For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 519)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 462 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 152796676011.png - (192.48KB , 800x1200 , index.png )
519 No. 519 [Edit]
So, what's your current political standing? Find out:
http://www.politiscales.net
Mine, pic related and:
>Additional characteristics (textless icon at the bottom):
>Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.
110 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 1212 [Edit]
>>1206
>Your relationship with reality can be described in terms of how much power you have relative to your environment.It's just that simple, it's the basic thermodynamic equation.

And you don't need to be a part of a group for that, really in this world that requires money and you don't need to be a part of a group to have money. You are comparing being a loner to a nomad or a homeless person but it is nothing like it al all, you could be a billionaire with his own mansion and seclude himself in it. You would still have far more power than 99% of people.

>But when you view reality in terms of the power you have to do what you want, you realize that it doesn't give you very much and takes a lot more in return, which sadly means that true isolation is either impossible or very unpleasant.

What actually do you think it takes and why do you think it is impossible?


>>1208
IQ does not mean much it's just a rough guide. There are some major issues with it, such as the fact it is a test so it can be trained for and certain systems of education will better do that, the fact that IQ tests are not actually all the same and that they may not be taken from the same kind of people. Some IQ tests take into account different averages, so a nation might base their IQ test around the average intelligence of the EU and another might base it around the Average intelligence of the world. Meaning that the EU averaged test would give a lower result because the average it is compared to is higher and the global test would give you a higher result as you are comparing yourself to many developing nations.

>>1209
I am in the most primal terms, I just simply find Europeans to be more attractive, and largely in a cultural terms but things like intelligence are so incredibly complex that I still don't have a set view on just how race based it even is, because a large amount of it can be attributed to diet and education. The genetic element is there but is that because some Genetics are superior and were always so(and even then does that mean that every races has such genes and it is just a matter of how drowned out they are by inferior ones?) or is it that generations of good nutrition and education have made the genetics be better? Or is it that the best genes tend to succeed and breed with each other making them pool upwards in society and that is what causes it? So this may mean it is environment based, caste based or a combination of the two.
>> No. 1213 [Edit]
>>1208
That's just my style of speaking, I tend to ramble. I also tend to make connections from one topic to the next that most people don't see. I guess that's just a jarring part of my personality, I've been aware of it from elementary school onwards. Don't think too much about it. I response to both you and >>1209, I would say my racism is primarily as >>1212 described. I also definitely tend to associate with people based on race. I think it's just normal to want to be around people of the same race, and regardless, I just prefer it. I tried not be racist for a long time but eventually I just came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with feeling most comfortable around people from the same culture and ethnic group, and that admitting that some groups were clearly, historically, greater or lesser, was just admitting reality. I guess some parts of my behavior are just "racialist" for example while I would not (in a hypothetical scenario where I do for some reason have kids) have kids with an East Asian, I don't tend to have a problem with them and I can admit their cultures accomplishments, being farther up the technological and societal ladder than pretty much anyone but Europeans. However in other cases I'm just genuinely racist, when it comes to sub-saharan africans and aboriginals they're clearly just on a lower rung of development. I find it very hard to believe that there are no distinct genetic predispostions to lower intelligence and other behaviors among them.
>> No. 1214 [Edit]
File 161549270976.jpg - (412.09KB , 800x1131 , f442d9f18e4d2dd10e84d12bea237c7c.jpg )
1214
>>1213
The only people of my "own race"(I'm debatably a halfie) which I've liked are a few members of my family who live abroad. Other than that, I've either been indifferent or had negative experiences with them. Personality was always more of factor in how much I could tolerate my classmates than race. The people I talked to ranged from white, indian and asian, in more or less equal amounts. Overall I probably feel most comfortable around non-religious Slavs, and non-Chinese asians despite having no relation to the latter. Basebal/football loving, wonderbread, white, Christian Americans are ugly and put me on edge. "White" is too broad to begin with and grouping them together is part of the "retarded shit" modern fascist groups like to do.

>I don't tend to have a problem with them
You called Koreans monkeys despite them being practically the same as Japanese people. If you're on this website, that means you're supposed to prefer the cultural products of east asians more than those of your own people you're "more comfortable around". How do you explain that?
>than pretty much anyone but Europeans
You can't even compare places like Moldova and Romania to Japan, or South Korea for that matter. Some Europeans are really unimpressive. I'm inclined to believe the baton is just being passed, from Mediterraneans/Middle Easterns, to Europeans and now to Asians.
>> No. 1215 [Edit]
Very off-topic but I remember controversy when Encyclopedia Dramatica was the first result for aboriginal. Good times.
>> No. 1216 [Edit]
>>1214
>If you're on this website, that means you're supposed to prefer the cultural products of east asians more than those of your own people you're "more comfortable around". How do you explain that?
It's simple, really. Japanese 2D media actually tries to be aesthetically appealing, and it succeeds. There's a lot of other things I like about it of course, but that's really all there is to it when you ask what stirs my emotions. Even the crudest, most degenerate works are actually more beautiful than a modern hollywood movie. King Arthur is probably both more compellingly, heroically, and accurately portrayed in Fate/Stay Night garbage of all things than a recent TV interpretation. That's not a joke. And if you think about it, you'd probably agree I'm right. Again, you brought up the whole "why would a right-winger watch anime" cliche, and again, I fail to see the problem. It's not a problem for me, so why should someone who doesn't even share my values care?

As for race, well, there are obviously many different levels you could start separation at, but when I tell you that I"m blonde haired, blue eyed, fair skinned, and speak English, you know exactly what I mean when I say "white" and exactly what civilization I'm referring to when I talk about their accomplishments. Comparing western europeans and nordics to romanians, when saying that "white" or "European" are too vague, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Personally I've always gotten along best with people of the same ethnic makeup as me, not to say I ever got along with anyone WELL. You and other posters don't seem to like my long rambling style, so I won't continue this post. I could say a lot about a lot of things in reference to a lot of things that you've mentioned and it bothers me that I can't explain everything I think in such a limited space. Even when I talk for hours on end I often feel like I only just started cracking into the heart of the topic when the conversation ends.

