen again. That means looking into the psyche of the person that would do this, sympathizing with their concerns, and dealing with it. That doesn't mean you have to lose integrity or suggest they aren't wrong, it just means that there's always more to the story and that the mindset that treats anyone like a 100% enemy is almost always stupid. I'm even guilty of that last part but I try my hardest not to be and even in the worst points of my life I've managed to default to asking why and focusing on the big picture instead of focusing exclusively on how much I disagree with these people. It's kind of why I've dreamed of focusing on psychological monsters, and why I enjoy reading about serial killers. Sure, you could just stop at, "Jeffery Dahmer ate people." But you could also ask why, and give enough sympathy to understand how he got to that point and use that knowledge to prevent it from happening again. All of you people who are remarking about these people and not wanting people to add another dimension to influence the opinion of these people are simply afraid that things will suddenly be more complicated and you can't just say "these people suck". They still suck, but they suck for a reason.[/QUOTE] Neither; the first thing it goes to is, "Oh look, another one". Then I start wondering about them on a psychological basis afterwards. The issue here is you're assigning these people more complexity than what they're due, dude. Their actions and behaviors, given what they've burned and defaced, say that they're not the educated or at least justifiably-angry crowd of political victims that you're making them out as being. In short, they don't have legitimate grievances that they're doing all this over, they don't have a logical set of demands or desires, they don't have a structured ideology they're behind, etc. And that's hardly surprising when you understand the mentality mobs of people like this get into when things start really going off the rails: it stops being a matter of "we're fighting for a cause" and becomes a matter of "we've got a perfectly good opportunity here to do shit we couldn't do any other time, and we have a better chance now than before at getting away with doing it because of how many people are involved now". Again, the biggest mistake you're making here is failing to see the distinctions between serial killers, individuals that is, and mobs of people. An individual has the capacity to be intelligent, complex, organized, and disciplined; mobs of people can be, but they tend not to be. And this mob of people that did all this certainly was not. Again, the choices of what they decided to destroy and deface are proof of this; they were so bizarre that my conclusion here is that this wasn't about making a gesture, it was just a matter of them seeing an opportunity to destroy shit and behave in a fashion they couldn't ordinarily get away with for no other reason than because they want to. Because, for some reason, they get enjoyment out of it. Beyond that, as far as the political aspect is concerned, I see that as nothing more than a veil they're using to hide behind to try and add some kind of legitimacy to their actions; "We weren't just behaving like savages because we could, we were protesting the injustices of segregation and white colonialism! How could you possibly be against that? You must be prejudiced!" You're making them out to be more complex than what their actions say they actually are. You also underestimate the number of people who do shit simply because they can do it, and because it feels good to them to do it. [editline]20 February 2016[/editline] This is even true with serial killers. They kill and do what they do because, for some reason, it feels good to them. They get some kind of gratification out of it. What kind of gratification may vary, but gratification is at the heart of it. The difference is an individual has more complexity to it than a mob does. A mob is made up of individuals, true, but underneath it all, there's some common element that has made them into a mob in the first place and has brought them together. You (or at least others here) seem to believe it's because they've got some kind of legitimate grievance somewhere along the line. I don't. Based off their behavior, based off what I've personally seen here in the United States, based off what I know about mobs and people from studying psychology, my conclusion is that they would normally behave like this without barriers, and they did what they did here for no other reason than it felt good. This wasn't about protesting racism or colonialism; that's the excuse they're hiding behind, but it's not the actual reason. Again, their actions convey that so perfectly (concerning the choices of art they destroyed and the monuments they defaced, especially that war monument) it's amazing to me more people don't see this. As far as people are concerned who do things for no other reason than it feels good, there's only so far you can go in understanding them. Same thing with serial killers. The biggest issue at the end of the day is that their behavior is unacceptable, it's destructive, and for those of us who just want to go about our lives, they get in the way of us doing that. It stops being a question of prevention/trying to understand them after a while and becomes one of, "Alright, they did what they did. Now what are we going to do with them for what they did?"
