Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Nicolae Carpathia]

in my deep and analytical study of harry potter fanfiction, i have come to the conclusion that liberals are the real racists

[Bacchus]

But maybe the Brexiteers didn't quite realize how much EU was doing to keep the UK whiter

They don't care, or rather want to avoid that question entirely. They want the UK, not the EU, to make the decisions about the whiteness of the UK. That's orthogonal to what amount of whiteness they actually want. (It may correlate with being whiter, but that doesn't invalidate their position)

I made the point rather to show that the whole alleged "racist" agenda doesn't really stand up -- if the racial mix mattered to the voters at all, they voted to make their immigration less white, not more so.

As I said above, I entirely support the position that Britain should stand or fall on the basis of its own merits, not the decisions of the eurocracy; it's just that in the current state I think it will fall, rather than stand.

[gsorel]

This showed up in my Twitter feed, it made for a good laugh:

[scooter]

Why I'm saying that? Well, if we could say something like "yes, purple people are weaker and sillier than blue people but they still have all the same rights", then racism would in instant cease to be a political problem. But instead of saying that liberals go out of their way to prove that all races and ethnicities are equally capable in everything. I wonder what it says about their underlying normative beliefs...

How can you fairly conclude that purple people are weaker than blue people if blue people have built-in societal advantages? If the blue child is born into a reasonably comfortable family and gets a high quality education, does the purple child born into poverty really get the same opportunity? If blue child goes on to be very successful and purple child goes on to be a screwup, is it due to inherent superiority of blue people, or were there other differences?

There are of course exceptions, but throughout history ethnic minorities in any civilization have almost always appeared to be "weaker." Were they really weaker, or did society inherently favor the ethnic majority?

Maybe it's unfair to rule out either possibility, but instantly concluding that the blue people are superior seems like an equally reckless conclusion. I understand you're saying "maybe blue is better at just certain things", and maybe that's true! But as much as it's naive to suggest all ethnicities are 100% equal, it seems equally naive to blame all inequalities purely on ethnic differences.

[darrelljs]

Stop spreading the lies. Don't make contrasts between "hard-working" Britain and "lazy" France. Our average work week is the same as everyone else (around 39h pw) and our productivity was the best out of all OECD countries a few years ago (I haven't heard any recent number).

Its not that your lazy, its that you don't work very much .

Darrell

[Bobchillingworth]

Why I'm saying that? Well, if we could say something like "yes, purple people are weaker and sillier than blue people but they still have all the same rights", then racism would in instant cease to be a political problem. But instead of saying that liberals go out of their way to prove that all races and ethnicities are equally capable in everything. I wonder what it says about their underlying normative beliefs...

Saying that one race of people is inherently physically or mentally inferior or superior to others is the definition of "racism". It doesn't matter if you make policy which applies equally to all races (however you define them), you're still a racist, if perhaps a well-meaning one.

Races are social constructs, and racism is built on long-discredited pseudoscience. There is, for instance, no scientific evidence that people of African descent have innately lower IQs. This is not to dismiss the obvious superficial physical differences of different ethnic groups, but to claim they represent genetic advantages applicable to clearly defined racial groups is absurd.


As for supporting Ted Cruz & Donald Trump, well, I would too if I was a Russian national of a certain political persuasion :P Between Brexit and a possible Trump victory in November, 2016 is certainly looking like a potential foreign policy coup for President / Prime Minister / Grand Vizier Putin. The EU weakened, both it and the UK potentially splitting up, Trump constantly trashing NATO on the campaign trail? That's exactly what I'd like to see after spending the last half-decade as a pariah of the West.

[AdrienIer]

Stop spreading the lies. Don't make contrasts between "hard-working" Britain and "lazy" France. Our average work week is the same as everyone else (around 39h pw) and our productivity was the best out of all OECD countries a few years ago (I haven't heard any recent number).

Its not that your lazy, its that you don't work very much .