And don't ever compare the copycat trash made by South Korea with what Japan has done. If the Japanese and Koreans are "practically the same" then they left all the most retarded ones on the mainland.
>> No. 1217 [Edit]
File 161561465248.png - (682.49KB , 1111x1021 , 86825240_p0.png )
1217
>>1216
>I fail to see the problem.
It feels half-assed and hypocritical. Like somebody is reluctantly dipping their toes in because they think they have no choice. It also calls into question how comparable you are to myself. I don't know where I stand with somebody who hasn't burned all their other bridges and claims to support a cause which doesn't easily and cleanly fit into things. There are right-wingers with a vehement hatred for otaku media and that makes more comfortable sense. I also try to be a purist about these things.

>I tell you that I"m blonde haired, blue eyed, fair skinned, and speak English
That can describe a Nord, a Brit, a Russian or a Jew. Do you use Caucasian as a synonym for white, or are you part of the "wholly European descent" crowd? How should I know?

>Comparing western Europeans and Nordics to Romanians, when saying that "white" or "European" are too vague, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What the hell does that even mean? Do you think there's no blue-eyed, blonde Romanians? What about Spaniards and Mediterraneans? Francs aren't the same as Nords. They just aren't. I'm not of "wholly European descent", but I have pale skin, blue eyes and, when I was a kid, blonde hair. Can I or can I not "take pride" in Issac Newton and Bach too? It's nonsensical.

Koreans have been better copycats than white people for the most part, so what does that say? A smaller market is probably more to blame for South Korea's lower quality than anything else

Post edited on 12th Mar 2021, 10:24pm
>> No. 1218 [Edit]
File 161561800462.jpg - (2.41MB , 2031x2952 , ZZC 0908.jpg )
1218
>>1214
>You called Koreans monkeys despite them being practically the same as Japanese people. If you're on this website, that means you're supposed to prefer the cultural products of east asians more than those of your own people

They are different as is the media they produce, one doesn't actually have to like Koreans or the Chinese to like Japanese media. It's not like the Japanese themselves all like Koreans to begin with(or vice versa), even now relations between the two can get tense at times.
>> No. 1219 [Edit]
>>1217
>It feels half-assed and hypocritical.
I don't really see how. I like the things that I like. Maybe you've been listening too much the the right-wingers who vehemently hate anime, I dunno. I like anime when is aesthetically appeals to me, and when it appeals to my interests. But, I also very much admire old European tradition and culture, and their people and the empires they built. Keep in mind, just because I'm distrustful of philosophy created after the introduction of communism and marxism into political theory doesn't mean I don't read it. There's nothing hypocritical about looking into every side of the equation, and that's why I don't have a problem with anime. All things considered, 2D media has more national pride than any modern western media and that alone makes it "okay" in the autistic sense you seem to expect, although of course those aren't the real reasons I watch it. If it's not trying to shape your worldview against yourself and your own interests, it's not a problem to just enjoy it. It also keeps your mind fresh and open when you engage in other types of media, and prevents your thought from getting stale and creating "fixed ideas". After all, in the end all philosophical and ideological forms exist to serve real world practicalities. There would be no point in clinging mindlessly to any one of them if they no longer served their purpose. For me, the primary purpose of my right wing ideologies is the continued existence of a northern european race in any form that fits the commonly understood definition, and secondly that they rule over themselves and are not ruled over under an all-administrating world government that does not represent any one peoples or groups. Everything else beyond that is tertiary and can be discarded if it no longer serves the primary function. There are a thousand small problems like "where do you draw the line of being white" that will be addressed when it comes to it. People talk about race like it's not black and white, which is true, but in reality it's still black and white with grey borders. You might meet someone whom you can't decide which race they are closer to, but if you meet someone who is 99% from the british isles you're obviously not going to have a problem. For most people, it's closer to that latter case. There are actual, definable "racial border" zones like the southern balkans, the asian steppes, the sahara, etc. Trying to confuse black and white by pointing out the fringe cases of grey is a dishonest argument. You KNOW what I mean I and anyone else say "white" or "aryan" even if you pretend you don't just to be a smartass.
>> No. 1220 [Edit]
File 161566314942.png - (344.53KB , 700x988 , 450719c876bb8ee81b325967956c6aa6.png )
1220
>>1219
>2D media has more national pride than any modern western media
For all you know, there could be African or Indian media that's super nationalistic. Does it make sense for a white nationalist or whatever you like to call yourself to spend most of their free time watching Indian and African movies and listening to their music? Would most people who share your self-described ideology agree with you on that?

>all philosophical and ideological forms exist to serve real world practicalities
Disagree. Most of it is fodder for entertainment, especially philosophy.

>that will be addressed when it comes to it
Most likely by the most aggressive, extremist nut jobs once the more "moderate" people like you stop being useful, assuming success in the first place.

>You KNOW what I mean I and anyone else say "white"
Most people consider Ashkenazi Jews to be "white". Fringe right wingers on the internet are actually in the minority when it comes to their opinion on that. So no, I don't know what you mean unless you clarify that. "Aryan" as used by modern political groups is a completely nonsense misnomer that came from incorrect translation and confirmation bias. Besides that, how much "ownership" can Russians or even Poles claim of German and British culture and accomplishments? How much in common culturally do Francs, Swedes and Greeks have with each other? Are Greeks "bathwater" to you? That's not a minor point, it's people's lives. Even if they're not "most people", how do you solve a "problem"?

Post edited on 13th Mar 2021, 11:26am
>> No. 1221 [Edit]
Korea is a very strange case that I don't think can be compared to most eastern states. They are still racially and linguistically Korean but have been very westernized, this is why I think that they really can't be compared to Japan even if they share the same DNA. There is a rather well-known sci-fi H-Manga about this where giant flies are a metaphor for Koreans and getting brow-beaten into tolerating them with the DNA argument. There is a reason Indian politics are very much based around allegiance, caste, religion and even language rather than ethnicity for a lot of it and the fact some ethnicities and a certain religion have gotten their own countries. These things are more important than DNA and race and it could easily explain how one could like Japan and not Korea.

