Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 6, 2018.

  1. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    That didn’t answer my question. What is American culture? It has always been a melting pot, in one way or another. When the slaves were brought over, they brought their customs and culture with them. The Spanish and French colonies left their customs and cultures behind as well.
     
    malf likes this.
  2. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    Is ridiculous because his metaphor is comparing a sentient creature with an inanimate object. Implying that a gun is capable of killing people on its own. It’s human volition that causes one to pull the trigger, the gun isn’t pulling its own trigger. So, perhaps his metaphor would work if you argued for more ARMED HUMANS as opposed to more guns. Even then his absurd metaphor would only work if you trained your shark companion to attack other sharks, or if you could use the shark like a weapon and aim it at only the targets you wish to harm. Throwing a gun into the middle of a knife fight wouldnt do anything. It would literally sit on the ground until a human picked it up and used it. A shark, thrown into the water, is a creature with volition. It may or may not attack the other shark (probably not) it will likely attack YOU.

    I find it hilarious that people see guns as some sort of entity with its own will. Funny, I don’t see the same absurd fear when it comes to knives. People rightfully understand that a knife isn’t going to pick itself up and stab you. A gun isn’t going to pick itself up and shoot you. Another human being must make that choice. It is the same with every other inanimate object. A car can be used to commit murder. A rock, a baseball bat, and even spoons (just ask the UK authoritarians). Why aren’t we banning all of these? Oh, I get it. There’s no other implicit purpose for guns like there is for those other things. So is it implicit purpose that’s the problem or it’s actual usage? I would argue implicit purpose doesn’t mean a damned thing. Murder is murder, whether I use my hands (with all their implicit usages) or a gun.
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  3. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    I don’t really have an ideology. I’d say, I’m probably a traditional conservative on many things, but I despise republicans. I’m not alt-right, though, I obviously sympathize with their desire to conserve white peoples and culture. (Just like I sympathize with any race/culture wanting to conserve their own).

    Politically, I pretty much hate all of it. I can’t say there’s a single ideology with which I identify. Maybe that’s flakey, but it’s the truth.
     
  4. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    It hasn’t always been a melting pot. Here’s a good video on it
     
  5. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    It’s called geurilla warfare. Also, I pointed that out specifically because it IS a problem. The American people (or any people for that matter) should never have let the government amass such military power. We should have fought against military black budgets when they started. We should have fought against the idea of secrets for “national security”. The topic is honestly waaaaay to big to really give due justice here.
     
  6. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88

    Because knives, bats, rocks, and spoons aren’t capable of the same thing a gun is capable of. It’s like this quote, “If a guy walks into a crowd of 100 people with a knife, and kills all of them, 97 people deserved to die.” Of course a gun doesn’t kill people by itself. People kill people. But people wouldn’t be able kill 50+ people in under a minute without a gun.
     
  7. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    I understand that, I’m just shocked he would wish death like that on anyone. He’s usually really nice guy. I was just surprised is all. But hey, if that’s how he feels, he’s entitled.
     
  8. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    I’ll just say this: yes, white genocide is real. Yes, I think there is a high likelihood of it happening. And finally, anyone who believes in the inherent philosophy underlying “social justice” either has no idea what they are actually supporting, or is actually working to subvert their own interests. Social justice as an ideology that will eventually destroy itself, because it’s underlying philosophy is inherently destructive. It’s based on an ideology of deconstruction, therefore, it cannot build anything, only destroy.

    That being said, I do not believe social justice is what is going to cause white genocide. It is however only one of the means by which it will be brought about. In other words, it’s a Trojan horse. Mark my words, if white genocide occurs, you-and everyone else left- will not like what the world has become. I’m not saying that because I think white people are the savior of the human race. I say that because if those who wish to accomplish this are successful, those left behind will most certainly either face the same fate (meaning it won’t stop with us) or they will get to experience true slavery first hand.

    I’m sure that sounds hyperbolic or like tin foil hat fodder. But it’s the truth. The fight for white preservation is the fight for preservation of all races and cultures.
     
  9. Vault313

    Vault313 New

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,254
    I already covered that. Murder is murder. Implicit use doesn’t matter. Explicit use does.

    Bombs can kill a lot more people in less time than a gun, any gun. Those are outlawed. People still use them. They’re actually pretty easy to make.

    Moreover, I don’t care if someone killed “only” one person vs. 10. They’re a murderer. Chances are they’d nuke the planet if they could.
     
  10. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    Your first paragraph makes no sense. "To support social justice you either don't understand it or you are ignoring your own interests." There can't be any other reasons for wanting to support it? Sounds ignorant to me. How is the underlying philosophy inherently destructive? Wanting equality for all races, genders, sexualities, etc. is destructive? Again, last sentence doesn't make any sense.

    I'm not going to touch that second paragraph.

    I don't think it's the truth at all, but you believe what you want to believe.
     
  11. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88

    I instantly want to click off of a video that says, "the left" and "liberals" every minute. But, I made it about eight minutes in before I clicked out. He basically just lists laws and regulations that America has had in the past concerning immigration. This doesn't disprove America being a melting pot. Again, slaves were brought to America, before America was even a concept. The slaves brought their culture and customs from Africa. That's two cultures already. Not to mention that the French and Spanish colonies both left behind pieces of their cultures as well. When America won Texas in the Mexico-American war, it brought Mexican culture to the U.S. Just because "white culture" was mainstream, doesn't mean that no other cultures existed. It was racism and discrimination that kept "white culture" dominant, which, imo, wasn't a good thing.

    Again, what is/was American culture?
     
