University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression

[europa arise]

University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression

by Katherine Timpf May 12, 2015

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/33319class_front.jpg

Apparently, just being in certain rooms is a microaggression.

According to a new report released by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, just “walking into or sitting in” a classroom full of white people is a microaggression in itself.

“Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color, or one of a few,” stated the report, which designated the experience a microaggression.

“People do not necessarily say I do not belong, but I feel as if I do not when I am in a classroom and I am the one non-White person,” said one student, identified as a Latina female, who is quoted in the report.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418273/university-report-room-full-white-people-microaggression-katherine-timpf

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Simply existing as a straight white male is offensive to these cretins.

"Racist" is a a synonym for "white". Gee, I wonder what that makes an anti-racist?

[UWDude]

wow, people on the internet say dumb things. You can always find someone saying something dumb, chastise them for it, declare it a national emergency, and stake your reason for existing on the stupid comments, but they are still a very small minority of opinion. I see feminists and masculinists do this all the time. It's so dumb.

[europa arise]

wow, people on the internet say dumb things. You can always find someone saying something dumb, chastise them for it, declare it a national emergency, and stake your reason for existing on the stupid comments, but they are still a very small minority of opinion. I see feminists and masculinists do this all the time. It's so dumb.

Not random people on the internet sayings dumb things but the University of Illinois Racial Microaggressions Project. There is quit a few things that could be discussed but not by you of course. The Racial Microaggressions theory, University stupidity, our tax dollars at work, targeting a specific racial group in this case all Whites, the project/theory is arguing that the races are incapable of getting along and probably a few other things that could be discussed but not by you of course.

University of Illinois Racial Microaggressions Project
http://www.racialmicroaggressions.illinois.edu/files/2015/03/RMA-Classroom-Report.pdf

Racial microaggressions wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life, Implications for Clinical Practice -From Columbia University
Because White therapists are members of the larger society and not immune from inheriting the racial biases of their forebears, they may become victims of a cultural conditioning process that imbues within them biases and prejudices that discriminate against clients of color.
http://www.nwpublicemployeesdiversityconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RacialMicroaggressions.pdf

Students See Many Slights as Racial ‘Microaggressions’ - NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html?_r=0

[acptulsa]

Not random people on the internet sayings dumb things but the University of Illinois Racial Microaggressions Project.

Can't tell the one from the other without a program.

And I don't care for a program. If the majority of the people of Illinois want to pay random people to say dumb things on the internet, well, that's why I don't live in Illinois.

[HankRicther12]

(mod edit).

I would say you need to look into the topic more. If you don't honestly see how Straight, White, (Christian) Males are under attack in Western Society you are just blind. Sure, this particular article might not be making huge headlines but are you saying you miss all these things with bakers and florists? The Duke Rape Case, this recent Rolling Stone fiasco?

It is crazy to me how so many RP supporters, libertarians, anarchists, etc see clearly the leftist-marxism on the economic front yet completely ignore it on the social front, and if you even try to bring it their attention they immediately whip out the same ole Alinsky tactics to try and shut down any conversation about it.

[acptulsa]

It is crazy to me how so many RP supporters, libertarians, anarchists, etc see clearly the leftist-marxism on the economic front yet completely ignore it on the social front, and if you even try to bring it their attention they immediately whip out the same ole Alinsky tactics to try and shut down any conversation about it.

Oh, is that what we do?

Or maybe we point out the stupidity behind racism as quickly, readily and skillfully as we point out the stupidity behind reverse racism, thus leaving the old school racists smarting just as much as the new school reverse racists. And both sides so disappointed that we don't buy their bull that they all accuse us of being best buds with the other extremists.

Alinsky tactics? Better than Bushisms. Like your claim that we're 'either with you or we're with the turrists.'

So, why does your quote balloon say 'mod edit' when no mod has edited anything in this thread to date?

But do rave on. The day we're not taking fire from the extremists on both ends of this topic will be the day we start worrying that we're doing it wrong.

[euphemia]

This just drives me crazy. American society in general has no idea of actual suffering. And it just goes to show you that people who fight so-called discrimination are not solving the problem. The whole culture of college and university has turned into a giant therapy session.

[presence]

White people should be limited to gathering in groups of no more than 7. More than that is really uncalled for and clearly racist.

[HankRicther12]

Oh, is that what we do?

Or maybe we point out the stupidity behind racism as quickly, readily and skillfully as we point out the stupidity behind reverse racism, thus leaving the old school racists smarting just as much as the new school reverse racists. And both sides so disappointed that we don't buy their bull that they all accuse us of being best buds with the other extremists.

Alinsky tactics? Better than Bushisms. Like your claim that we're 'either with you or we're with the turrists.'

So, why does your quote balloon say 'mod edit' when no mod has edited anything in this thread to date?

But do rave on. The day we're not taking fire from the extremists on both ends of this topic will be the day we start worrying that we're doing it wrong.

"Quote balloon"? "Mod Edit", not sure why that happened so can't answer your question, ask the mod who did it, all I did was quote the person and responded. As for the rest of your babble, you just proved my point, you provide no evidence, just cry "racist", but no, you're not using Alinsky tactics at all, my mistake.

[acptulsa]

"Quote balloon"? "Mod Edit", not sure why that happened so can't answer your question, ask the mod who did it, all I did was quote the person and responded.

Nonsense. Mod edits never remove the identity of the person quoted, and if a mod edits the quote, he or she edits the post itself (and notes the fact) by longstanding forum policy. I saw that post within two minutes of 8:19, and that is how it looked, though no mod had had time to notice it, much less edit it. And here you are still refusing to even say who you quoted. What is the name of this game?


As for the rest of your babble, you just proved my point, you provide no evidence, just cry "racist", but no, you're not using Alinsky tactics at all, my mistake.

Uh huh.

I ranted absolutely equally about racists and reverse racists throughout my post. You mischaracterized it as a rant about racists only. So, who's using Saul Alinsky's playbook again?


“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.

[HankRicther12]

Nonsense. Mod edits never remove the identity of the person quoted, and if a mod edits the quote, he or she edits the post itself (and notes the fact) by longstanding forum policy. I saw that post within two minutes of 8:19, and that is how it looked, though no mod had had time to notice it, much less edit it. And here you are still refusing to even say who you quoted. What is the name of this game?



Uh huh.

I ranted absolutely equally about racists and reverse racists throughout my post. You mischaracterized it as a rant about racists only. So, who's using Saul Alinsky's playbook again?

There is no such thing as reverse racism, there is only racism.

As for the quote thing I didn't even know about it till you mentioned it, I don't know who did it or why, I am however baffled as to why you think I did it or what exactly would be my reason for doing so???? I quoted UWDude, here is the quote:


wow, people on the internet say dumb things. You can always find someone saying something dumb, chastise them for it, declare it a national emergency, and stake your reason for existing on the stupid comments, but they are still a very small minority of opinion. I see feminists and masculinists do this all the time. It's so dumb.

[acptulsa]

There is no such thing as reverse racism, there is only racism.

Ah, but it has so many factions, and every faction categorically refuses to admit they've anything at all in common with the other factions.

And in between the racists and the reverse racists is a whole, huge, sane middle. And in the middle of that middle ground is libertarianism, which takes as self evident that all individuals are sovereign and created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the same inalienable rights.

[juleswin]

God knows that I will feel very uncomfortable if I walked into a room and everybody were staring at me like the pic in the OP. But seriously, this is just the type of race baiting article you expect from the nationalreview. People do feel uncomfortable when walking into a room filled with X others. I feel uncomfortable walked into a room filled with women, midgets, albinos, nuns etc etc. Level of comfort is relative and when asked a question if they felt uncomfortable to that question, the answer will likely be yes for most people walking into a room filled with X others.

Also, I bet most of these students understands it is normal part of life and they themselves are not labeling it as micro aggression or asking for university to change the racial demographic of the college to make them feel comfortable. The author used the honest answers from students and over reaction from the person who wrote the report to paint this stark picture of darkies trying to oppress the white man by whining to school admin. This reminds me a lot of the sexual experience questionnaire collected from female students giving honest answers which was later used to by some feminist organization to claim rampant rape on campus. Just like in that example, the female students are not the ones complaining, it is the organizations using the data to jump to conclusions which majority of the students did not believe.

I really do not think this is an issue anyone should worry themselves about.Students feeling uncomfortable in unfamiliar environment is not a new phenomena, micro aggression is a stupid fad that will go away the day tumblr becomes irrelevant. I really hate race baity articles like these because they make a mountain out of a mole hill and they bring out the storm front brigade to RPF.

[euphemia]

People who are blancophobes, Europhopes, or caucasophobes (whatever) should consider opting for online courses. With the proper technology, it is possible to obtain a degree without ever seeing a white person.