Darrell

This is while counting the people with a part time jobs. It's true that the salaries are high enough for some people to have only a part time job (a couple with one person having a full time job and one a part time job is pretty common, and is enough to live reasonably well).
Also this list is misleading, because it implies that Paris is way behind the other cities, while for example London is at 33.5hpw (not that much higher) and Milan at 32.5.

[Gavagai]

Scooter, I want to address two of your points.

1. My claim is that it doesn't matter if blue people is superior to purple or not. Also, it doesn't matter what is the cause of alleged superiority - biological or social factors. That's why I'm irritated by the argument that races are equal in abilities - because it is implied that it would matter if they weren't.
For the record, I hold very few beliefs about actual distribution of abilities between people of different real-life races. It is obvious that blacks are better runners and have more endurance then others but that's about all we can say for sure. However, I'm open even to such heretical ideas as "whites are inherently smarter than black" - assuming that they are supported by a sound biological proof.

2. It is true that people have unequal distribution of starting positions and that such distribution is to an extent purely luck-based. Case in point: you was born in USA, I was born in Russia. You enjoy a tremendous built-in social advantage over me. Not only I need to make to the top ten percent of Russian society to enjoy the standard of living of an average American; there are things, like the right to fair trial, which I wouldn't get in Russia irrespective of how rich I am and you take for granted. So - does that mean that you should transfer a part of your income to me to compensate the inequality? No, this is an idiotic idea. The whole discourse of "equal opportunities" is. There is no argument why equal distribution of "opportunities" is superior to a random one which we already have. Some people are lucky, some - aren't, that's life.

[Gavagai]

Saying that one race of people is inherently physically or mentally inferior or superior to others is the definition of "racism". It doesn't matter if you make policy which applies equally to all races (however you define them), you're still a racist, if perhaps a well-meaning one.

Well, you may call me a black racist then. Because I believe that blacks are better basketball players than whites and that this is biological. However, I think that your definition of racism only serves to confuse and trivialize matter as it becomes unclear why this is such an important issue. The problem with racists is not what they believe but what they do or want to do. Racists want to kill and opress people of other races, that's why racism is a stigma. And to this fact the proper definition should refer.

Races are social constructs, and racism is built on long-discredited pseudoscience. There is, for instance, no scientific evidence that people of African descent have innately lower IQs. This is not to dismiss the obvious superficial physical differences of different ethnic groups, but to claim they represent genetic advantages applicable to clearly defined racial groups is absurd.

You know, this is exactly the thing I hate about liberal discourse. Because what you posted here like an established truth is a politically biased misinterpretation of the current state of biological science - from what I understand of it, at least. Scientist only proved that there is no single "gene" which determines race and that borders between races are genetically blurred. On the other hand, the same can be said about the concept of "species" - some species can even interbreed. Anyway, you can't really make from it any conclusions about differences in innate abilities between races. What is known is that races are environmental adaptations. If some environment pushes towards better intelligence (admittenly implausible), then the respective race would have it.

As for supporting Ted Cruz & Donald Trump, well, I would too if I was a Russian national of a certain political persuasion :P Between Brexit and a possible Trump victory in November, 2016 is certainly looking like a potential foreign policy coup for President / Prime Minister / Grand Vizier Putin. The EU weakened, both it and the UK potentially splitting up, Trump constantly trashing NATO on the campaign trail? That's exactly what I'd like to see after spending the last half-decade as a pariah of the West.

I'm no supporter of God-Emperor Putin, for the record, and never was.

[darrelljs]

Also this list is misleading, because it implies that Paris is way behind the other cities, while for example London is at 33.5hpw (not that much higher) and Milan at 32.5.

Yeah, but they don't work that much either! I'm not sure its a bad thing, there is a saying that Europeans work to live and Americans live to work. At the end of the day what matters is quality of life, after all. I was in Hong Kong working when this list came out, and found it fascinating they ordered in the opposite direction, i.e. #1 was Paris and they were dead last. Believe me, most folks there would trade places in a second (as would I).

Darrell