Anyway, I disagree that the media you consume for entertainment has anything to do with your poltiical views. I consume very little western media, but I don't think watching old Sci-Fi and western wrestling (but I don't know if you really can call AEW western, considering Tony Khan is a Paki and a lot of influence is taken from Japan) takes away from the fact I dislike western influence in my country politically. Entertainment and political views are usually compartmentalized from each-other, I understand westerners have blurred the line between the two but I think this is a silly conversation, and it's not like liking anime while being a nationalist will invalidate all of your views.
>> No. 1222 [Edit]
File 161566498638.png - (1.49MB , 841x828 , 1570192420943-1.png )
1222
Here's an example.
Zimbabwe is playing a test series against Afghanistan today.
For the former who were nationalist against European colonization in their country, do you think they feel playing an English sport takes anything away from that?
>> No. 1223 [Edit]
>>1217
>There are right-wingers with a vehement hatred for otaku media and that makes more comfortable sense.

In a way it actually makes more sense for them to like it as Japanese media is actually more conservative, traditional and closer to right wing views than western media.
>> No. 1224 [Edit]
>>1220
You know what, I'm not going to use /tat/ if posters aren't going to argue honestly. When I say white, I mean anglo-saxon, celtic, and nordic. Are you happy? Are you going to start asking if I include the black irish and the finnish? Are you going to start asking if I'm going to shove your ugly mutt face in? Congratulations, I'm fucking mad. Thank you for wasting my time.
>> No. 1225 [Edit]
>>1224
>When I say white, I mean anglo-saxon, celtic, and nordic. Are you happy?
Well then, was that so hard? You can't claim that's what most people think white people means though, because it's not.

You're mad because I've exposed how hypocritical, full of shit and deluded you are. You don't even belong here. You're just another /pol/tard asshole. Dime a dozen, pathetic and deserving of misery.

Post edited on 13th Mar 2021, 5:28pm
>> No. 1226 [Edit]
>>1225
>You can't claim that's what most people think white people means though, because it's not.

As a third party, yes it actually is. Slavs are genetically different to begin with and most people don't call them white, hell the Coalition of communities of colour even added Slavs as coloured people.
>> No. 1227 [Edit]
File 161568681226.png - (14.75KB , 1392x138 , uglymutt.png )
1227
>> No. 1228 [Edit]
>>1226
The coalition of whatever the fuck doesn't matter. Any random person on the street will tell you Russians, Poles and Ukrainians are white. Plus Italians too.

Post edited on 13th Mar 2021, 8:59pm
>> No. 1229 [Edit]
>>1228
No they won't. Yes maybe a good portion would but a good portion and most likely the majority also would not. It certainly isn't so clear cut as to be the common assumption.
>> No. 1230 [Edit]
>>1229
You're also delusional. Regular people go off of skin color and don't know or care about any of that.

Post edited on 13th Mar 2021, 6:03pm
>> No. 1231 [Edit]
>>1230
Says who? Not the Coalition of Communities of Colour. And where does that leave fair skinned Japanese? Are they White according to you and the person on the street?
>> No. 1232 [Edit]
>>1231
They have squinty eyes, so no.
>> No. 1233 [Edit]
>>1232
Ahh, so you agree then. Seeing as Slavs have narrower eyes on average as well.
>> No. 1234 [Edit]
Very off-topic but nonwhites calling themselves people of colour always sounded racist as fuck. Wasnt "Coloured" a huge slur outside of Africa?
>> No. 1235 [Edit]
File 161569056091.jpg - (187.82KB , 800x1000 , 3cff5ad6cf06abffb613be5056c96b7e.jpg )
1235
>>1233
Either you know what I meant and you're being a smartass, or your mental disability is showing again. Either way I'm tired of it. Funny that somebody as pedantic as you would accept a label like white when even Irish people weren't included at one point. If a slav like me isn't white, then white people can all go to hell, and they probably will which puts a smile on my face.

Post edited on 13th Mar 2021, 7:07pm
>> No. 1236 [Edit]
>>1235
>Either you know what I meant and you're being a smartass, or your mental disability is showing again.

Well that is just it isn't it? I assume the other fellow here would think the exact same thing from you.

>Funny that somebody as pedantic as you would accept a label like white when even Irish people weren't included at one point.

That's actually true, I don't like the term but it is often necessary to simply things. Though it can be a problem because there are people like you that would include Slavs as being white and others that include Southern Italians, Southern French and Spaniards as being white and others that might not include one group or both. But then everybody agrees that the British, Germans and Northern French are white which is what usually the term refers too.

Celts are a funny odd thing, they once controlled basically the entirety of Europe yet they end up being pushed back by basically everybody as well, to the point of being confined to a tiny Island off of a small island. I think Germanic is a better term but that has Nazi connotations and also may be slightly misleading as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes bred with the Celts in Britain and the Franks bred with them in France and the Eastern Germanic Tribes bred with Slavic people. But all in all, it is agreed by everybody that when talking about Whites anything with a substantial Germanic admixture is to be included.

>If a slav like me isn't white, then white people can all go to hell, and they probably will which puts a smile on my face.

Ahh, this explains your bias and thus your view on this. Also you aren't even religious, idiot.
>> No. 1237 [Edit]
>>1236
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/go+to+hell
>> No. 1238 [Edit]
>>1237
Yes but the context you used it in was different than that.

For example, I might be an atheist and tell somebody to got to hell but that really is me being angry with them and telling them to go away, leave me alone or that I don't care about them or what they think but in more hostile and forceful terms. So if you had said, 'If a slav like me isn't white, then white people can all go to hell' and left it at that then yes it could have meant that you were saying White people can all rot, they can all die for you all you care etc. Essentially you are saying you don't care about them or what they think and they can just go away.