This whole white fright thing is just ridiculous. I use a minority-owned business every month. I am often the only white (since we are talking about skin color) person in the place, but they do good work and serve my needs well, so I keep using them.

We have black friends and attend their weddings and family funerals.

What people do not understand, and what the race-baiters want to make sure they don't understand, is that relationships go beyond the color of someone's skin. Shallow thinking looks at the skin color. Connection happens on a deeper level.

[Valli6]

Well! Pardon me for living, quite literally! :rolleyes:

[HankRicther12]

which takes as self evident that all individuals are sovereign and created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the same inalienable rights.

By all means, show me where I ever said otherwise.......BTW, how many times do you think you say the word "racist" in a day, do you even know what it means? How about we do a drinking game with it, we'd all be chronic alcoholics.

[HankRicther12]

God knows that I will feel very uncomfortable if I walked into a room and everybody were staring at me like the pic in the OP. But seriously, this is just the type of race baiting article you expect from the nationalreview. People do feel uncomfortable when walking into a room filled with X others. I feel uncomfortable walked into a room filled with women, midgets, albinos, nuns etc etc. Level of comfort is relative and when asked a question if they felt uncomfortable to that question, the answer will likely be yes for most people walking into a room filled with X others.

Also, I bet most of these students understands it is normal part of life and they themselves are not labeling it as micro aggression or asking for university to change the racial demographic of the college to make them feel comfortable. The author used the honest answers from students and over reaction from the person who wrote the report to paint this stark picture of darkies trying to oppress the white man by whining to school admin. This reminds me a lot of the sexual experience questionnaire collected from female students giving honest answers which was later used to by some feminist organization to claim rampant rape on campus. Just like in that example, the female students are not the ones complaining, it is the organizations using the data to jump to conclusions which majority of the students did not believe.

I really do not think this is an issue anyone should worry themselves about.Students feeling uncomfortable in unfamiliar environment is not a new phenomena, micro aggression is a stupid fad that will go away the day tumblr becomes irrelevant. I really hate race baity articles like these because they make a mountain out of a mole hill and they bring out the storm front brigade to RPF.

OK, very honest answer and I agree with you about someone being uncomfortable if they walk into a room filled X others, but if you are a white person I would challenge you to say what you just said to a bunch of lefties, watch the reaction.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

look at all those menacing white people in that crappy stock photo just getting ready to pull out the chains and whips

[HankRicther12]

People who are blancophobes, Europhopes, or caucasophobes (whatever) should consider opting for online courses. With the proper technology, it is possible to obtain a degree without ever seeing a white person.

This whole white fright thing is just ridiculous. I use a minority-owned business every month. I am often the only white (since we are talking about skin color) person in the place, but they do good work and serve my needs well, so I keep using them.

We have black friends and attend their weddings and family funerals.

What people do not understand, and what the race-baiters want to make sure they don't understand, is that relationships go beyond the color of someone's skin. Shallow thinking looks at the skin color. Connection happens on a deeper level.

Most everyone feels a natural affinity to their race, it's not bad and no one is saying that means you can't have meaningful personal and or business relationships with people who don't share your skin color, but to continue to believe in this notion that race doesn't exist is foolhardy.

If a black man and an Asian man are watching an MMA match, and one of the fighters is black, one Asian, and all things being equal ie they don't know either of the fighters, I can guarantee you 99% of the time inside their head the black guy will be rooting for the black fighter, the Asian guy the Asian fighter.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

a quick google search reveals this "journalist" is a comedian, just look at the rest of her articles: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/katherine-timpf they're from the onion. Headlines like: Petition: ‘Walk Only’ Signs in Pedestrian Areas Are Insensitive to Disabled People and Ivy League Students Launch Mock Slave Auction to Protest a Frat’s Beyonce Doll

[europa arise]

Thread: University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474937-University-Report-A-Room-Full-of-White-People-Is-a-Microaggression&p=5872555#post5872555) You guys seem to be just as obssessed about race as the Al Sharptons of this world. Rand had an interview on MSM, you are a new users, why not talk about that first before going all race baity


A UWDude (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?26268-UWDude) post was deleted and my quoted response was also deleted so HankRicther12 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?62546-HankRicther12) post could have been edited by a mod.

In my deleted post I talked about my four threads I started. Yes two have racial implications, this one which I thought Libertarians would be interested in because of the psychological warfare and race baiting (and others issues I mention above) by the social engineers but I realize that simply pointing this out is somehow race baiting in and of its self according to Libertarians. Interesting. The second post is about the totalitarian government of Sweden's design to transform it's capital which will negatively affect the Indigenous people of Sweden and most likely collapse the entire country. Completely out of control and hostile governments isn't a Libertarian interest I guess. The third is about the proposal to ban free speech in the UK, kinda self explanatory or is it? The forth was about March Against Monsanto which I see as consumers standing up for themselves and trying to educate the public or perhaps you see that post as me being a tyrannical anti-capitalists race baiter.

So yes race is part of the conversation if you like it or not, going all ostrich on us won't make it go away but things are multi layered they are not just black and White (pun intended). I was interested in talking to Libertarians about the total picture of things (big picture and small picture) including out of control and hostile governments. Perhaps I am on the wrong forum.

http://www.thelifecoach.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/head-in-the-sand.gif

[luctor-et-emergo]

“Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color, or one of a few,” stated the report, which designated the experience a microaggression.

I frankly feel uncomfortable around people who think this is reasonable. I feel even more uncomfortable around people who think the color of my skin is an important attribute. But the worst people are people who make this up if they would stop bringing it up racism would slowly die a silent death.

[europa arise]

I frankly feel uncomfortable around people who think this is reasonable. I feel even more uncomfortable around people who think the color of my skin is an important attribute. But the worst people are people who make this up if they would stop bringing it up racism would slowly die a silent death.

Said the White racist, according to Racial Microaggression theory.

Theme - Color blindness Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to acknowledge race.

Example 1

Microaggression - “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”

Message - Denying a person of color’s racial/ethnic experiences.

Example 2

Microaggression - “America is a melting pot.”

Message - Assimilate/acculturate to the dominant culture.

Example 3

Microaggression - “There is only one race, the human race.”

Message - Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being



http://www.nwpublicemployeesdiversityconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RacialMicroaggressions.pdf

[HankRicther12]

A UWDude (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?26268-UWDude) post was deleted and my quoted response was also deleted so HankRicther12 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?62546-HankRicther12) post could have been edited by a mod.

In my deleted post I talked about my four threads I started. Yes two have racial implications, this one which I thought Libertarians would be interested in because of the psychological warfare and race baiting (and others issues I mention above) by the social engineers but I relies that simply pointing this out is somehow race baiting in its self according to Libertarians. Interesting. The second post is about the totalitarian government of Sweden's design to transform it's capital which will negatively affect the Indigenous people of Sweden and most likely collapse the entire country. Completely out of control and hostile governments isn't a Libertarian interest I guess. The third is about the proposal to ban free speech in the UK, kinda self explanatory or is it? The forth was about March Against Monsanto which I see as consumers standing up for themselves and trying to educate the public or perhaps you see that post as me being an tyrannical anti-capitalists race baiter.

So yes race is part of the conversation if you like or not, going all ostrich on us won't make it go away but things are multi layered they are not just black and White (pun intended). I was interested in talking to Libertarians about the total picture of things (big picture and small picture) including out of control and hostile governments. Perhaps I am on the wrong forum.

http://www.thelifecoach.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/head-in-the-sand.gif

Well, at the same time it seems there is some confusion on what being libertarian even means. By all means, any here feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in a nutshell being a libertarian just means a belief in the NAP correct? Therefore to say libertarians must have quality "X, Y, Z" and support viewpoint "X, Y, Z" is incorrect. Now despite the accusations here, I am not a racist, but let's just say for a moment I was - I can still be a libertarian. The whole key of it all is do I keep my racism relegated to myself and my own personal space. So long as I am not hurting anyone, or forcing my ways on them, damaging property, etc I am still abiding by libertarian principles.

Frankly it is discouraging to come here and see that even amongst the "non-sheeple" you still find all this demagoguery and straw man type arguing, I'm not saying everyone here has to agree with me, not at all, but geez I figured here I could at least find some adult conversations, to ignore race and culture as an important part of most people's lives is just simply naive.

[europa arise]

Well, at the same time it seems there is some confusion on what being libertarian even means. By all means, any here feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in a nutshell being a libertarian just means a belief in the NAP correct? Therefore to say libertarians must have quality "X, Y, Z" and support viewpoint "X, Y, Z" is incorrect. Now despite the accusations here, I am not a racist, but let's just say for a moment I was - I can still be a libertarian. The whole key of it all is do I keep my racism relegated to myself and my own personal space. So long as I am not hurting anyone, or forcing my ways on them, damaging property, etc I am still abiding by libertarian principles.