[QUOTE=Govna;49780761]Neither; the first thing it goes to is, "Oh look, another one". Then I start wondering about them on a psychological basis afterwards. The issue here is you're assigning these people more complexity than what they're due, dude. Their actions and behaviors, given what they've burned and defaced, say that they're not the educated or at least justifiably-angry crowd of political victims that you're making them out as being. In short, they don't have legitimate grievances that they're doing all this over, they don't have a logical set of demands or desires, they don't have a structured ideology they're behind, etc. And that's hardly surprising when you understand the mentality mobs of people like this get into when things start really going off the rails: it stops being a matter of "we're fighting for a cause" and becomes a matter of "we've got a perfectly good opportunity here to do shit we couldn't do any other time, and we have a better chance now than before at getting away with doing it because of how many people are involved now". Again, the biggest mistake you're making here is failing to see the distinctions between serial killers, individuals that is, and mobs of people. An individual has the capacity to be intelligent, complex, organized, and disciplined; mobs of people can be, but they tend not to be. And this mob of people that did all this certainly was not. Again, the choices of what they decided to destroy and deface are proof of this; they were so bizarre that my conclusion here is that this wasn't about making a gesture, it was just a matter of them seeing an opportunity to destroy shit and behave in a fashion they couldn't ordinarily get away with for no other reason than because they want to. Because, for some reason, they get enjoyment out of it. Beyond that, as far as the political aspect is concerned, I see that as nothing more than a veil they're using to hide behind to try and add some kind of legitimacy to their actions; "We weren't just behaving like savages because we could, we were protesting the injustices of segregation and white colonialism! How could you possibly be against that? You must be prejudiced!" You're making them out to be more complex than what their actions say they actually are. You also underestimate the number of people who do shit simply because they can do it, and because it feels good to them to do it.[/QUOTE] I assigned them that complexity as a means for discussion, i.e. could it be that there's more to this situation? Immediately I was said to be in the murdering of Muslims, [QUOTE=froztshock;49780456]American people killed Muslim people, but Muslim people attacked innocent American people with no warning during peacetime and killed thousands. Therefore, it's okay for us to go and kill thousands of innocent Muslims because they did the same thing to us. Congratulations, you're using the same logic as right-wing lunatics.[/QUOTE] ignoring the scenario, [QUOTE=Thlis;49780461]Book burning is bad "but" [insert reason to burn books here] is not "humanizing the scenario". It is a feeble attempt to deflect flack while either being for it or apathetic to it.[/QUOTE] ignoring the scenario, [QUOTE=srobins;49780472]That's a very naive faux-progressive way to look at the world. Sure, there's no universal law that defines right and wrong, but I'd say unabashed racism and destruction of history by a bunch of students looking for something to be upset about 22 years after-the-fact is most definitely wrong. No amount of overly verbose blame-shifting is going to change that. You can justify it all you want, you can sympathize with it and understand it, but at the end of the day it's blatant racism and most definitely [I]wrong[/I]. Just because white people are the victims doesn't mean it magically becomes okay despite what you've convinced yourself.[/QUOTE] believing that "reverse racism" doesn't exist, [QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49780497]It astounds me how this thread has brought anti-white racists out of the woodwork. You who complain about the far right realize that the far right is entirely your own creation, that the narrative of white = bad disenfranchises whites and fuels extremist views.[/QUOTE] among other things. It's crazy. I'm not saying that I could be wrong, but I argued in defense of how I generally try to look for answers simply because people didn't want to sanely argue against me. People just aren't allowed to be wrong in this thread. I was never against the idea of being wrong. There can only be enemies in SH. Notice how I never called anyone racist in this thread, and then count the amount of times I was called an annoying liberal SJW racist. This is exactly the reason why Sensational Headlines is garbage. People can complain about how these people are subscribing to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality, but a lot of this people in this thread sure fall to the same logic.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780830]Notice how I never called anyone racist in this thread, and then count the amount of times I was called an annoying liberal SJW racist. This is exactly the reason why Sensational Headlines is garbage. People can complain about how these people are subscribing to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality, but a lot of this people in this thread sure fall to the same logic.[/QUOTE] Not really. It's because you jump into a thread with meaningless overly verbose rhetoric playing devil's advocate for people that are as objectively in-the-wrong as you can get, and imply that while what they did was bad, it's understandable and something that should be sympathized with rather than outright condemned, which is false. Surely you can see how the tone and phrasing of your posts could lead people to believe you are, at least in part, defending the protesters by justifying their actions? The motivations and delusional "reasoning" behind an immoral act is irrelevant in this situation. If someone murders a black person because they were bullied for years and years by black kids in school, they're still a murderer and their actions aren't deserving of sympathy, despite the fact that they had an understandable reason for their behaviors. I got annoyed with responding to you because you speak like a politician; a lot of words (not composed very well at that, it's a chore trying to decipher what you're trying to say half the time) that wind up meaning nothing. Your point can be summarized to "what they did is wrong, but we should examine their reasons for doing it". Your posts are unnecessarily complex and hypothetical considering they lead up to a very simple argument that borders with common sense. [editline]21st February 2016[/editline] Nobody is saying that we should close our eyes, plug our ears and ignore race issues just because some students did a no-no in South Africa. What we are saying is that these people's actions are entirely unjustifiable, immoral and illegal, and you came in seeming to have an objection to that idea. Whether that was the stance you meant to take or not, that's what it seems everyone but yourself took away from your posts. Maybe everyone just misinterpreted you, but another possibility is that you didn't do a very good job of articulating what you meant, and people responded to what they could pull from your posts.