However, you then added 'and they probably will which puts a smile on my face'. Which then brings it back to religious grounds or at least to the implication of some kind of deterioration in their situation(which given the context religious grounds would be more likely as there was nothing mentioned that would imply the deterioration of their situation in your post). You are now saying that they are actually going to go to a hell of some kind and not just telling them to bug off.
>> No. 1239 [Edit]
You know what, that's actually going just a little bit too far. I do actually understand your confusion at the contradiction of my ideologies and I understand why you think it's strange for me to be posting here if all you've seen is my opinions on governance and what is mostly just my assessment of things I like the least relative to things I dislike slightly less. I'm sorry to Tohno for being an asshole and potentially shitting up the board.

This post originally was a cheap ad hominem insult.

Post edited on 26th Mar 2021, 9:46am
>> No. 1358 [Edit]
>>1129
>tolkien
just as America was a far superior evolution of primitive English Constitutionalism, so too is Robert Jordan a superior mythmaker reflective of America's zeitgeist. Tolkien was also an Anarchist though, which is quite amusing.
>> No. 1359 [Edit]
>>1236
>But then everybody agrees that the British, Germans and Northern French are white which is what usually the term refers too.
nobody agrees that the British are white. leaving aside the fact that Britain is three quarters celtic (northern ireland, wales, scotland - heck even cornwall), have you not seen all the eternal anglo posts? there is a particularly strong case to be made by the "southern europe" memers with regard to that grey, cold, depressing island and it's miserable inhabitants.
>> No. 1365 [Edit]
>>1358
Superior in what way? Robert Jordan is quite boring too.

He was not an anarchist in the way the one thinks of an anarchist these days. As I said, he was also a monarchist, the two do not connect. He was an anarchist in that he believed that community identity and self management was important. He essentially wanted to go back to the middle ages.

>>1359
... Pretty much everybody will agree that they are, the term white was basically invented to refer to the British. Not even basically, I would not be surprised if it quite literally was, seeing that colour based classifications make much more sense when you actually have colonies.

I don't know or care about your memes.
>> No. 1368 [Edit]
File 162291134910.png - (171.51KB , 596x526 , 5c58712df878d3bced642b47f4bbba0107aa2ce2666216afc7.png )
1368
>>1365
>Superior in what way?
being a better writer. Tolkien's fine, but whereas Jordan uses narrative consistently to portray his world, Tolkien falls back on a lot of chronicling. The Silmarillion's a good read, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really convey information as entertainingly, which is, after all, the purpose of fantasy.
>Robert Jordan is quite boring too.
well firstly he's not boring (unless you have a short attention span), but what do you mean by "too"? Tolkien's not boring either.
>He was not an anarchist in the way the one thinks of an anarchist these days.
yes, he specified that he was a philosophical anarchist, like Godwin.
>... Pretty much everybody will agree that they are, the term white was basically invented to refer to the British.
everyone outside of /pol/ will agree, yes, but most people outside of /pol/ don't really care what's white or not. even when referring to the British it's complex, after all you have the divide between people who believe in haplotypes and therefore the genetic disparity between the Celts and the English, and then you have people that deny the Saxons existed in order to claim that there is no such genetic difference.
>Not even basically, I would not be surprised if it quite literally was, seeing that colour based classifications make much more sense when you actually have colonies.
if the term was invented to refer to the British, how does it then follow that the term arose due to comparison with colonial subjects? Britain did not exist until 1707, European colonialism started in the 1500s, and even if we count the colonial endeavours of Britain's constituent countries, the Spanish and Portuguese far predate them anyway. I'm not dismissing the claim necessarily, but it does seem a little outlandish.
>> No. 1369 [Edit]
>>1368
I meant in what way was America superior.

He's not a better writer but I'm not going to argue over that, it's personal preference.

>everyone outside of /pol/ will agree

And that is all that matters. /pol/ is a minority.

>if the term was invented to refer to the British, how does it then follow that the term arose due to comparison with colonial subjects? Britain did not exist until 1707, European colonialism started in the 1500s, and even if we count the colonial endeavours of Britain's constituent countries, the Spanish and Portuguese far predate them anyway.

I'm not sure if it was used to describe native Americans or not, it seems to be a more African and maybe even Indian thing. Britain did not acquire Africa until it was Britain. I'm not sure what the policy of Portuguese or the Spanish to natives were so I can't say whether they had these classifications(though I do know the Spanish church had a different view on them in that it recognised them as humans, hence why there are still so many natives in Spanish former colonies). As I said, I would not be surprised if it was the British that invented it, not saying it was, just that I would not be surprised.
>> No. 1370 [Edit]
>>1369
>I meant in what way was America superior.
ah, ok. well today it's pretty obvious why America is superior, it still has freedom of expression after all, but I assume you mean more broadly than that. Well, just as the English Civil War led to the expansion of the principles of the old Magna Carta into the Bill of Rights of 1689, so too did the American War of Independence expand the English Bill of Rights and the unwritten constitutionality of common law, along with the forefront of English philosophy and ethics at the time, into the United States Constitution and it's founding body of law. now, English Common Law is overall mostly a better legal system today than America's, I'll concede, and their body of constitutional law, that is, the unwritten constitution, was in the Victorian age one of the better ones of Europe. but most of these originally English ideas and concepts, having not been codified in Britain, now exist in America but not Britain - like the balance of powers, for example. this was a well understood idea in Britain, of balancing power between parliament, the courts and the King, and it had been an idea in circulation ever since Lord Coke's revolutionary concept of putting the law above the king (the concept that would eventually lead to the dramatic conclusion to Charles I's life), but it's pretty obvious to look at what has happened since that the unspoken rule has not held all that well, as now the legislative branch of parliament holds nearly total sway, and even seems to be leaning to abolish the house of lords rather than reform it. now, say what you want about the senate, but you do not want congress to have unchecked power, to make a comparison. these factors, along with a more open culture that enabled America to accept waves of immigrants from Europe in the 1900s and to also then expand markets further (there wasn't some old church every mile blocking the construction of a mall that the local community would screech about being knocked down, for instance), which allowed America to invent the consumer culture that makes life easier for so many people today. Britain at it's peak merely made a fuckton of steel in Rotherham, woo-hoo. (well, it was essential for railway lines, which were a huge modernising force back in the day, to be fair.) so all in all I'd say those are the broad reasons why America is better than the UK. that and the fact we don't have a bloodsucking lizard as a hereditary monarch ruling over us for life.
>As I said, I would not be surprised if it was the British that invented it, not saying it was, just that I would not be surprised.
I'm not really sure how relevant it is - being white isn't something you need a classification for, after all, Europeans have been observing that they have lighter skin than people from other places since antiquity. in terms of categorising races, I believe I am correct in saying the first texts on the matter were French, having done a very cursory search.
>> No. 1371 [Edit]
>>1370
The Upper House of the UK is superior in that it is not actually made up of politicians and therefore can and will bring up issues that don't have a basis in the support base of the democratically elected lower house. If the upper and lower house are both politicians then they are both subject to the same issue that any democratic body is, it really does not matter which one has power and maybe having one house be dominant is actually a good idea in that case.