That seems to be something some here have forgotten, now don't get me wrong, of course, if someone here actually is racist you can disagree with them, debate them present your argument as to why they are wrong, but to say someone isn't libertarian just because they are racist is not true. You can be racist, sexist, socialist, capitalist, anarchist, or any view you wish, it's just a matter of do you abide by the NAP, do you try to force it on others or do you put your ideas out there, and allow people to freely go along or refuse as they wish, as long as it's all voluntary it is libertarian.

Point taken.

Does the Racial Microaggression theory, Swedish government example, UK banning free speech, March against Monsanto violate NAP?

[enhanced_deficit]

University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression

by Katherine Timpf May 12, 2015

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/33319class_front.jpg

Apparently, just being in certain rooms is a microaggression.
...
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418273/university-report-room-full-white-people-microaggression-katherine-timpf


To be fair, white peoples (majority) is aggressive and love wars to spread freedom.
Hence the Barack Hussein Obama therapy session of 8 years.




Politics
September 14, 2004

Iraq Support Split Along Racial Lines

The results on these two questions look far different when analyzed by race. When asked whether it was a mistake to send troops into Iraq, three in four blacks (76%) say it was a mistake to send troops, while only one in five (20%) say it was not a mistake. In contrast, 42% of non-Hispanic whites believe it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, while a majority, 56%, believe it was not.

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/goverPubli/20040914_1.gif
A similar pattern emerges among the responses to the "worth going to war" question. Only 18% of blacks interviewed by Gallup in 2004 say it was worth going to war in Iraq, while 79% say it was not worth it. Among non-Hispanic whites, a majority (56%) say the war in Iraq was worth fighting and 42% say it was not.

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/goverPubli/20040914_2.gif


http://www.gallup.com/poll/13012/iraq-support-split-along-racial-lines.aspx

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Well, at the same time it seems there is some confusion on what being libertarian even means. By all means, any here feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in a nutshell being a libertarian just means a belief in the NAP correct? Therefore to say libertarians must have quality "X, Y, Z" and support viewpoint "X, Y, Z" is incorrect. Now despite the accusations here, I am not a racist, but let's just say for a moment I was - I can still be a libertarian. The whole key of it all is do I keep my racism relegated to myself and my own personal space. So long as I am not hurting anyone, or forcing my ways on them, damaging property, etc I am still abiding by libertarian principles.

Frankly it is discouraging to come here and see that even amongst the "non-sheeple" you still find all this demagoguery and straw man type arguing, I'm not saying everyone here has to agree with me, not at all, but geez I figured here I could at least find some adult conversations, to ignore race and culture as an important part of most people's lives is just simply naive.
You do not have to accept the NAP to be a libertarian. Milton Friedman and his son David are good examples of libertarians whose positions have nothing to do with non-aggression.

Race issues aren't simply important for libertarians, they're important for anyone who wants to understand reality. It is impossible to understand the modern West without also understanding how race plays into it.

[europa arise]

To be fair, white peoples (majority) is aggressive and love wars to spread freedom.
Hence the Barack Hussein Obama therapy session of 8 years.

So your saying race is not a social construct but that race is real and that race matters. And that White's are an aggressive race. If Whites share certain traits then do other races/population groups share unique traits as well?

So what would you propose to do about Whites aggressive nature? Separation of the race's/isolation of the White race? Oppression? Reeducation? or Extermination?

[enhanced_deficit]

So your saying race is not a social construct but that race is real and that race matters. And that White's are an aggressive race. If Whites share certain traits then do other races share unique traits as well?

So what would you propose to do about Whites aggressive nature? Seperation of the race's/isolation of the White race? Reeducation? or Extermination?

I know very little about "race" as a concept besides the general idea that it tends to be more powerful binding force than other shared tribal identities. Racial identity is probably driven from self-interest and finding natural ease in associating with those of same "kind".

It was a tongue n cheek comment, only serious point worth studying was this:

Iraq Support Split Along Racial Lines


I am not prepared to say that any "race" is aggressive by nature in a serious discussion as it is a complex phenomnon. Besides nature tends to change with change in environment.

[HankRicther12]

Point taken.

Does the Racial Microaggression theory, Swedish government example, UK banning free speech, March against Monsanto violate NAP?



Absolutely. I've been following a lot of that stuff in Sweden, it's pretty scary, I grew up with a view of Sweden mostly (inaccurately) based on the Swedish Bikini Team :), guess it's far from that now.

[HankRicther12]

To be fair, white peoples (majority) is aggressive and love wars to spread freedom.
Hence the Barack Hussein Obama therapy session of 8 years.




Politics
September 14, 2004

Iraq Support Split Along Racial Lines

The results on these two questions look far different when analyzed by race. When asked whether it was a mistake to send troops into Iraq, three in four blacks (76%) say it was a mistake to send troops, while only one in five (20%) say it was not a mistake. In contrast, 42% of non-Hispanic whites believe it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, while a majority, 56%, believe it was not.

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/goverPubli/20040914_1.gif
A similar pattern emerges among the responses to the "worth going to war" question. Only 18% of blacks interviewed by Gallup in 2004 say it was worth going to war in Iraq, while 79% say it was not worth it. Among non-Hispanic whites, a majority (56%) say the war in Iraq was worth fighting and 42% say it was not.

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/goverPubli/20040914_2.gif


http://www.gallup.com/poll/13012/iraq-support-split-along-racial-lines.aspx

But how much of that is due to partisanship rather than race? Suppose Gore had won in 2000 and invaded Iraq and it became the debacle that it did - I think you'd find much different results. I'd say this has far more to do with circling the wagons around the guy with the "R" next to his name than it does with race. If we're going to go this route why not look at violent crime stats, base it on percentage of population and tell me which race overall is more violent. Now, is that due to the race itself, or are there other factors?

[enhanced_deficit]

But how much of that is due to partisanship rather than race? Suppose Gore had won in 2000 and invaded Iraq and it became the debacle that it did - I think you'd find much different results. I'd say this has far more to do with circling the wagons around the guy with the "R" next to his name than it does with race. If we're going to go this route why not look at violent crime stats, base it on percentage of population and tell me which race overall is more violent. Now, is that due to the race itself, or are there other factors?

Could be part of the dynamic. And let me clarify that I was referring to "white Americans" primarily when making Iraq war agression light hearted comment, many white europeans have been against adventurous wars like Iraq's or even are pacifists lately.

It is probably human nature groomed by wordly self-interest that drives a group/tribe's collective behavior. If Iraq's major export was cabbage, there probably would have been no revenge attack there. If black and white majorities stood to gain/lose exactly same from that exercise and there was less of historic baggage, their views would have been same likely.

I really can't say in a general statement that xyz race is more agressive/violent than the other. With the right environment, one can probably make any group of people to do anything.

I'm very opposed to elective wars and lately tend to see many things throug that prism.. which probably does not do justice to every topic discussion. In "race" I have little interest in general.

[heavenlyboy34]

White people should be limited to gathering in groups of no more than 7. More than that is really uncalled for and clearly racist.
Could more gather if they wear blackface ala Al Jolson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaj7FNHnjQ

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't give a micro-shit.

[Natural Citizen]

“Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color...



Wait a second. Heh. So, then, white isn't a color anymore? When did that happen? I missed the announcement.

[HankRicther12]

Wait a second. Heh. So white isn't a color anymore? When did that happen? I missed the announcement.

Nope.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Wait a second. Heh. So, then, white isn't a color anymore? When did that happen? I missed the announcement.

White is a mixture of all colors in the spectrum essentially. Black reflects essentially no color light, white reflects essentially every color light.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Wait a second. Heh. So, then, white isn't a color anymore? When did that happen? I missed the announcement.
Not only that, but "people of color" is the new PC term, but "colored people" is still considered racist. Modernity is a cancer.

[europa arise]

I know very little about "race" as a concept besides the general idea that it tends to be more powerful binding force than other shared tribal identities. Racial identity is probably driven from self-interest and finding natural ease in associating with those of same "kind".

It was a tongue n cheek comment, only serious point worth studying was this:

Iraq Support Split Along Racial Lines


I am not prepared to say that any "race" is aggressive by nature in a serious discussion as it is a complex phenomnon. Besides nature tends to change with change in environment.

Nothing wrong with a little sarcasm.