    Laird likes this.
  12. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,448
    I didn’t mean ‘die out’ in that way. I meant it in this way.

    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/max_planck_101765
     
    Laird likes this.
  13. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    693
    It will be close, but we will survive.

    Natural Selection is never pretty. The vast majority of White People here will behave like they currently do in South Africa. They will cling to their programming and ride out ever increasing crime and persecution until they evaporate from fear of bringing babies into the hellscape. Examples: Trevor and Carol in this video...



    I have recalculated this 10 ways to Sunday. America will go the way of South Africa in the coming decades; ever increasing Marxist Critical Theory, slow painful destruction of the Middle Class, and ever-increasing police state surveillance & brutality like in Brazil to control the growing mixed-race LumpenProletariat class.

    Surviving White People will be the ones who Divorce FedGov and retreat into their own armed ethnic communities like these people are doing...

    https://suidlanders.org

    Check out their plan. I predict ours will be in the Pacific Northwest.
     
  14. TheRaven

    TheRaven Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    88
    Glad to see that this thread that could have been a useful discussion about race, has now turned into a conspiracy theory that white people are going through a genocide. If this is what it has come to, I'm out.
     
  15. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,329
    It's an insane proposition for sure, TheRaven. Genocide of white people? Can anybody point to any actual evidence of white people being systematically eliminated? I mean, there's plenty of evidence of the reverse in countries like yours - the USA - and mine - Australia - in which white colonisers attempted to systematically eliminate the indigenous populations, but... white genocide? The mind boggles.
     
    TheRaven and Steve like this.
  16. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,329
    By the way, I think this sorely deserves a response:

    What exactly is it that you're contending, Vault313? That white people popped on over to North America, saw that there were a bunch of people living there already, and said, "Chaps, we'd like to have your land", to which the Native Americans responded, "Righto lads, and what do you propose for us to do?", to which the colonisers responded, "Ah, jolly good question. Well, see here, we'll set up some reservations for you - you chaps wander over there, the view's great", to which the Native Americans responded, "Well, then it's settled! You'll have our land and we'll go and enjoy ourselves in these reservations".
     
    TheRaven likes this.
  17. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    627
    This notion of the "white genocide" has always, well, surprised me - I can't see whites being genocided anywhere in Europe, America and Australia (despite the fact that whites did come to the latter two continents as violent invaders and colonisers).

    White people do have problems, sometimes, with some authortitarian segments of the modern Left movements (which cannot be equated with the Left movements in general). They can indeed, sometimes, be a target of aggression by some overenthusiastic SJW-types. I, being a Libertarian Leftist, do not support such acts of aggression, and think that modern Left movements need to acknowledge that some of their participants are openly authoritarian.

    Yet such acts - which are in most cases are not even physical, let alone lethal - is a galaxy away from a genocide, that is, a systematic massive murder (directly, by physical killing, or indirectly, by a stuctural oppression intence enough to ensure that the oppressed would not survive it) of people who do (or do not) fit some criteria in which their murderers believe. As for now, white people are not subjected either to mass slaughter or to the lethally intence oppression.

    Being insulted by some angry SJW, or being directed away from a "people of color safe space" on campus, or being forced to cleanse one's lecture of "trigger warnings" is not a pleasant experience, surely. Yet it is not on the same level - not even remotely so - of the one of being sent to a concentration camp, or assassinated by a death squad, or forced into a slave labour, or banished into ghetto / reservation, or deprived of food and shelter.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2018
    TheRaven and Laird like this.
  18. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,329
    Oh? This is a very contested claim. But let's say you're right: that there were people in the so-called USA before the Native Americans arrived. What do we know, many thousands of years later, about how and why they longer seem to be present? Can we say definitively that it is because of violence or injustice? And even if we could: does one act of violence justify another? I mean, the set of hoops you have to jump through to justify European invasion of Native American land on this basis is totally unsustainable.

    Not saying you agree except that you are justifying the European invasion of Native American lands on the basis that might makes right. That's quite a trick.

    You know, I hope that neither you nor anybody close to you is ever subjected to unprovoked violence, because ("not that you agree") out of intellectual honesty you would have to just suck it up and accept that you or your loved one simply wasn't mighty enough to defend yourself/themself. The perpetrator's might would make their violence against you/yours right. And God forbid that you should appeal to some sort of normative system of justice, because you wouldn't be that inconsistent, would you? To deny the indigenous occupants of your land the right to justice whilst appealing for justice on your own or your loved ones' behalf.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2018
  19. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    627

    There is some interesting evidence for Pre-Columbian contacts between the Americas and Afro-Eurasia, researched, among many others, by Stephen C. Jett from the Society for the Scientific Exploration:


    https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Ocean-Crossings-Reconsidering-Pre-Columbian/dp/0817319395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527358838&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+jett&dpID=51blYSD%2BVDL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch


    In fact, the SSE has published some materials about such contacts in their Journal and the Edge Science magazine..


    But contacts are not remotely the same as inhabitation. In this case, I do not know of valid case that the Americas has earlier inhabitants than Native tribes and civilizations. Except, maybe, for some super-ancient long-dead civilizations, for the existence of that there is some intriguing evidence, provided by Graham Hancock and others. But, since such civilizations, if they did existed, were destroyed by catastrophes and cataclysms aeons ago, we can still state that the Natives were the original, indigenous inhabitants of the Americas.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2018
  20. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,329
    I understand Charlie to have originally been referring to "the Solutrean Hypothesis", and presumably Vault313 was referring to the same, although that assumption might be wrong.

    Here's one geneticist's view: Rejecting the Solutrean hypothesis: the first peoples in the Americas were not from Europe

     

Share This Page