The British system for head of government is better as well. It means that you don't end up with a Donald Trump, riling up the masses and appealing to the lowest common denominator and then forcing the party to accept that sate of affairs and live with it or die. It's what has killed the republican party, I really don't see it being elected anytime soon unless Biden does something incredibly stupid.

Immigration had nothing to do with open culture and everything to do with open lands. The reason these immigrants were going to the US and not Britain(and also leaving Britain in the first place) was because Britain had no room for them but America had plenty of it. Britain is the home of the Mall... Well the real mall, the good kind of mall, some German or other invented the US kind(and he regretted doing so). The British consumer culture was perfectly healthy. Any issue was more to do with the fact the the US was so large and the economy could expand so much rather than any problem with British shopping centres.

Having a Lizard Queen is good, the only problem is she doesn't have enough power.

Post edited on 6th Jun 2021, 10:00am
>> No. 1372 [Edit]
>>1370
>being white isn't something you need a classification for, after all, Europeans have been observing that they have lighter skin than people from other places since antiquity.

Categorising Race is nothing new. You say that Europeans have been observing lighter skin tones than others since antiquity but remember, Europeans don't all have the same skin tone. Much of the time this observing was actually a Greek or Roman fellow commenting on how pale the fellows up north are.
>> No. 1373 [Edit]
>>1371
>The Upper House of the UK is superior in that it is not actually made up of politicians
even though the hereditary peers don't control a majority, there's still a lot left to be desired by a primarily appointed seat. for one, Lords aren't dismissed as often as MPs, creating a far lower level of accountability and competition - which is why they're always prattling on about nonsense issues none of the rest of the country cares about, if you turn on the tv.
> If the upper and lower house are both politicians then they are both subject to the same issue that any democratic body is
there's nothing wrong with a technocratic upper house, but that's decidedly not what the House of Lords is. it's largely a showroom for aristocrats and celebrities, the only people in there who have a clue about anything are the law lords.
>The British system for head of government is better as well. It means that you don't end up with a Donald Trump, riling up the masses and appealing to the lowest common denominator and then forcing the party to accept that sate of affairs and live with it or die. It's what has killed the republican party
The British executive branch is complex to keep track of and subject to immense change - I would say that ever since the union of England and Scotland we couldn't clearly point to a singular executive office holder. in the early 1700s, the monarch was still theoretically supreme, but the Bill of Rights and the precedent set by the Commonwealth suggested that there was really more of a doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, and it was well understood that parliament could, if it felt like, exercise executive power. then in the latter half of the 1700s and early 1800s, executive power drained further from the monarch as the right to crown land was ceded also to parliament, and around this time too the practice of the "First Minister" started, beginning a precedent that would share more and more executive power with this office. By the Victorian Age and the latter 1800s, ministers of the crown had separated somewhat from their parliamentary peers, forming the Privy Council. the Privy Council is probably the closest thing Britain has ever had to the executive powers of the United States, in fact since it also included for a time the powers that would later be given to the House of Lords and then the Supreme Court, it could be said to be even more powerful. here the precedent was set that the monarch exercised her powers with the advice of her Council only. power continued to solidify more and more in the hands of the Cabinet on the Privy Council until the first world war, when the real sleight-of-hand occured, as it were. here the government seized unprecedented emergency powers, and in order to exercise them freely, the Privy Council now operated much more independently from the monarch, and much more under the direction of the Prime Minister. sometime between then and the end of WW2, the Privy Council was phased out, but the executive powers remained properly in the hands of the Cabinet, and the wars had established the Prime Minister's position as head of that hierarchy. where before the Privy Council merely advised the Queen on how to use her powers, now "advice" means that she is legally obligated to use her powers as advised, when advised. So all in all I'd say that the Glorious Revolution inadvertantly abolished the effective power of the monarchy. As for the Republican party, well, the Founding Father's intentions, at least as I understand it, was that the office of the Presidency would not be reliant on parties. the party system generally is a bit of a perversion of the Anglo-Saxon principles of government. Having said that, I'm not sure if the defeat of the Republicans is necessarily all bad, it may lead to the rise of a more suitable alternative to the Democrats.
>Britain is the home of the Mall... Well the real mall, the good kind of mall, some German or other invented the US kind(and he regretted doing so). The British consumer culture was perfectly healthy. Any issue was more to do with the fact the the US was so large and the economy could expand so much rather than any problem with British shopping centres.
British shopping has since adopted the US model, since it is more efficient. healthy consumer culture is a whole different matter, but I think that has more to do with the human response to more efficiency - something the Brits will know all about from their experience with smog. the cost of building factories within reach of commuting workers was that industrial cities across the country were caked in black, a lot of it had to be physically cleansed under Atlee.
>Having a Lizard Queen is good, the only problem is she doesn't have enough power.
this statement feels like it belies a particular kind of person. if my guess it right, then I'd like to point out that the last time a Monarch tried to truly put their weight behind something was when Queen Victoria supported the Chartist movement.
>>1372
>You say that Europeans have been observing lighter skin tones than others since antiquity but remember, Europeans don't all have the same skin tone. Much of the time this observing was actually a Greek or Roman fellow commenting on how pale the fellows up north are.
therein partially lies the stupidity of "anti-dnc" posters, yes. it's obvious to anyone that there are many, many competing definitions of "white", and that there are fairly few clear distinctions.
>> No. 1374 [Edit]
>>1373
>which is why they're always prattling on about nonsense issues none of the rest of the country cares about

That's actually a good thing and was my point, they are willing to bring things up that the average people don't care about.

