The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism.Admittedly, this encouraging development is hardly the dominant view. To the contrary, given the possibility that Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or one of their ilk might become president, white supremacist ideology seems to be digging in harder than ever.I donβt take this lightly. Once upon a time I foolishly thought that there was no way that Ronald Reagan could get elected president. Lesson learned. Now is the time to start contingency planning for intensified resistance to mass deportations of immigrants, atrocities against Muslims and extreme danger to African Americans.
Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or one of their ilk might become president, white supremacist ideology
Quote from: Verbatim on December 23, 2015, 07:19:32 PMApply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.Wow, we never would have guessed that. Thank you for your off topic reply.
Apply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.
if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
Quote from: Verbatim on December 23, 2015, 07:19:32 PMApply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.Your total denial of masculinity isn't particularly admirable or supportable, especially since you display overtly masculine traits such as aggression and argumentativeness. Masculinity and femininity form a necessary balance; like Camile Paglia said, if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
Your sexism isn't particularly admirable or supportable.
Quote from: The Meta Order on December 23, 2015, 08:32:42 PMQuote from: Verbatim on December 23, 2015, 07:19:32 PMApply this to all men--all people--and I'll agree.Your total denial of masculinity isn't particularly admirable or supportable, especially since you display overtly masculine traits such as aggression and argumentativeness. Masculinity and femininity form a necessary balance; like Camile Paglia said, if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.Did you miss the bit where I amended that to "all people?" I even put double hyphens around it...
Quote from: SecondClass on December 23, 2015, 08:48:05 PMYour sexism isn't particularly admirable or supportable.Camile Paglia is a pretty famous and respected feminist. She just doesn't deny the differences that exist between men and women, and the kind of values masculinity and femininity will inculcate individually. It's no surprise that women politicians like Margaret Thatcher tend to have strikingly masculine personalities. It's not sexist to think men and women are equal but different, and with broadly different proclivities.
The sexist majority would never vote in a feminine, compassionate woman. Even though that's exactly what the world needs right now.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 23, 2015, 08:56:05 PMThe sexist majority would never vote in a feminine, compassionate woman. Even though that's exactly what the world needs right now.Right, the world just needs to link hands around a tree and fucking sing Kumbaya. Results? What are those? Self-confidence? God forbid. Compassion gets you nowhere in the real world. Life's a game, and the first rule is that there are no rules. The second rule is that the strong rule the weak.
Oh my god, fuck off. This is the kind of thinking that's caused the state of the world today.
I don't think that last bit was meant to be taken literally.At least, I hope not.
If you think it is untrue that the strong ultimately rule the weak, and always will, then you're not anchored to reality. The goal is to I) make sure the strong have the right values and II) mitigating their power so they don't shoot you for disagreeing. Why the fuck else would we come up with a system where the lawmakers are accountable to the general population?
Quote from: The Meta Order on December 23, 2015, 09:04:43 PMIf you think it is untrue that the strong ultimately rule the weak, and always will, then you're not anchored to reality. The goal is to I) make sure the strong have the right values and II) mitigating their power so they don't shoot you for disagreeing. Why the fuck else would we come up with a system where the lawmakers are accountable to the general population?The thing about true power is that it's unmitigable. If you're mitigable, you're not powerful. So, I'd use a different term.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 23, 2015, 09:02:04 PMOh my god, fuck off. This is the kind of thinking that's caused the state of the world today.I'm speaking descriptively. The solution is to get somebody strong with your values in power. That's the ultimate aim of the political game; compassionate and feminine people are simply not good at government. It doesn't make for effective governance. This is true of both feminine men and women. If you think it is untrue that the strong ultimately rule the weak, and always will, then you're not anchored to reality. The goal is to I) make sure the strong have the right values and II) mitigating their power so they don't shoot you for disagreeing. Why the fuck else would we come up with a system where the lawmakers are accountable to the general population?
The thing that we need the most in our leaders right now isn't strength, it's love.
Quote from: SecondClass on December 23, 2015, 09:11:57 PMThe thing that we need the most in our leaders right now isn't strength, it's love.SpoilerFar out, man.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think power can be graded. But, whatever, use "influence" instead. The content of my point remains ultimately the same.
Nice one! Maybe actually formulate some kind of argument next time, though?
You're using a lot of strong terms--"power," "strong," "weak"--very divisive terms, and I just think you mean something else when you say those words.
White men must be stopped: the future of Mankind depends on it
