teabaggers pwned (US immigration) tea-party FAIL!

Post Reply New Topic

this had made my evening

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rry_SlPW7oU[/youtube]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... sts-who-ge

Nice... This begs the question, though, of what to do with mixed-race folks like myself.

you should be chopped up, bagged & returned to the appropriate arbitrary planetary regions.

your parents made that choice!

/stern nationalist

You have the questionable satisfaction of confusing and annoying people on almost all sides of the debate. Perish the thought that everyone has a unique genetic heritage and doesn't fit nicely into one label or another.

Don't worry, we'll be hunting and gathering in no time....May I recommend a survivalist garden? Ya know, just to make things easy...

disclaimer: My boyfriend is Mexican-American, therefore I am not racist.

I'm not a racist. I have cousins that were adopted from Mexico. They would have a crappy life of certain poverty/no future if not adopted by my uncle and aunt.

Well, can you clean?

You're easily amused then.
I think it would be funnier if this Robert Erickson were deported to Zimbabwe since he obviously loves diversity so much.
I've heard it all before, this argument that White Americans should not defend the country their ancestors and co-racials built just because 300 years ago their ancestors were in a different continent.
The thing is, Europeans in Europe have their own Robert Ericksons - for instance, people like psych in his own small way - mocking them, sneering at them, and telling them how wrong it is for them to try to preserve their existence in their own lands.

I think, psych, what you really object to is the idea of White people having their own space anywhere on this earth.
If you are not white yourself, this would explain it.

Anyway, perhaps you could tell us why White people everywhere should open up all their lands to non-Whites and eventually be mixed out of existence.
See if you can provide a serious answer to a serious question - without sarcasm or mimicry or little yellow heads chuckling at the questioner.
This should be good.

its only a skin-tone. it served us well during the ice-age that nearly killed us but its long-since served its purpose. If people evolved on the british isles afresh, they would not be white-skinned. Its vestigial, a throw back to ancient history (or so the theory goes)

despite all that i quite like being white - its special. everyone else in the world pretty much has black hair and dark eyes (which i also like) whereas we have a range of colours (my own hair for instance has several tones) this is purely an aesthetical, subjective observation though - i would never want to forbid a mixed race couple from bearing children or restrict peoples freedom of movement purely to preserve an aesthetical appearance. its not *that* important.

People wont be 'mixed out of existance' - theyll just look different.


your not really talking about 'white people' though are you? I expect you mean cultural traditions associated with white people?

There are things we should fight to defend - freedom, independance eg. the right to self-expression, which does include cultural tradition. As long as there are 'british' people who wish to practice 'british' things, then all well and good i hope they are free to do so and get some happiness from them.
All things eventually come to pass though - like a passing vision of beauty savour, enjoy them while they last. enjoy them for their own sake, but to cling on to them, scared that theyll slip away... just seems to be missing the point to me. Like experiencing joy wasnt the point in the first place.

codarac, its obvious you view the world strongly from a racial-paradign whereas i dont, at least not to nearly such a great extent. Thats a huge ideological gulf, so im not sure how fruitful discussion can be between us?

Ill say this though: you might try putting the racial paradign aside for a while, think of it as an experiment, a temporal thing - you can always readopt it again, anytime you like. Look for what people have in common, rather than what divides us. interact or observe other just cultures, suspend the impulse to project your culture onto them. You might just find out that were not so different after all

Or you can view both the Similarities and the differences and put Darwinism into the equation.

Ive mentioned ive had been working on a theory involving it before, but ill finally post some of it. People may think the statement survival of the fittest has no place in society anymore, but little do most people realize is that the statement is there, gawking at them, and tea-bagging them as they sleep. Darwinism doesnt just apply to the physical being anymore, as in biological determinators. Darwinism can just as easily be applied to culture, economics, belief systems/philosophy, and politics just to name a few. Ill just list a few examples, as this time, i will find time to post the majority of my theory on it (yeah, too much time has opened up from being unemployed now.) The examples ill give in this post though will be more or less ones based around culture, since that's really the whole point of the racial argument :/

Society (well, NT society anyways, aspergian culture kinda throws a screwball into my theory) society tends to gather in groups that share forms of beliefs, sharing interests, genetics, and all other sorts of stuff in the process. That gathering up tends to form the basis of most cultures. Now differing cultures will often conflict with one another, my main example is of course going to be the ancient/crusades era middle east (can even hold true in modern day as well depending upon your interpretations of the various conflicts over in the middle east)

The main difference between the differing groups back then were the differences in religion, even though all the Abrahamic religions follow the same deity in principle. But because of these difference, each has sparked their own culture. I'm gonna stick to the Judaic, Christianity, and Islamic faiths with this. Pretty much each religion split off on their own, and call themselves the only true religion. Even now all three cultures are at odds with each-other, Judaism and Christianity less so but it is still there. Here is where is compare even groups of like-minded individuals, as their own individual. Because the way their beliefs are, as in only one can be right, they are at odds with each other. Thus one side, or both as most examples in history have show, have viewed the other as a threat to the survival of their beliefs. This is where Darwin's survival of the fittest phrase comes in, because in the mind of the group itself, they are fighting for their own survival, and the continuation of their own beliefs. This can easily be compared to the survival of a species, or even an individual. The main point in the survival of a individual, species, group, whatever, is to survive and replicate. They have to "fight off" threats to their own propagation, and in the example of religion, said propagation is spreading their belief system to others and absorbing them into what i can say is akin to a collective mind/consciousness of sorts.

but really the main point of this theory is that Darwinism can be applied to A LOT of different things as long as you make the appropriate adjustments. Its just right now I am using it to make a point that differing cultures will always bicker and argue and fight with each-other. It is in the nature of the universe itself that it be that way. Cultures, and races even, will have their own groups that will fight against merging, for the fact that if the merge, said culture is practically dead for a nature viewpoint. Some will adapt of course, but not all. In the end, humans are just smelly, hairless apes. We are still just animals in the end, just as nature intended. (and yes, i am against the whole cyborg culture that has been starting to happen. People arent meant to be merged with machines. Yeah in some instances it may save a life, but really, are we ourselves worth saving? (ooohhh philosophical pessimism anyone?)

Demon: http://blog.ted.com/2007/07/dan_dennett_on_2.php

I disagree with your last bit, though. Nature doesn't intend anything, whatever proves to be fittest survives (or, if nature does intend something, it's evolution, which has nothing to do with how the phrase is used).

Teabaggers = Right-wing MORONS!! !

thanks for the link, that is more along the lines of what i meant. Sometimes its easier to speak what you mean than type it, sometimes the opposite is true as well.

I am really talking about ‘white people’. I do not believe a ‘culture’ is independent of the people who created it. I do not believe we are all the same under the skin. And, though this might shock some people, I think these things are more important than ‘freedom’.
I do agree though that we are unlikely to change each other’s minds, so I will try not to bang on about this.
But I am particularly puzzled by the suggestion that I ‘suspend the impule to project [my] culture' onto others. I am not quite sure what this means, but projecting onto ‘the Other’ is something I try not to do, and it’s something I think white liberals seem to do frequently (eg, when they act as if the rest of the world values equality as much as they do, or as if Third World countries could all become industrial & economic powerhouses if we just give them a chance).
Perhaps you have placed me under the 'right-wing' umbrella with people like the neocons (with their belief in spreading democracy by force). I used to be one of those (I'm sad to say) but not anymore.