>the only people in there who have a clue about anything are the law lords.

So it's no different than the lower house either, or politicians in general.

>British shopping has since adopted the US model, since it is more efficient

It's more efficient at covering a nation in cheap and soulless monoliths of franchisees surrounded by car parks.

>something the Brits will know all about from their experience with smog. the cost of building factories within reach of commuting workers was that industrial cities across the country were caked in black, a lot of it had to be physically cleansed under Atlee.

That's nothing to do with malls, that's just how industry was done back then and it was actually efficient. It is a good metaphor for American malls though, a Smog covering the country in soot.

>I'd like to point out that the last time a Monarch tried to truly put their weight behind something was when Queen Victoria supported the Chartist movement.

Because she knows if she actually did try to put her weight behind anything she would be removed. Whilst yes, theoretically she has the power, the moment she actually tries to use it in any serious way will be her downfall.

>therein partially lies the stupidity of "anti-dnc" posters, yes. it's obvious to anyone that there are many, many competing definitions of "white", and that there are fairly few clear distinctions.

I don't know what an anti-dnc poster is but while there may be many ideas on what white actually is the common denominator is that they are referring to people that are white(heh). Pretty much everybody agrees that the fair skinned Europeans(the white skinned Europeans) are white aside from maybe some that don't include Slavs(personally I kind of lean towards not including them). The British not being white meme seems to be more of a /pol/ thing. I guarantee you that if you ask the average man on the street if the British are white they will say yes. Well maybe not but if they say no it will be to do with immigrants or something not because of Celtish blood or rainy weather or whatever makes /pol/ think they are not.

Post edited on 7th Jun 2021, 5:31am
>> No. 1375 [Edit]
>>1374
>That's actually a good thing and was my point, they are willing to bring things up that the average people don't care about.
Like animal voting rights? I've never seen them discuss things that need to be discussed at all. I couldn't find the specific example, so it's entirely possible I'm taking far too basic a view, but they certainly seem totally ineffectual.
>So it's no different than the lower house either, or politicians in general.
to a degree yes, but politicians have to at least appear to know something about what they're doing. most Lords are openly incompetent, and, as I said, this situation cannot be rectified by their removal. so if they are simply equivalent in value to lower house politicians, this seems to me a point against the particular nature of the Lords.
>It's more efficient at covering a nation in cheap and soulless monoliths of franchisees surrounded by car parks.
yes, a system of effective food distribution. oil to grease the economy - less time cooking with raw ingredients, convenience decreasing wasted time nationwide.
>That's nothing to do with malls, that's just how industry was done back then and it was actually efficient. It is a good metaphor for American malls though, a Smog covering the country in soot.
the point rather being that Britain's consumerism was a threat to public health so serious it was believed it lost them the Boer War at the time - and yes, rather more serious than obesity, my point simply being that Britain was not a healthier consumer culture than America at any point in history, nor healthier or culturally superior in any other sense either, at any point in time.
>Because she knows if she actually did try to put her weight behind anything she would be removed. Whilst yes, theoretically she has the power, the moment she actually tries to use it in any serious way will be her downfall.
yes, but your point was not that the Queen ought to use unused power, but that her powers ought to be restored, no? so therefore, the point is to demonstrate how such power, when it's last vestiges remained, was used. and I think it was used in a way you'd disapprove of, even though it was the result of the usage of the powers you'd wish to restore to the British crown.
>aside from maybe some that don't include Slavs(personally I kind of lean towards not including them).
I don't think any even remotely ordinary or normal person excludes Slavs from being white. I've certainly never heard even the slightest inkling of such an idea outside of /pol/, or pretty old history.
>Well maybe not but if they say no it will be to do with immigrants or something
the only cities in the whole country that are majority nonwhite are London and Slough. and London only counts if you exclude miscellaneous whites. I know you didn't say that, but it's not stated enough to Americans who just sort of assume that the UK is less white than the US.
>> No. 1376 [Edit]
>>1375
Well female circumcision was one of the issues the house of lords tackled that the lower house would have shied away from.

>to a degree yes, but politicians have to at least appear to know something about what they're doing.

They really don't.

>so if they are simply equivalent in value to lower house politicians

Even if that was true, as you say they are willing to bring up 'nonsense' that would have others removed, that is important. As they are not appointed through standard political processes and they are harder to remove as you also say, they are more independently minded too.

>yes, a system of effective food distribution. oil to grease the economy - less time cooking with raw ingredients, convenience decreasing wasted time nationwide.

What do you mean raw ingredients? You know that a butcher is a thing. Or are you referring to fast food which is just ludicrous. Fast food is garbage and most people don't eat it all the time anyway. Plus corner shops are a thing.

>the point rather being that Britain's consumerism was a threat to public health so serious it was believed it lost them the Boer War at the time - and yes, rather more serious than obesity,

Standards at the time and knowledge of the impacts were of course different back then, the context as a whole was completely different. Not so now. You know that the average height of the united states is shrinking now? Like what happened in the industrial revolution. Only as I said, times were different back then.

>my point simply being that Britain was not a healthier consumer culture than America at any point in history, nor healthier or culturally superior in any other sense either, at any point in time.

Well the industrial revolution started in Britain and Britain is of course much smaller than the US so industrial zones were going to be closer to human habitation and times were different.

I would be careful though, not healthier? Who is more obese now and who actually has proper healthcare? Culture is a broad and difficult idea to tackle, I would say the Britain is culturally superior in most ways though.

>yes, but your point was not that the Queen ought to use unused power, but that her powers ought to be restored, no?

No, I simply said she should have more power. If one has the power to do x but the moment one does x one is removed from office and whatever action was done to x was repealed once one was gone, then one does not have the power to do x now does one?

