If you have such problems with multiculturalism b1rd why don't you go back to britain and let the natives have their land back?
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,159
Mahogany wrote:
If you have such problems with multiculturalism b1rd why don't you go back to britain and let the natives have their land back?
If you don't care about culture, does that mean you would be OK living in a Muslim culture where gays are thrown off buildings and you're executed if you insult Mohammad?Kisses wrote:
I don't really care about about the whole keeping identity nor would I actively advertise multiculturalism (this is just a thing with my own personality where I don't see people in groups as such and really don't care 2 shits about other people's pride, identity and what not). I still think it'd be wrong to boycott all incoming immigrants but l like I said I don't care enough for me to go out and argue this.
It's the people that think they're countries would be better not having any contact with people of other races what so ever (from what I've read in several comments). Countries depend on tourism, importation/exportation. A point specific to Japan is that the employ a lot English teachers from oversea countries but hey, who needs English in Japan if you're going to block off the rest of the world and live in your own bubble :^)
I see myself having a Raspberriel moment where I'm getting triggered by the sight of everything, I think I'll just get of the internet for a bit and not post for a while
I never said anything about completely restricting immigration, obviously that is too extreme and would be detrimental. However I think the immigration policy of a lot of countries now is too extreme on the other end. What I was saying is that immigration should be based on mutual benefit rather than a twisted sense of altruism where countries think that they should take as many third world immigrants as they can till their economy collapses. Immigrants should be required to integrate and take on the values of the countries they immigrate to, they shouldn't try and force their values of everyone else.
I also don't believe this idea about immigration being needed to supplement low birth rates. Weren't leftist just crying about how we needed to reduce population growth?
hey, i'm bi and muhammad is a joke
tomorrow i might find police on my door, rip
tomorrow i might find police on my door, rip
first question: zzzzz we both know the answer to that. good use of a rhetorical question I guess
edit: about population growth, yh from the time I made a mathematical model on population for my degree and doing a bit of research it's not really about immigration as you said.
Controlled immigration is good imo but no immigration is bad. Just to make my stance more clear
I know you didn't, I was just trying to explain why i was so annoyed at some people.B1rd wrote:
I never said anything about completely restricting immigration
edit: about population growth, yh from the time I made a mathematical model on population for my degree and doing a bit of research it's not really about immigration as you said.
Controlled immigration is good imo but no immigration is bad. Just to make my stance more clear
I think the USA's immigration policy should be cleaned up a bit.
Too lenient.
Too lenient.
Soon to be in Canada as well.kai99 wrote:
hey, i'm bi and muhammad is a joke
tomorrow i might find police on my door, rip
http://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/pc/41042 ... on-103?m=5
Basically the government outlaws a vague and ill-defined word which they can apply selectively to censor any political opinions they don't like. Not that Cucknadia had free speech previously though.
Meh.
Nationalism doesn't equal culture, B1rd.
It is also quite interesting that you're suddenly pro-non-western-culture after you claimed multiple times before that the cultures nuked by colonists were less developed and that it was good that colonists took over. And that we were "romantising" the nuked cultures.
Generally I agree with the point that having different cultures in different places is good especially since local cultures are often defined by the influence of their environment through the centuries.
The problem is mainly the harsh injustice in the world - many humans in the poor countries have nothing to lose. If they stay they die so they may as well try to get into the rich world. And the rich world in its humanistic hypocrisis has no choice but to adopt them or admit that their humanism is all farce and that they have no interest but making cash as politicians by feeding the lobbyists and lying to the people. And they end up trying to hold up the mask while doing everything possible to shut the problem down without changing anything essential.
/edit: added a ,
Nationalism doesn't equal culture, B1rd.
It is also quite interesting that you're suddenly pro-non-western-culture after you claimed multiple times before that the cultures nuked by colonists were less developed and that it was good that colonists took over. And that we were "romantising" the nuked cultures.