My stance is that Nature and Nurture are at work. I am not a universalist, one size does not fit all. The funny thing is I find it horribly racist to assume everyone will think/act just like you do. I do not oppose the idea of people from various backgrounds organizing amongst themselves. The Free State Project for example seems to have a diverse range of people and if they can make it work then good for them. But the idea that Sweden or Japan (http://news.yahoo.com/black-miss-japan-fights-race-revolution-041830696.html) has to be forced by hostile elites to become mixed race or replaced is disturbing to me and genocidal. Somethings are not irreversible. The flipside of freedom of association is the freedom to disassociate. So I support those who wish to keep there genetics and culture intact as well as those who wish to freely associate with whom ever they choose. Get the big nasty tyrannical governments and social engineers out of the way and I think things would work themselves out.


Absolutely. I've been following a lot of that stuff in Sweden, it's pretty scary, I grew up with a view of Sweden mostly (inaccurately) based on the Swedish Bikini Team http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif, guess it's far from that now.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IIDgd6-nh7U/SEAoPzgme4I/AAAAAAAAAA4/Fj1pMv1inyg/s320/swebikini.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

White is a mixture of all colors in the spectrum essentially. Black reflects essentially no color light, white reflects essentially every color light.

Yes. White and black are called "values" in color theory and the visual arts. ("Colors" are called "hues")

[alucard13mm]

Nothing wrong with a little sarcasm.

My stance is that Nature and Nurture are at work. I am not a universalist, one size does not fit all. The funny thing is I find it horribly racist to assume everyone will think/act just like you do. I do not oppose the idea of people from various backgrounds organizing amongst themselves. The Free State Project for example seems to have a diverse range of people and if they can make it work then good for them. But the idea that Sweden or Japan (http://news.yahoo.com/black-miss-japan-fights-race-revolution-041830696.html) has to be forced by hostile elites to become mixed race or replaced is disturbing to me and genocidal. Somethings are not irreversible. The flipside of freedom of association is the freedom to disassociate. So I support those who wish to keep there genetics and culture intact as well as those who wish to freely associate with whom ever they choose. Get the big nasty tyrannical governments and social engineers out of the way and I think things would work themselves out.


They were recently pushing how diversity and multiculturism would be good for japan... lol. Using a japanese-black miss japan to push the agenda. Complaining how there weren't many black celebrities and TV personalities in Japan.

People inherently have more trust people of the same skin color and culture. It is why Chinese TV uses Chinese anchors/actors. Japanese TV uses Japanese anchors/actors. African TV uses African anchors/actors.

The world will be a dull and boring place if we all are inter-mixed and we lose all these nice, different cultures/traditions that we enjoy. I want to go to Germany to see German people and German architecture/stuff. =s...

[HankRicther12]

Nothing wrong with a little sarcasm.

My stance is that Nature and Nurture are at work. I am not a universalist, one size does not fit all. The funny thing is I find it horribly racist to assume everyone will think/act just like you do. I do not oppose the idea of people from various backgrounds organizing amongst themselves. The Free State Project for example seems to have a diverse range of people and if they can make it work then good for them. But the idea that Sweden or Japan (http://news.yahoo.com/black-miss-japan-fights-race-revolution-041830696.html) has to be forced by hostile elites to become mixed race or replaced is disturbing to me and genocidal. Somethings are not irreversible. The flipside of freedom of association is the freedom to disassociate. So I support those who wish to keep there genetics and culture intact as well as those who wish to freely associate with whom ever they choose. Get the big nasty tyrannical governments and social engineers out of the way and I think things would work themselves out.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IIDgd6-nh7U/SEAoPzgme4I/AAAAAAAAAA4/Fj1pMv1inyg/s320/swebikini.jpg

OH WOW, takes me back, love the pic and your statement, I'd up vote ya but....:rolleyes:




People inherently have more trust people of the same skin color and culture. It is why Chinese TV uses Chinese anchors/actors. Japanese TV uses Japanese anchors/actors. African TV uses African anchors/actors.

The world will be a dull and boring place if we all are inter-mixed and we lose all these nice, different cultures/traditions that we enjoy. I want to go to Germany to see German people and German architecture/stuff. =s...

Like your whole post but that last comment, nail on the head. To me "diversity" is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard and I can't believe how so many have bought into this nonsense, it is completely contradictory and self-destructive, like most leftists/marxist ideas.

[JustinTime]

It is crazy to me how so many RP supporters, libertarians, anarchists, etc see clearly the leftist-marxism on the economic front yet completely ignore it on the social front,

This is one of the main reasons liberty has lost to government power more often than not for decades, and its why Cultural Marxism exists in the first place. Change the culture, destroy all groups that have traditionally been dominate or simply the majority.

[HankRicther12]

This is one of the main reasons liberty has lost to government power more often than not for decades, and its why Cultural Marxism exists in the first place. Change the culture, destroy all groups that have traditionally been dominate or simply the majority.

Exactly. Funny thing is, I'm not even Christian myself but I grew up in America in a small town that is mostly Christian, and every year at Christmas there were always all these things our town did - tree lighting, prayers, songs, etc, and all of it was organized, paid for by the local churches, and yes, GASP, SHOCK, we always had a manger scene at the town hall.....till about 8yrs ago when suddenly these fanatical atheists started popping up everywhere and one moved into our town, made a big fuss (along with many people who didn't even live there) and it's like what could we do? It's just stupid, I mean, I never saw it as them forcing me to believe what they did, it's Christmas for Pete's sakes, that manger scene had been up there every year since the towns founding, the ceremony was fun, everyone loved it, yet it all had to stop because apparently it was bothering this person.

[rpfocus]

In my deleted post I talked about my four threads I started. Yes two have racial implications, this one which I thought Libertarians would be interested in because of the psychological warfare and race baiting

Oh don't worry, we're quite aware of the "new" accounts that are suddenly appearing, creating race-bait threads or going straight to them right off the bat. After all, how else would bullshit rep be spread around? Just ask the guy who is nearly maxxed out after a few months.

[europa arise]

Oh don't worry, we're quite aware of the "new" accounts that are suddenly appearing, creating race-bait threads or going straight to them right off the bat. After all, how else would bullshit rep be spread around? Just ask the guy who is nearly maxxed out after a few months.

You are the second jackass to accuse me of being a sock puppet lol. Are the moderators incapable of figuring out who is or isn't a sock or do the mods like sock accounts? I was on another Forum and someone posted Lets start a Libertarian Group thread in response to someone else's Lets start a Progressive (aka SJW) Group thread. I was for the most part able to have rational discussions with them (I did tease them on occasion) even if we disagreed on somethings. I have also been watching alot of Ron Paul video's lately (I missed the RP revolution of 2007/8 and was presented with Tea Parties instead around 2010) and other vids/websites like FSP, Free Talk Live and Attack the System. My main disagreement is that not all people are rootless and hyper-individualists like you.

I am sick of arguing with SJW retards and general trolls (on the other forum) and while I obviously see race as an issue things are more complicated then that, I kinda already explained this. I figured the Liberty loving types might have an interesting perspective and things to say and be capable of discussing things from different angles. And seriously how is pointing out the ridiculousness of the Racial Microaggressions Project and theory considered race-baiting? ButRacial Microaggressions Project/theory is not race baiting/waste of tax dollars/social engineering/White guilt tripping/....? That is so weird. Anyways go ahead and attack the messenger (and accuse him of being a sock) instead of the message or stick just your head in the sand (http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef015391c79429970b-800wi) like a good little ostrage.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It is rather amusing that people think I have multiple accounts. Think that if you want. I am everywhere, all the time and behind everything! The vast right wing pro-white conspiracy!

Seriously though, I have no other accounts on RPF. Get a mod to check my IP address and compare it against anyone else's. Also, I'll post a pic of my rep history. I do get rep from the more rightist contingent on here, but that's not where most of it comes from.

I told you guys that more people with reactionary leanings would be coming to this site. Believe it's all me if you like, but that'll become a pretty absurd thing to think a year from now.

[Anti Federalist]

Not only that, but "people of color" is the new PC term, but "colored people" is still considered racist. Modernity is a cancer.

http://i.imgur.com/4y4YTOq.jpg

[europa arise]

It is rather amusing that people think I have multiple accounts. Think that if you want. I am everywhere, all the time and behind everything! The vast right wing pro-white conspiracy!

Seriously though, I have no other accounts on RPF. Get a mod to check my IP address and compare it against anyone else's. Also, I'll post a pic of my rep history. I do get rep from the more rightist contingent on here, but that's not where most of it comes from.

I told you guys that more people with reactionary leanings would be coming to this site. Believe it's all me if you like, but that'll become a pretty absurd thing to think a year from now.