Post edited on 7th Jun 2021, 7:53pm
>> No. 1389 [Edit]
>>1376
>Well female circumcision was one of the issues the house of lords tackled that the lower house would have shied away from.
I don't really care about obscure feminist issues tbh, I don't see why circumcision (how would that even effect women?) needed to be brought before a branch of government.
>as you say they are willing to bring up 'nonsense' that would have others removed, that is important. As they are not appointed through standard political processes and they are harder to remove as you also say, they are more independently minded too.
independent-mindedness is a tradeoff with accountability. maximum accountability at this level of government (that is, not decentralized) are referendums - point being if we left something as important as Brexit up to the House of Lords, they'd apply that same weird religious (they have bishops and shit there lmao) and feminist (as you pointed out with the weird circumcision thingy) thinking, and would certainly keep the country under tyranny.
> Who is more obese now and who actually has proper healthcare?
The US has proper healthcare, mate, it's way better quality than the fucking joke of an NHS lol
>Culture is a broad and difficult idea to tackle, I would say the Britain is culturally superior in most ways though.
that's absurd. what even is their culture apart from cold, grey depressing rain upon the heads of hoodie-wearing yobbos and thugs going about getting shitface drunk at pubs and threatening people? there's nothing on that horrid, disgusting little island of any worth whatsoever.
>If one has the power to do x but the moment one does x one is removed from office and whatever action was done to x was repealed once one was gone, then one does not have the power to do x now does one?
reversing that would amount to a restoration of power, like I was saying.
what a weird argumennt. are you British or just some weird Teaboo? I wake up every morning and thank everything around me that I wasn't born British, truly it is the worst country on the planet.
>> No. 1392 [Edit]
>>1389
>how would that even effect women?
They cut the clitoris off.
>what even is their culture
Agatha Christie wrote some good books. Mary Shelley. Technically Bram Stoker and Oscar Wilde too. Purcell. They have some nice architecture too.

Post edited on 22nd Jun 2021, 7:54am
>> No. 1393 [Edit]
>>1389
They remove the clitoris which also makes it cause pain every time a woman does so much as pee. The Idea is to remove the ability to feel pleasure from s*x so therefore a woman won't cheat on her husband. So yes, it really did need to be brought up by somebody and it's not just some 'feminist' issue.

>independent-mindedness is a tradeoff with accountability.

Accountability to who? The ignorant plebs? They will only be angry about what the media tells them to be angry about and even that is not always enough if other parts of the media contests that cause a large enough portion of society to think what the politician did was okay or that he never did it. Ahh wait, sorry. I know very well who politicians are accountable too. Big business and the media.

>maximum accountability at this level of government (that is, not decentralized) are referendums - point being if we left something as important as Brexit up to the House of Lords, they'd apply that same weird religious (they have bishops and shit there lmao) and feminist (as you pointed out with the weird circumcision thingy) thinking, and would certainly keep the country under tyranny.

It's hardly feminist logic as I explained and the fact that they are Bishops does not matter.

>The US has proper healthcare, mate, it's way better quality than the fucking joke of an NHS lol

Really? So all healthcare is free? All surgery is free? Well they are still obese, have shorter life expectancies, some of the highest rates of Child mortality in the developed world and other issues.

>that's absurd. what even is their culture

Well they have thousands of years of history that has created many artists, scholars, writers historical institutions and buildings. It's a broad topic as I said but you mention hoodie wearing yobbos, it's funny you should say that as really that is an American thing and those doing it in Britain are inspired by American culture, after all who is it that one actually sees in hoodies all the time and where is it that things like rap music and that lifestyle come from? That actually supports my argument because that is what America is exporting and that is what is ruining the world. American culture is the destruction of culture.

>what a weird argumennt. are you British or just some weird Teaboo? I wake up every morning and thank everything around me that I wasn't born British, truly it is the worst country on the planet.

I'm not British or American. If I had the money I would probably move to Britain though.
>> No. 1395 [Edit]
>>1392
>They cut the clitoris off.
I neither know nor care what a "clitoris" is.
>Agatha Christie wrote some good books
mostly Conan Doyle ripoffs.
>Mary Shelley
I highly doubt you've read any of her work besides Frankenstein. Frankenstein is important to the later development of speculative fiction, no doubt, but you can see some far finer examples of that from authors with much better bodies of work beside, such as H.G Wells.
> Technically Bram Stoker and Oscar Wilde too.
I don't know about that, Stoker was in favour of home rule and Wilde a Socialist, which, although neither were particularly opposed to the union, does suggest a pretty independent Irish spirit to me - that is to say, they give me the distinct impression that they saw themselves as Irish more than British.
>Purcell. They have some nice architecture too.
I can't say I'm at all a fan of Purcell's opera. only the French came close in my estimation to the first masters of opera in the Italians, and their successors in the Germans (well - perhaps THE German, one might say). it is just opinion on my part for most of these artists though. in terms of architecture I can agree where their neogothic works are on show, though that's hardly "British" more than "European", and many of the neogothic examplars such as the houses of parliament were only barely saved from a fate of neoclassicism, a style which sadly seems more prevalent on their putrid little rock, utterly ruining that most odious and revolting of cities, Bath, in particular.
>>1393
>They remove the clitoris which also makes it cause pain every time a woman does so much as pee.
well, I suppose that has taught me more than I ever wished to know about the subject already.
>The Idea is to remove the ability to feel pleasure from s*x so therefore a woman won't cheat on her husband. So yes, it really did need to be brought up by somebody and it's not just some 'feminist' issue.
fair enough I suppose, I still don't particularly care about it. if the British do that more for whatever reason, like the Americans do male circumcision more commonly for whatever strange reason, then it's better for reason to overcome culture, I agree.
> Ahh wait, sorry. I know very well who politicians are accountable too. Big business and the media.
which in turn makes them unaccountable to the "ignorant plebs" aforementioned - in this sense I'd much more regard the two houses as two sides of the same coin, similarly as unaccountable as the other.
>It's hardly feminist logic as I explained and the fact that they are Bishops does not matter.
the fact they are bishops means they're bringing irrational myths into the governance of the country in an official capacity, it's totally unacceptable and primitive.
>Really? So all healthcare is free? All surgery is free?
it's not free in either country. free healthcare is a fine thing, but the UK is perhaps the worst possible iteration of it (hardly surprising that such a lowly, stupid people as the British should bungle it so badly, I suppose) - the German system, to keep it just within Europe, has innumerable advantages from federalising the system, and Scotland has it's own organization within the NHS that outdoes it's English leash-holder by leaps and bounds. at any rate, any healthcare system, including the American one, can easily be said to surpass the utter farce that blights Britain.
>Well they have thousands of years of history that has created many artists, scholars, writers historical institutions and buildings.
all of it replaced by Norman and Saxon invaders, setting the clock back a bit further. the French, Germans and Italians consequently have always been light-years ahead of their simple-minded counterparts on the barren island of the north sea.
> it's funny you should say that as really that is an American thing and those doing it in Britain are inspired by American culture
but despite taking an American mask, these people are acting in a long tradition in Britain. they inherited their role from the gangsters of the early 20th century that invented the Glasgow smile, who were descendants of the vast, sprawling and unchallenged criminal underground that Dickens and Henry Fielding wrote so much on, the largest in Europe at the time.
>I'm not British or American. If I had the money I would probably move to Britain though.
I didn't say you were American. I wish you luck in your efforts to move to Britain though, even if they'll massively mistreat you there.
>> No. 1402 [Edit]
>>1395
The British Don't do it, it's an African/Muslim thing.