Generally I agree with the point that having different cultures in different places is good especially since local cultures are often defined by the influence of their environment through the centuries.
The problem is mainly the harsh injustice in the world - many humans in the poor countries have nothing to lose. If they stay they die so they may as well try to get into the rich world. And the rich world in its humanistic hypocrisis has no choice but to adopt them or admit that their humanism is all farce and that they have no interest but making cash as politicians by feeding the lobbyists and lying to the people. And they end up trying to hold up the mask while doing everything possible to shut the problem down without changing anything essential.
/edit: added a ,
saudi fucked everything up by not accepting syrian refugees,i mean they have empty camps that serve no use...
definitely worst country out there, sharing the top with north korea
definitely worst country out there, sharing the top with north korea
^tru. friend lives there, hates the country.
china pretty much takes everything... except i think they banned all chinese people from going to korea.
holy shit my man lmaoB1rd wrote:
This is the most ridiculously polarizing comic i've ever seen. Some true next level tier insanity.
Well done.
i do agree that the US needs better border control and all that, but holy shit that comic
You could always push a trade deal with conditions on those thingsMeah wrote:
And we can't do anything about it.
that comic is really, really bad, lmao. You're not even getting the original comic's message at all
even if i'm not a fan of /pol/shit i can appreciate shitting on zenpencils
At this point I feel like white nationalists just have nothing else to be proud of in their lives, so they delude themselves into thinking that they're just inherently superior. That comic feels like a decent example, and I've seen all manner of fucking insane things come from b1rd and other alt-right identifying people, sadly.
agreed
And they did something to Australia tookai99 wrote:
china pretty much takes everything... except i think they banned all chinese people from going to korea.
Long live PeppyMeah wrote:
Our resources are being taken by China
DeletedUser_6709840
White people are superior? Well compared to some races, that is proven as far as I'm concerned, since IQ is an extremely important factor and superior IQ has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I can only speak for myself here; my view of objective reality isn't influenced by some need to feel superior or inferior to anyone, I don't need to spew vitriol towards any group to validate myself, regardless of any perceived superiorities or inferiorities in intelligence or political opinion.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
At this point I feel like white nationalists just have nothing else to be proud of in their lives, so they delude themselves into thinking that they're just inherently superior. That comic feels like a decent example, and I've seen all manner of fucking insane things come from b1rd and other alt-right identifying people, sadly.
As far as I know I've never identified as "alt-right", and just letting you know that playing games of identity politics, throwing around groundless insults is the quickest way of making me not bother to want to interact with you.
Nationalism doesn't equal culture, that statement doesn't even make sense. Nationalism preserves culture. That is all.Endaris wrote:
Meh.
Nationalism doesn't equal culture, B1rd.
It is also quite interesting that you're suddenly pro-non-western-culture after you claimed multiple times before that the cultures nuked by colonists were less developed and that it was good that colonists took over. And that we were "romantising" the nuked cultures.
Generally I agree with the point that having different cultures in different places is good especially since local cultures are often defined by the influence of their environment through the centuries.
The problem is mainly the harsh injustice in the world - many humans in the poor countries have nothing to lose. If they stay they die so they may as well try to get into the rich world. And the rich world in its humanistic hypocrisis has no choice but to adopt them or admit that their humanism is all farce and that they have no interest but making cash as politicians by feeding the lobbyists and lying to the people. And they end up trying to hold up the mask while doing everything possible to shut the problem down without changing anything essential.
/edit: added a ,
I don't know what I said to make you think I value all culture. I can appreciate minor differences and diversity makes life interesting, but I judge a culture my its merit and on its values. That's why I couldn't care less that that our cities are built upon the sites of primitive huts and it's why I don't respect cultures based on violent religious fundamentalism. Because objective values exists, it naturally follows that some cultures are better than others, based on these values. I reject the notion of moral subjectivity, which can be disproven as easily as proving that cold-blooder murder is wrong, which is a definite moral value.