Listening to Keith Preston (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PhmYbjBLJ8) from Attack The System (and even M.K Lords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJW7hI-tXvk) from ATS) (and like I said I was watching in amazement the old RP video's) who is able to see things from all angles made me think that this site would have alot of people who were capable of having those type of discussions. Being able to break things down from a Historical, Economic, Political, Social and yes even a Racial perspectives is quit appealing. I am not necessarily good at it but being able to pick things apart (small picture's) as well as being able to see the big picture is something I at least try to do. Are these people trolls? Or just "race doesn't exist and if you even say the word race then you are a racist" ? They don't seem to be SJW's but they do kinda use similar tactics.

EDIT: What is a Paleo Libertarian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?60921-ThePaleoLibertarian) ?

Ever listen/read Dugin, Red Ice Radio, Horus, Counter Currents?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Listening to Keith Preston (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PhmYbjBLJ8) from Attack The System (and even M.K Lords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJW7hI-tXvk) from ATS) (and like I said I was watching in amazement the old RP video's) who is able to see things from all angles made me think that this site would have alot of people who were capable of having those type of discussions. Being able to break things down from a Historical, Economic, political, social and yes even racial perspectives is quit appealing. I am not necessarily good at it but being able to pick things apart (small picture's) as well as being able to see the big picture is something I at least try to do. Are these people trolls? Or just "race doesn't exist and if you even say the word race then you are a racist" ? They don't seem to be SJW's but they do kinda use similar tactics.
I like Preston and ATS. Other people to check out would be Richard Spencer, Jack Donovan, Ryan Faulk and Libertarian Realist on youtube. When it comes to blogs, I'd recommend Moldbug, Anarcho-Papist, Return of Kings, Reaxxion, More Right, Less Wrong and The Right Stuff (though the latter group does annoy me at times).

There are a lot of good people on this site who generally agree with our pro-white stance, but so too are there people who have swallowed the mainstream cultural Marxist narratives on race. It's infected everything, everywhere, including the liberty movement. Reaction exists for a reason, and it's growing fast. They aren't trolls, they're just lost. I was too at one time. Give it time, you'll see the libertarians who actually care about reality come to a position against equality, against feminism and in favor of race realism and complimentarist traditional gender norms. Those who just scream "waaaaaaaayyyycist!" at the top of their lungs are just beyond help. I see them as a clown act, a bumbling idiotic fool who stumbles about for my amusement.

The NRx is coming to RPF... and it will be glorious!

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

EDIT: What is a Paleo Libertarian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?60921-ThePaleoLibertarian) ?
A paleolibertarian is a radical decentralist, pro-white, pro-tradition, anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist, reactionary libertarian.


Ever listen/read Dugin, Red Ice Radio, Horus, Counter Currents?
I'm familiar with all of them, with the exception of Horus

[HankRicther12]

Listening to Keith Preston (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PhmYbjBLJ8) from Attack The System (and even M.K Lords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJW7hI-tXvk) from ATS) (and like I said I was watching in amazement the old RP video's) who is able to see things from all angles made me think that this site would have alot of people who were capable of having those type of discussions. Being able to break things down from a Historical, Economic, Political, Social and yes even a Racial perspectives is quit appealing. I am not necessarily good at it but being able to pick things apart (small picture's) as well as being able to see the big picture is something I at least try to do. Are these people trolls? Or just "race doesn't exist and if you even say the word race then you are a racist" ? They don't seem to be SJW's but they do kinda use similar tactics.

EDIT: What is a Paleo Libertarian (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?60921-ThePaleoLibertarian) ?

Ever listen/read Dugin, Red Ice Radio, Horus, Counter Currents?

I like Red Ice, don't know the others, RamzPaul is probably my favorite although anymore he seems to be getting too much into Jewspiracy territory, plus I'm just not all that big on this whole "IQ" studies stuff, I mean, not that I'm saying it's illogical that different races evolved in different ways, I guess I just don't care, I think as long as free association, the NAP and what not are respected, does it matter? If some races overall are better at this or that due to genetics that will all sort itself out once you no longer have laws trying to force association and guarantee certain outcomes.


I like Preston and ATS. Other people to check out would be Richard Spencer, Jack Donovan, Ryan Faulk and Libertarian Realist on youtube. When it comes to blogs, I'd recommend Moldbug, Anarcho-Papist, Return of Kings, Reaxxion, More Right, Less Wrong and The Right Stuff (though the latter group does annoy me at times).

Uh, gotta point out here, Jack Donovan is gay right?

[UWDude]

Like your whole post but that last comment, nail on the head. To me "diversity" is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard and I can't believe how so many have bought into this nonsense, it is completely contradictory and self-destructive, like most leftists/marxist ideas.

Big difference between Japan, China, Germany, and the US... ...want to guess what it is?

[UWDude]

You are the second jackass to accuse me of being a sock puppet lol. Are the moderators incapable of figuring out who is or isn't a sock or do the mods like sock accounts? I was on another Forum and someone posted Lets start a Libertarian Group thread in response to someone else's Lets start a Progressive (aka SJW) Group thread. I was for the most part able to have rational discussions with them (I did tease them on occasion) even if we disagreed on somethings. I have also been watching alot of Ron Paul video's lately (I missed the RP revolution of 2007/8 and was presented with Tea Parties instead around 2010) and other vids/websites like FSP, Free Talk Live and Attack the System. My main disagreement is that not all people are rootless and hyper-individualists like you.

I am sick of arguing with SJW retards and general trolls (on the other forum) and while I obviously see race as an issue things are more complicated then that, I kinda already explained this. I figured the Liberty loving types might have an interesting perspective and things to say and be capable of discussing things from different angles. And seriously how is pointing out the ridiculousness of the Racial Microaggressions Project and theory considered race-baiting? ButRacial Microaggressions Project/theory is not race baiting/waste of tax dollars/social engineering/White guilt tripping/....? That is so weird. Anyways go ahead and attack the messenger (and accuse him of being a sock) instead of the message or stick just your head in the sand (http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef015391c79429970b-800wi) like a good little ostrage.

People who use the term "SJW" all pretty much come from stormfront. You are the same dorks using terms like "beta-cuck" and all that other silly little angry nazi wannabe terminology. You are the same dorks that are constantly getting banned only to re-appear with a new account a few weeks later.

And EVEN if you were a new person every time, you all say the same shit, speak about the same damn few authors, and use the same micro-jingos and sayings.... ...your root is clear.

I see your posts all over news stories comment sections too. You always say the same stupid garbage.... ...because your ideology can't work if you think for yourself.


....and at it's core, it is racism, pure and simple. Stupid.... Fucking... racism.


"SJW" "Alinksy" "anti-racist is anti-white" "betacuck" <<--- lol!

recently, some little nazi completely dribbled all over himself here while talking about race being the reason African civilizations were never great.

You guys are stupid.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Uh, gotta point out here, Jack Donovan is gay right?
He is, yes.

[europa arise]

People who use the term "SJW" all pretty much come from stormfront. You are the same dorks using terms like "beta-cuck" and all that other silly little angry nazi wannabe terminology. You are the same dorks that are constantly getting banned only to re-appear with a new account a few weeks later.

And EVEN if you were a new person every time, you all say the same shit, speak about the same damn few authors, and use the same micro-jingos and sayings.... ...your root is clear.

I see your posts all over news stories comment sections too. You always say the same stupid garbage.... ...because your ideology can't work if you think for yourself.


....and at it's core, it is racism, pure and simple. Stupid.... Fucking... racism.


"SJW" "Alinksy" "anti-racist is anti-white" "betacuck" <<--- lol!

recently, some little nazi completely dribbled all over himself here while talking about race being the reason African civilizations were never great.

You guys are stupid.

You sound like a typical White-Anti-White. :D

[r3volution 3.0]

Listening to Keith Preston (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PhmYbjBLJ8) from Attack The System (and even M.K Lords (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJW7hI-tXvk) from ATS) (and like I said I was watching in amazement the old RP video's) who is able to see things from all angles made me think that this site would have alot of people who were capable of having those type of discussions. Being able to break things down from a Historical, Economic, Political, Social and yes even a Racial perspectives is quit appealing. I am not necessarily good at it but being able to pick things apart (small picture's) as well as being able to see the big picture is something I at least try to do. Are these people trolls? Or just "race doesn't exist and if you even say the word race then you are a racist" ? They don't seem to be SJW's but they do kinda use similar tactics.

They're not trolls.

Long before neoreaction arrived on the scene, there was this left-right split among libertarians: been around forever. Rothbard was dealing with it back when he and half a dozen other guys were practically the only libertarians in the country. It's still here. The left-libertarians (I'm prepared: let the neg-reps rain down upon me) tend to be the more shallow-thinking ones. They deal with Austrian economics and ethics, which are typically reduced to NAP, and that's pretty much it. Not bad of, of course, but not enough. There's a lack of interest in a number of important areas, primarily because (in my speculation) investigating those areas would yield uncomfortable conclusions about the viability of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, which they would rather not have to confront (there's a notable correlation between left:right::anarchist:minarchist). There are certain unstated assumptions (even unthought assumptions) which are required for that system to work, concerning how people behave, differences among people (or the lack thereof), etc. Basically, optimistic Enlightenment assumptions, as opposed to reality.