[QUOTE=ImpSnob;49775324]The world be a lot better without white people. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] This post is art. Shit. Frame this somewhere.
[QUOTE=rhx123;49778706]I used to think I was left wing and liberal and I don't even feel that my views have changed at all but now I seem to hold the views of right wingers, how did this even happen?[/QUOTE] Your position hasn't shifted. In terms of mainstream political and cultural views you'd be considered leftist and liberal probably. But the spread of technology and speed of communication means that fringe extremes of any ideology can get far more vocal and get far more steam far more quickly. It's why we see a seeming rise of both extreme authoritarian leftism as well as the rise of extreme authoritarian right liberalism.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49781120]Your position hasn't shifted. In terms of mainstream political and cultural views you'd be considered leftist and liberal probably. But the spread of technology and speed of communication means that fringe extremes of any ideology can get far more vocal and get far more steam far more quickly. It's why we see a seeming rise of both extreme authoritarian leftism as well as the rise of extreme authoritarian right liberalism.[/QUOTE] Extremism of any kind scares me.
That's why i'll always like the movie Empire of Dust.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49778888]That because your ideas failed the reality test. Right wing ideas don't hold up as well when put under the same scrutiny either.[/QUOTE] So much arrogance and certainty, so little life experience to back any of it up...
Lol what a great idea, let's destroy history and erase our footsteps so when we end up on the same shitty path in the future, we won't even realize it.
the people who are defending book burnings should kind of uh, remember the nazis just replace white people with "Juden" and racism with "Anti-Aryan Ideals" :} Edit: Sorry if a bit late with the nazi comparison, but I think it kind of went over people's head the first time.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780333]Because if I was those students? If I saw how my parents had suffered under apartheid? I'd feel the same. Like it or not, the sins of our fathers are borne by their sons. Human beings have a long memory. We don't forgive, and we don't forget. And those living in South Africa won't forgive or forget for many generations yet. I cannot blame them.[/QUOTE] Okay so I guess because I'm French and white I should feel sorry for the history of slavery my country pursued and if a bunch of black people came to my house and burned it down I wouldn't be allowed to protest or say anything because of what happened four hundred years ago ? Since part of my family were known abolitionists and died helping slaves before the civil war, does that exempt me from any repercussions ? What kind of dumb fucked up logic is that Godwin's already been pulled so I'm not even going to bother avoiding it - this is exactly the kind of shit that Hitler used to motivate his people, including the burning of works of art.
If you cannot forgive someone who has done nothing wrong, you're kinda fucked up and should be blamed for shit that's happening due to your closed mind. It's like going "hey whites thanks for abolishing slavery, now we kill you for it"
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49779164]No one better or worse then other. Not what I meant. What I meant as long people identify as "I am black" and "I am white" and can see the other group as "They are black" or "they are white", they will not identify with the whole. Conflict will arise. I have brought up the idea of encouraging multi racial marriages encouraged through tax incentives. This would encourage a higher chance of multiple racial children. People said no to the idea. However, this approach would erode the boundaries of the two groups. Thus no longer "I am black and them whities are the problems" or the reverse. They become one group, thus no more conflict.[/QUOTE] Are you for real? You can't tax people for marrying the same race, dude. That's insanity.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49785253] What kind of dumb fucked up logic is that[/QUOTE] And as a Frenchman you have every right to beat up Germans in the street and burn their art. Of course they have the right to do the same to you considering what your country has done to harm them... I really can't see how people follow this logic. Every group has wronged eachother and this relies on judging entire groups of people based on their race with a broad brush. It just seems like racist thinking at its core.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49785253]Okay so I guess because I'm French and white I should feel sorry for the history of slavery my country pursued and if a bunch of black people came to my house and burned it down I wouldn't be allowed to protest or say anything because of what happened four hundred years ago ? Since part of my family were known abolitionists and died helping slaves before the civil war, does that exempt me from any repercussions ? What kind of dumb fucked up logic is that Godwin's already been pulled so I'm not even going to bother avoiding it - this is exactly the kind of shit that Hitler used to motivate his people, including the burning of works of art.[/QUOTE] It's interesting that the only two groups of people who believe in retributive justice are 1. religious maniacs and 2. regressive leftists.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49785785]It's interesting that the only two group of people who believe in retributive justice are 1. religious maniacs and 2. regressive leftists.[/QUOTE] they both are pretty cultish, too