Anyway, it's already very clear that immigration is not done for humanism or any such thing. That's just an excuse. It can be done for many reasons, some as simple as left-wing parties wanting to increase their voter base. Maybe there is some ulterior motive of the world leaders. It's hard to make out. But what is clear is that it is not helpful for anyone, except for the immigrants themselves and perhaps politicians. There is unfairness in many third world countries but ultimately any country in a product of the people that live there, they need to sort out their problems in their own country as it's no other country's obligation to help immigrants at their own detriment.
RIDDLE ME THIS, RIDDLE ME THAT
If it looks alt-right and it sounds alt-right, it's probably alt-right, y'know. White Nationalism in general is a fucking awful thing though, so maybe I should use that term since you happily identify that way.
Just wondering, however. If you could establish or join a Scandinavian, white ethno-state, would you want that?
Just wondering, however. If you could establish or join a Scandinavian, white ethno-state, would you want that?
who's afraid of the bigg baddddddComfy Slippers wrote:
RIDDLE ME THIS, RIDDLE ME THAT
black*
wolfjohnmedina999 wrote:
black*
If you're going to swallow the objectivist pill, at least digest the good bits will ya, Bird?
''Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.'' - Rand
''Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.'' - Rand
:=)
oobachig
the word that is derived from slowing the sound of beat boxing to a crawl.
"oob chig...oobachig..."
the word that is derived from slowing the sound of beat boxing to a crawl.
"oob chig...oobachig..."
Germany went full Nationalist in the 1930s
Look at how that worked out for them. Now they absolutely abhor what they used to be. If anything, Nationalism damages a country's culture, considering how much of their identity is now about repenting for the past. That's the opposite of preserving!
Look at how that worked out for them. Now they absolutely abhor what they used to be. If anything, Nationalism damages a country's culture, considering how much of their identity is now about repenting for the past. That's the opposite of preserving!
whatComfy Slippers wrote:
oobachig
the word that is derived from slowing the sound of beat boxing to a crawl.
"oob chig...oobachig..."
cool so like one of the interstates in my state caught on fire and collapsed the damn overpass so now I have to find a new way to get to work
FUCKIN COOL
FUCKIN COOL
It's not like I hold everything any philosopher I've read's word as the word of God.GladiOol wrote:
If you're going to swallow the objectivist pill, at least digest the good bits will ya, Bird?
''Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.'' - Rand
“a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also … should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”
-Rothbard
Also,
"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgement and nothing can help you escape it - that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life - that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truths, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."
-Atlas Shrugged
The first statement is something I disagree with, and the second statement explains why you should disagree.
maybe argue against the statement he gave you and don't just throw some completely unrelated statement out there that has nothing to do with anything?B1rd wrote:
It's not like I hold everything any philosopher I've read's word as the word of God.GladiOol wrote:
If you're going to swallow the objectivist pill, at least digest the good bits will ya, Bird?
''Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.'' - Rand
“a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also … should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”
-Rothbard
''Hey, some people don't know what they're talking about!''
yeah no shit.
Embarrassing.
That's just one factor of a state, it would depend on a thousand others as to whether I'd want to join or not. And I've already said I'm not Alt-right so I don't see the need of your insistence to apply arbitrary labels.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
If it looks alt-right and it sounds alt-right, it's probably alt-right, y'know. White Nationalism in general is a fucking awful thing though, so maybe I should use that term since you happily identify that way.
Just wondering, however. If you could establish or join a Scandinavian, white ethno-state, would you want that?
Also, 20 hour sleep, feels good.
the parent surrendered their rights when they decided to have unprotected sex
They are fully obligated to care for their young
They are fully obligated to care for their young
trying to ss for lowest score
aka lowest fc score challenge
you guys should do it too
kai99 wrote:
trying to ss for lowest score
aka lowest fc score challenge
you guys should do it too
Bet you micro dick
Don't challenge the diamond