>which in turn makes them unaccountable to the "ignorant plebs" aforementioned -

The plebs that are brainwashed by the media which is my point.

>in this sense I'd much more regard the two houses as two sides of the same coin, similarly as unaccountable as the other.

Well then it's not a trade off between independence and accountability then is it? Seeing that you admit they are both as unaccountable as each other.

>the fact they are bishops means they're bringing irrational myths into the governance of the country in an official capacity, it's totally unacceptable and primitive.

Are they though? And are no American politicians ever bringing religion into governance?

>it's not free in either country.

Well in Britain it is.

>all of it replaced by Norman and Saxon invaders, setting the clock back a bit further. the French, Germans and Italians consequently have always been light-years ahead of their simple-minded counterparts on the barren island of the north sea.

Where do you think the Normans and the Saxons came from... I would also remind you just where exactly it was that the industrial revelation was started, who exactly discovered gravity and who it was the coined the term dinosaur and laid the ground work for the theory of evolution and who had the tallest building in the world for a quite substantial period of time. Yes I am sure the Continentals were light years ahead of that... Now I don't dismiss them but to say that they were light years ahead and that the British were simple minded is just ludicrous and belays one having even a basic knowledge of the field. I think barren is unfair too, after all as you keep going on about, it's far too rainy to be barren.

>but despite taking an American mask, these people are acting in a long tradition in Britain. they inherited their role from the gangsters of the early 20th century that invented the Glasgow smile, who were descendants of the vast, sprawling and unchallenged criminal underground that Dickens and Henry Fielding wrote so much on, the largest in Europe at the time.

London was the largest city in Europe at the time(I think it may have even been largest in the world) and the most industrialised so it makes sense it would have the largest crime network. But even they were more cultured than the Americans and their street youth culture and the American street youth culture is not just restricted to the criminal underground, it's American pop culture now as well.
>> No. 1403 [Edit]
>>1395
>I neither know nor care what a "clitoris" is
Are you not a heterosexual man?
>but you can see some far finer examples
I'm only arguing that Britain HAS a culture with some significance and tangible achievements. Never said it's the greatest on Earth.
>a fate of neoclassicism
I'd take neoclassicism over Brutalism at least.
>> No. 1404 [Edit]
>>1402
>The plebs that are brainwashed by the media which is my point.
if they were brainwashed by the media they wouldn't have voted for Brexit, the whole media was against that.
>Well then it's not a trade off between independence and accountability then is it? Seeing that you admit they are both as unaccountable as each other.
the lower house is independent insofar as "corporate voters" in the form of donations can outvote any normal voter. I think that there is a greater accountability to be had at the expense of this existing independence for the lower house also.
>Are they though? And are no American politicians ever bringing religion into governance?
at least Americans don't do so in an official capacity. Christians are luckily a much weaker force in Britbongistan these days, but they still have their grip and aren't gone yet.
> I would also remind you just where exactly it was that the industrial revelation was started, who exactly discovered gravity and who it was the coined the term dinosaur and laid the ground work for the theory of evolution and who had the tallest building in the world for a quite substantial period of time.
those are piddling, meager efforts of an inferior people compared to what literally any other nation has acheived.
>>1403
>Are you not a heterosexual man?
no, but a clitoris (as I have since researched) is a feature of 3D women, and as a heterosexual man I am obviously only attracted to 2D women. 3D women are the exclusive province of the most homosexual of men.
>I'm only arguing that Britain HAS a culture with some significance and tangible achievements. Never said it's the greatest on Earth.
a middling Victorian culture means nothing if it has no descendants, and it doesn't. Brits today have nothing at all to do with the authors we named, they only know Pub and Greggs, Simple As.
>> No. 1407 [Edit]
File 162448593879.png - (472.86KB , 992x766 , 70a878722108125b5b8ef01608530361.png )
1407
>>1404
>a clitoris is a feature of 3D women
>literally any other nation
..........
>> No. 1408 [Edit]
>>1404
>those are piddling, meager efforts of an inferior people compared to what literally any other nation has acheived.

I'm going to stop now. I don't really see a point in continuing this if you are going to continue saying ridiculous things like that. Clearly what you are saying has no basis in reality.
>> No. 1409 [Edit]
>>1408
>I'm going to stop now. I don't really see a point in continuing this if you are going to continue saying ridiculous things like that. Clearly what you are saying has no basis in reality.
I was gonna drop the reveal and post a timestamp with the guy down the street's union jack from his backyard flying in the background, but he put up his fucking wiltshire flag this week, so that's ruined.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]