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49779164]No one better or worse then other. Not what I meant. What I meant as long people identify as "I am black" and "I am white" and can see the other group as "They are black" or "they are white", they will not identify with the whole. Conflict will arise. I have brought up the idea of encouraging multi racial marriages encouraged through tax incentives. This would encourage a higher chance of multiple racial children. People said no to the idea. However, this approach would erode the boundaries of the two groups. Thus no longer "I am black and them whities are the problems" or the reverse. They become one group, thus no more conflict.[/QUOTE] Ok, I'm just going to ignore what you say from now on because this post is proof that you are clinically insane. First off, that's literally genocide. You are advocating genocide. Second off, that would lead to a violent revolution, realistically led by an extreme right group. Third, this doesn't work. See: Brazil I said before that I'm astounded by the amount of people who want nothing more than the destruction of whiteness while claiming they're simply fighting social justice. I'm increasingly led to believe that multi-racial societies are fundamentally flawed.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780333]Human beings have a long memory. We don't forgive, and we don't forget.[/QUOTE] i think forgiveness is something people ought to practice more often, otherwise you end up with what's happening in south africa right now that is to say, innocent people are suffering
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49786393]i think forgiveness is something people ought to practice more often, otherwise you end up with what's happening in south africa right now that is to say, innocent people are suffering[/QUOTE] What a lovely and utterly unrealistic ideal.
[QUOTE=Lium;49786560]What a lovely and utterly unrealistic ideal.[/QUOTE] Don't you prescribe to Christian ideals or do you only take on the hateful ones
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49786341]I said before that I'm astounded by the amount of people who want nothing more than the destruction of whiteness while claiming they're simply fighting social justice. I'm increasingly led to believe that multi-racial societies are fundamentally flawed.[/QUOTE] Aside from college campuses and some workplaces I've never really heard of a place that actively tries to enforce diversity down to a micro level. I mean nobody responds to a hate crime by saying "not enough black people are moving away from here to white neighborhoods".
[QUOTE=Lium;49786560]What a lovely and utterly unrealistic ideal.[/QUOTE] on the contrary, i think christian philosophy has a better understanding of human nature than most secular philosophers adherence to the virtue of forgiveness is one of the reasons that we are sending each other messages on the internet in warm and safe houses instead of practising cannibalism in caves
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49786620]Don't you prescribed to Christian ideals or do you only take on the hateful ones[/QUOTE] Neither, actually. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49786673]on the contrary, i think christian philosophy has a better understanding of human nature than most secular philosophers adherence to the virtue of forgiveness is one of the reasons that we are sending each other messages on the internet in warm and safe houses instead of practising cannibalism in caves[/QUOTE] Well, I don't proclaim myself a philosopher, but I'm not sure I see the connection in your statement. You're right of course that forgiveness is probably something that should be more widely practiced, and indeed would definitely reduce innocents suffering, but it's not really in the nature of those who engage in the torture of the innocent. And indeed even those who profess to stand for them, when presented with the opportunity to give absolution, often spurn it in favour of contempt in the name of revenge. Much like the people responsible for the actions in this university. It's not about equality, it's about superiority. The illusion of not having it, but others doing so. And that by attempting to bring them down, they simultaneously elevate themselves. It's human nature, in the end. Not acceptable by most moral standards, but ingrained to the core. Even with the ability to send messages to one another in warm and safe houses, given half a chance many people would cannibalise one another. Metaphorically, of course.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;49779164]No one better or worse then other. Not what I meant. What I meant as long people identify as "I am black" and "I am white" and can see the other group as "They are black" or "they are white", they will not identify with the whole. Conflict will arise. I have brought up the idea of encouraging multi racial marriages encouraged through tax incentives. This would encourage a higher chance of multiple racial children. People said no to the idea. However, this approach would erode the boundaries of the two groups. Thus no longer "I am black and them whities are the problems" or the reverse. They become one group, thus no more conflict.[/QUOTE] You are the single most ideologically disgusting and reprehensible individual I have ever seen on this forum. I've met actual national socialists with more respect for ethnic self-determination than you. You honestly astonish me in a very horrifying way with how terrible everything you say is. I can only take comfort in the sure knowledge that you couldn't possibly be a functioning and influential person in real life.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.