But as Paleo said, more libertarians will be making a rightward turn in coming years, as the gaping holes in the alternative become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Anyway, welcome to the forums.

CORRECTION:


People who use the term "SJW" all pretty much come from stormfront.

The vast majority are not trolls...:rolleyes:

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The term "SJW" is used by all critics of feminism. Anyone who thinks it comes from SF should be dismissed out of hand, because they have no desire to actually understand anything that's going on.

[europa arise]

They're not trolls.

Long before neoreaction arrived on the scene, there was this left-right split among libertarians: been around forever. Rothbard was dealing with it back when he and half a dozen other guys were practically the only libertarians in the country. It's still here. The left-libertarians (I'm prepared: let the neg-reps rain down upon me) tend to be the more shallow-thinking ones. They deal with Austrian economics and ethics, which are typically reduced to NAP, and that's pretty much it. Not bad of, of course, but not enough. There's a lack of interest in a number of important areas, primarily because (in my speculation) investigating those areas would yield uncomfortable conclusions about the viability of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, which they would rather not have to confront (there's a notable correlation between left:right::anarchist:minarchist). There are certain unstated assumptions (even unthought assumptions) which are required for that system to work, concerning how people behave, differences among people (or the lack thereof), etc. Basically, optimistic Enlightenment assumptions, as opposed to reality.

But as Paleo said, more libertarians will be making a rightward turn in coming years, as the gaping holes in the alternative become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Anyway, welcome to the forums.

Thanx for the explanation, I will ignore them from now on and not explain/defend myself, although I might have to troll them if I'm in the mood but like I said in another post I popped over here to get away from drama and drama queens.


The term "SJW" is used by all critics of feminism. Anyone who thinks it comes from SF should be dismissed out of hand, because they have no desire to actually understand anything that's going on.

This is not your momma's feminism, 3rd wave feminism is totalitarian nastiness and you think they would see that but nope.

[UWDude]

The term "SJW" is used by all critics of feminism. Anyone who thinks it comes from SF should be dismissed out of hand, because they have no desire to actually understand anything that's going on.

Oh, I understand perfectly.

There are a bunch of pimply, fat white virgin gamers, who when they turn off their games to eat cheetos and watch youtube videos, go around the internet looking for more rage. They troll around, seeking feminist and radicalist blogs and websites, and then congregate together on forums and chats and talk about how oppressed they are.

And I've met your opposite in person. Big fat white gamer chick, but instead of looking to feminist and radicalist blogs for outrage, she would go around looking for the outrage of the day from "pick up artists" and "men going their own way" and gamers.

You all are a bunch of worthless, pathetic skin bags.

You all deserve your little, puny tortured minds you have to live with.

Now go back to WoW, where you have the sensation of power. Here, you have none.

[UWDude]

They're not trolls.

Long before neoreaction arrived on the scene, there was this left-right split among libertarians: been around forever. Rothbard was dealing with it back when he and half a dozen other guys were practically the only libertarians in the country. It's still here. The left-libertarians (I'm prepared: let the neg-reps rain down upon me) tend to be the more shallow-thinking ones. They deal with Austrian economics and ethics, which are typically reduced to NAP, and that's pretty much it. Not bad of, of course, but not enough. There's a lack of interest in a number of important areas, primarily because (in my speculation) investigating those areas would yield uncomfortable conclusions about the viability of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, which they would rather not have to confront (there's a notable correlation between left:right::anarchist:minarchist). There are certain unstated assumptions (even unthought assumptions) which are required for that system to work, concerning how people behave, differences among people (or the lack thereof), etc. Basically, optimistic Enlightenment assumptions, as opposed to reality.

But as Paleo said, more libertarians will be making a rightward turn in coming years, as the gaping holes in the alternative become increasingly difficult to ignore.



Yeah, and anyway, I was looking over for where ThePaleoLibertarian was farting out of his mouth about how bad the Haitians Slave revolt was for Haitian... ...and there you were, backing him up, and his lame theories about "lower IQ and savagery".

"reality" you say. You don't have a fucking clue about "reality".

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, and anyway, I was looking over for where ThePaleoLibertarian was farting out of his mouth about how bad the Haitians Slave revolt was for Haitian... ...and there you were, backing him up, and his lame theories about "lower IQ and savagery".

My position does not offend me, it only offends you, so you restating it to me is not an effective argument.


"reality" you say. You don't have a fucking clue about "reality".

Oh

[UWDude]

The whole story about "microaggression" was a microaggression against white people...

I'm not worried about microagressions of any kind.

I am worried about real aggression. Real murder. Real wars.

Not insults and stupid people's blogs.

Get a grip, losers.

[UWDude]

My position does not offend me, it only offends you, so you restating it to me is not an effective argument.


IT is an effective argument to both how very anti-freedom you are, (opponent of the only successful mass slave revolt in history), and how uneducated and narrow minded your views on race are.

Try reading Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel", and when you are done with it, maybe you can write your own book, called "Guns, Germs, Steel and Race", and actually have a non-racist consider your opinion. But I assure you, to peg everything to one cause for the different historical progressions of different peoples, and to make that peg minor genetic differences between humans, is laughably puerile. It was stupid when it was considered "science" in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and it is stupid now.

[r3volution 3.0]

IT is an effective argument to both how very anti-freedom you are, (opponent of the only successful mass slave revolt in history), and how uneducated and narrow minded your views on race are.

I'm not convinced that you understand what my position on colonialism or race is, and I'm disinclined to argue against the strawman you've cooked up.


Try reading Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel",

Good book, read it years ago, have a copy in my library.


to peg everything to one cause for the different historical progressions of different peoples, and to make that peg minor genetic differences between humans, is laughably puerile.

I agree, and I certainly never took the position that colonialism was good because whites are smarter or otherwise superior to blacks.

You clearly did not understand what I was saying about colonialism, which was about state-stability, not race.

Reread the thread, I think I explained it quite clearly.

As for race, it is a fact that there are intelligence differences between the races. Sorry if this fact makes you sad. :( :rolleyes:

But you need not jump to the conclusion that anyone pointing this out is advocating racial supremacy of some form.

Personally, I think the differences are not large enough to have much effect on societal outcomes or have any important political considerations.

Especially in a non-democratic state, I might add - in a democracy it becomes slightly more problematic.

[UWDude]

As for race, it is a fact that there are intelligence differences between the races. Sorry if this fact makes you sad. :( :rolleyes:


Well, lets have a discussion, shall we, how black does one have to be, before he is designated as "black" in these studies?
How white does a person have to be, before being claimed as white in these studies of IQ?

Exactly what is the definition of "white" and "black"?

Are we going to go back to the "one drop rule"?

What about all the blacks and natives, who turned white? Over 10% a generation declare themselves white.

I read your opinions on the other thread, I know who you are. You can't fool me.



You clearly did not understand what I was saying about colonialism, which was about state-stability, not race.

What *you* don't understand, is you use terms like "state stability" and "working system", without defining who that "state stability" and "working system" is for. You would rather have a "stable state" with slavery, than unstable without slavery. You consider a system with slavery "working" because it gave the mere APPEARANCE of being civilized, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the peoples in this "civilized" system, were literally being worked to death by age 35, all to build the veneer of "civlized life", which still, over 200 years later, STILL has you fooled to thinking it was stable and civilized. It only was for a tiny fraction of the people living their. For the rest, it was nothing but pure hell...

LITERALLY WORKED AND WHIPPED TO DEATH IN THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. MILLIONS MURDERED SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY FOR THE GAIN OF THEIR MASTERS, AND YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT WAS FOR THE BETTER BECAUSE OF QUOTE STATE STABILTY END QUOTE

IF SLAVERY BE THE CORNERSTONE OF STATE STABILITY, IT IS SUPERIOR TO FREEDOM, BECAUSE STATE STABILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT SAID NO LIBERTARIAN EVER.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, lets have a discussion, shall we, how black does one have to be, before he is designated as "black" in these studies?
How white does a person have to be, before being claimed as white in these studies of IQ?

Exactly what is the definition of "white" and "black"?

Are we going to go back to the "one drop rule"?

What about all the blacks and natives, who turned white? Over 10% a generation declare themselves white.

A fallacious argument which I addressed here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470582-There-are-false-claims-that-Ron-Paul-is-a-quot-Racist-quot-Well-I-embrace-that-label&p=5817348&viewfull=1#post5817348) some weeks ago:


The idea that race does not exist because it cannot be precisely defined (in a non-arbitrary way) is absurd.

Consider:

"Strong people tend to be better at wrestling than weak people."

"Tall people tend to be better at basketball than short people."

"Smart people tend to have higher incomes than dumb people."

"Poor people tend to have higher rates of crime than rich people."

The properties "strong, tall, smart, and poor" cannot be defined precisely in a non-arbitrary way because, just like race, they exist on a spectrum. You have to either leave it loosely defined or arbitrarily pick some point on that spectrum. Does it therefore follow that all of these statements are meaningless? Of course not. Race can be meaningfully defined, and it has been for the purpose of various comparative studies, and these have in fact found significant non-cosmetic differences.

If non-cosmetic differences between the races are the product of genetics (just as are cosmetic differences), what's the theory to explain this? As some posters here have repeatedly pointed out, skin color itself doesn't seem likely to have an effect on behavior, intelligence, etc. The theory would, presumably, be that there is some (yet undiscovered) gene(s) which people with skin color X are more likely to have than people with skin color Y. It's not that there's any causal connection between skin color and behavior themselves.

People on planet A and B might, over the millennia, develop a variety of genetic differences due to different selection pressures in their respective habitats (both natural and social). Some of these might be visible - height, skin color, etc. Others might be invisible - resistance to some disease, intelligence, tendency for violence, etc. These visible and invisible traits are correlated, not because of any causal relation between them, but because the selection pressures which generate both traits happened (by historical accident) to coexist on the same planet - and thus the inhabitants get both traits, and tend to pass them along to their descendents, even though the traits in themselves have nothing to do with one another.


I read your opinions on the other thread, I know who you are. You can't fool me.

:rolleyes:


]What *you* don't understand, is you use terms like "state stability" and "working system", without defining who that "state stability" and "working system" is for. You would rather have a "stable state" with slavery, than unstable without slavery. You consider a system with slavery "working" because it gave the mere APPEARANCE of being civilized, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the peoples in this "civilized" system, were literally being worked to death by age 35, all to build the veneer of "civlized life", which still, over 200 years later, STILL has you fooled to thinking it was stable and civilized. It only was for a tiny fraction of the people living their. For the rest, it was nothing but pure hell...

LITERALLY WORKED AND WHIPPED TO DEATH IN THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. MILLIONS MURDERED SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY FOR THE GAIN OF THEIR MASTERS, AND YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT WAS FOR THE BETTER BECAUSE OF QUOTE STATE STABILTY END QUOTE

IF SLAVERY BE THE CORNERSTONE OF STATE STABILITY, IT IS SUPERIOR TO FREEDOM, BECAUSE STATE STABILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT SAID NO LIBERTARIAN EVER.

Or, you could try to have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473802-Split-Live-now-Baltimore-looting-burning-rioting-CLOSED-THREAD-Are-you-kidding-me&p=5856797&viewfull=1#post5856797) was what I said about Haiti.


Well, not that you were talking to me, but by way of intercession - Yes, the people of Haiti would have been better off under European colonial rule (as would virtually all of the peoples formerly ruled by the European colonial powers). This is not debatable. Just look at the trend in the prosperity metrics before and after independence. That said, I don't think it has much to do with race. It is true that Africans have a lower average IQ than Europeans (and East Asians have a higher average IQ than Europeans etc), but I think it's much more a problem of culture than genetics. In the countries in question, there was not much of a ingrained cultural respect for private property, unlike in the West (probably because the native peoples in question had, prior to colonization, been living at the tribal level, such that the kind of social pressures which led to respect for private property in the West simply had not existed to work their magic). Perhaps worst of all, though, is that the state in these post-colonial garbage heaps was highly artificial. It was drawn up by ideologues, both European anti-colonialists and natives, and did not develop organically - unlike the states in more developed parts of the world (Europe and Asia e.g.); and it turned out that the concept that looked so nice to leftists on paper did not work in practice. Instead of the 150 warring ethno-religious groups joining hands and singing Kumbaya, they promptly set about slaughtering one another on a scale never contemplated by their former European rulers.

Extremely tangential to the topic of this thread, but an interesting bit of revisionist history in its own right...

[europa arise]

double post - please delete

[europa arise]

I like Red Ice, don't know the others, RamzPaul is probably my favorite although anymore he seems to be getting too much into Jewspiracy territory, plus I'm just not all that big on this whole "IQ" studies stuff, I mean, not that I'm saying it's illogical that different races evolved in different ways, I guess I just don't care, I think as long as free association, the NAP and what not are respected, does it matter? If some races overall are better at this or that due to genetics that will all sort itself out once you no longer have laws trying to force association and guarantee certain outcomes.

Red Ice went from tin foil hats (well somewhat) to full on battle axe wielding Odinists. A few of their guests recently even made me cringe but Henrik is an awesome interviewer and his wife from radio 3fourteen (http://radio3fourteen.com/) used to be an AnCap and is now rocking out full on Valkyrie style and she's a cute little Russian to boot.

RamzPaul can be funny sometimes. I think it's odd when a Nazis skinhead is walking down the street and falls off the side walk and then screams " god damn Jews put that curb there to trip up the Whiteman". Jew over here, jew over there, jew jew jew everywhere. The Jewish elites are very powerful and hostile but so are the Anglo-American elites. A problem does occurs when you try to criticize any of them and then you are labeled an "anti-semitic goose steeping genocider". My opinion of all these elites is that they are straight up evil and have ill intent for everyone at the end but we will all have to grab a beer and put on our tin foil hats for that discussion.

IQ differentials does seem to be a reality but there are different types of intelligences (I forgot is it 8 or 12 types?) and there are other factors as well. In the current system Whites are blamed for every problem the world has ever known and that is rude. Isn't that also rude to tell people that all of your problems are because of those guys over there. It's dangerous and dishonest but the elites just love to divide the social space aka divide and conquer. I believe there are natural group difference and conflicts (both natural and historical) but these bastards are exploiting them to the max, hence the basic subject of this thread. In an open system things would work themselves out but everything now is about divide & rule, psychological warfare and physical force. This closed system is not healthy for anyone, well except the elites of course.

[jonhowe]

I don't think anyone is arguing that it's unheard of to feel uncomfortable to be in a room with all *insert ethnic/social/gender group here* when you are not one yourself.

I'm white living in Harlem/Washington Heights, so everywhere I go I'm the only white guy. I won't lie; at first I felt a lot of eyes on me, and I felt very uncomfortable sometimes. Now, after 3 years or so, I know a lot of my neighbors and feel more than comfortable (and the rent's still cheap!).



The problem with the article is that it ONLY applies to groups of white people. Unless NR is cherry picking the report, which they could very well be.

[Slave Mentality]

Well, lets have a discussion, shall we, how black does one have to be, before he is designated as "black" in these studies?
How white does a person have to be, before being claimed as white in these studies of IQ?

Exactly what is the definition of "white" and "black"?

Are we going to go back to the "one drop rule"?

What about all the blacks and natives, who turned white? Over 10% a generation declare themselves white.

I read your opinions on the other thread, I know who you are. You can't fool me.



What *you* don't understand, is you use terms like "state stability" and "working system", without defining who that "state stability" and "working system" is for. You would rather have a "stable state" with slavery, than unstable without slavery. You consider a system with slavery "working" because it gave the mere APPEARANCE of being civilized, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the peoples in this "civilized" system, were literally being worked to death by age 35, all to build the veneer of "civlized life", which still, over 200 years later, STILL has you fooled to thinking it was stable and civilized. It only was for a tiny fraction of the people living their. For the rest, it was nothing but pure hell...

LITERALLY WORKED AND WHIPPED TO DEATH IN THE SUGAR CANE FIELDS. MILLIONS MURDERED SLOWLY AND PAINFULLY FOR THE GAIN OF THEIR MASTERS, AND YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT WAS FOR THE BETTER BECAUSE OF QUOTE STATE STABILTY END QUOTE

IF SLAVERY BE THE CORNERSTONE OF STATE STABILITY, IT IS SUPERIOR TO FREEDOM, BECAUSE STATE STABILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT SAID NO LIBERTARIAN EVER.

The idiots that you have been clearly owning in this thread will never understand. Too damn warped with statism. I have enjoyed reading thier bullshit get called out. Good work man.

[jonhowe]

A paleolibertarian is a radical decentralist, pro-white, pro-tradition, anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist, reactionary libertarian.


I'm familiar with all of them, with the exception of Horus

I guess my hangup is over 'pro-white' and 'anti-feminist'. Is that pro-white, with the exclusion of others based on race? Or is it pro-white, as in a backlash to the 'reverse racism' (racism) we see today? Same with anti feminist; do you mean that men and women should no have equal rights and opportunities, or are you against the modern feminist movement, which in many respects has gone radical?

[HankRicther12]

Red Ice went from tin foil hats (well somewhat) to full on battle axe wielding Odinists. A few of their guests recently even made me cringe but Henrik is an awesome interviewer and his wife from radio 3fourteen (http://radio3fourteen.com/) used to be an AnCap and is now rocking out full on Valkyrie style and she's a cute little Russian to boot.

RamzPaul can be funny sometimes. I think it's odd when a Nazis skinhead is walking down the street and falls off the side walk and then screams " god damn Jews put that curb there to trip up the Whiteman". Jew over here, jew over there, jew jew jew everywhere. The Jewish elites are very powerful and hostile but so are the Anglo-American elites. A problem does occurs when you try to criticize any of them and then you are labeled an "anti-semitic goose steeping genocider". My opinion of all these elites is that they are straight up evil and have ill intent for everyone at the end but we will all have to grab a beer and put on our tin foil hats for that discussion.

IQ differentials does seem to be a reality but there are different types of intelligences (I forgot is it 8 or 12 types?) and there are other factors as well. In the current system Whites are blamed for every problem the world has ever known and that is rude. Isn't that also rude to tell people that all of your problems are because of those guys over there. It's dangerous and dishonest but the elites just love to divide the social space aka divide and conquer. I believe there are natural group difference and conflicts (both natural and historical) but these bastards are exploiting them to the max, hence the basic subject of this thread. In an open system things would work themselves out but everything now is about divide & rule, psychological warfare and physical force. This closed system is not healthy for anyone, well except the elites of course.

Yeah, I've just listened to Red Ice a few times, I don't know them through and through. I just hate the "blame the Jew" stuff, as you say, sure there are powerful Jews out there doing things I don't like but there are powerful whites doing the same thing, to me blaming Jews is just as bad as blacks blaming whites. It's pathetic, not to mention it sends people running in the other direction.

As for the IQ, as I say I don't deny it, I just don't care, most people of any race are not going to be rocket scientists, we are all for the most part just going to be blue collar and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hate when people get bogged down in these IQ arguments because it goes nowhere and people take it as an offense. Even if it's true intelligence is certainly not = to superiority and most of those put whites 3rd on the list anyhow so it cracks me up how critics say it's white supremacy to cite a study that puts whites 3rd.

I just try to advocate free association, it's simple, most sensible people can grasp it, and it's hard to argue against. The whacko lefty SJW's will never embrace itl of course but I'm not interested in appeasing them anyhow.

[HankRicther12]

I guess my hangup is over 'pro-white' and 'anti-feminist'. Is that pro-white, with the exclusion of others based on race? Or is it pro-white, as in a backlash to the 'reverse racism' (racism) we see today? Same with anti feminist; do you mean that men and women should no have equal rights and opportunities, or are you against the modern feminist movement, which in many respects has gone radical?

I would say you summed it up pretty well. I actually don't use the term "pro-white" myself, but I do think it's naive to say race is just imaginary and it doesn't impact people's actions and attitudes. Ignoring it is just crazy. I for one am never advocating violence, I will defend myself sure, tho I pray I never have to, but fact is many whites are just running around in this fantasy world believing that race doesn't matter and they are the only one's playing that game. Look around: NAACP, AIPAC, LaRaza, Cherokee Nation, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, etc, etc.

[JK/SEA]

its a known fact all NATURAL redheads are the superiors on this rock, so there.

end thread./

[HankRicther12]

its a known fact all NATURAL redheads are the superiors on this rock, so there.

end thread./

GINGERS FTW!!!!!


Oh, I understand perfectly.

There are a bunch of pimply, fat white virgin gamers, who when they turn off their games to eat cheetos and watch youtube videos, go around the internet looking for more rage. They troll around, seeking feminist and radicalist blogs and websites, and then congregate together on forums and chats and talk about how oppressed they are.

And I've met your opposite in person. Big fat white gamer chick, but instead of looking to feminist and radicalist blogs for outrage, she would go around looking for the outrage of the day from "pick up artists" and "men going their own way" and gamers.

You all are a bunch of worthless, pathetic skin bags.

You all deserve your little, puny tortured minds you have to live with.

Now go back to WoW, where you have the sensation of power. Here, you have none.

I'm not fat.

[HankRicther12]

Duplicate Post Please delete

[JK/SEA]

GINGERS FTW!!!!!

finally some recognition. Now bend to one knee and kiss my ring mundane.

[rpfocus]

Anyways go ahead and attack the messenger (and accuse him of being a sock) instead of the message

Meh. Your "message" is the same regurgitated garbage your sock puppet predecessors have been spewing, and race-bait threads are your sole purpose for being here, judging by your collective activity. Apparently, a small group of racist (yes, racist) dipshit nincompoops have seemingly chosen RPF as a platform to advance their agenda. I propose that the mods create a "Race Bait" section of the forum so that "US Political News" doesn't become filled with your special brand of idiocy, as it's clear that's where we're headed.

[rpfocus]

People who use the term "SJW" all pretty much come from stormfront. You are the same dorks using terms like "beta-cuck" and all that other silly little angry nazi wannabe terminology. You are the same dorks that are constantly getting banned only to re-appear with a new account a few weeks later.

And EVEN if you were a new person every time, you all say the same shit, speak about the same damn few authors, and use the same micro-jingos and sayings.... ...your root is clear.

I see your posts all over news stories comment sections too. You always say the same stupid garbage.... ...because your ideology can't work if you think for yourself.


....and at it's core, it is racism, pure and simple. Stupid.... Fucking... racism.


"SJW" "Alinksy" "anti-racist is anti-white" "betacuck" <<--- lol!

recently, some little nazi completely dribbled all over himself here while talking about race being the reason African civilizations were never great.

You guys are stupid.

Quoted For Truth

[europa arise]

Meh. Your "message" is the same regurgitated garbage your sock puppet predecessors have been spewing, and race-bait threads are your sole purpose for being here, judging by your collective activity. Apparently, a small group of racist (yes, racist) dipshit nincompoops have seemingly chosen RPF as a platform to advance their agenda. I propose that the mods create a "Race Bait" section of the forum so that "US Political News" doesn't become filled with your special brand of idiocy, as it's clear that's where we're headed.

You are a snot nosed, foaming at the mouth child who is incapable of having an adult conversation. Maybe it is you who needs to go away (far far away, off to never never land) so the adults can deal with life's complex realities. Tell Tinkerbell I said hello.



http://frankieq.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/never-never-land.jpg

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I guess my hangup is over 'pro-white' and 'anti-feminist'. Is that pro-white, with the exclusion of others based on race? Or is it pro-white, as in a backlash to the 'reverse racism' (racism) we see today?
Pro-white as in I value the continuation and preservation of white genetics, white culture and white civilization. When given the option, people tend to gravitate toward people of their own race, so I think free association will take care of that quite readily. I encourage everyone to love their race, regardless of what it is.


Same with anti feminist; do you mean that men and women should no have equal rights and opportunities, or are you against the modern feminist movement, which in many respects has gone radical?
I think men and women are different, and serve complimentary roles in a functional civilization (hence the term "complimentarism" as opposed to egalitarianism). Traditional gender roles exist for a reason, and should not be pathologically torn down by a bunch of cultural Marxists. I don't think there should be any barriers to entry keeping women from working, but in a civilization worth living in, most women would be taking care of the family and the household.

[DevilsAdvocate]

So I suppose when I visit Japan, and am surrounded by Japanese people, they are inflicting a micro aggression on me? Should I be eligable for free therapy?

[juleswin]

So I suppose when I visit Japan, and am surrounded by Japanese people, they are inflicting a micro aggression on me? Should I be eligable for free therapy?

The problem with this kind of article is that it in a way misrepresents the characters of the people featured in it. I have read the article a few times now and no where it in did it show the non whites who were uncomfortable in a room full of whites believed they were micro aggressed by anyone. No where did it present evidence that the student feeling uncomfortable demanded any accommodation or therapy of any kind. But just about half the response from the people who read it came out thinking these people are demanding therapy money, somehow blaming white people or thought it was microaggression.

People tend to feel uncomfortable in the first day of school anyway and as the semester wears on, they get more comfortable and familiar with their classmates. This is not a new phenomena, its not abnormal and it doesn't only happen with white people. It just turns out that the vast majority of college students are white people, so more people when asked will report being uncomfortable around white students. This is not a good or bad thing for anyone involved. Its rather a thing people go through in life and learn from.

You have every right to feel however you want in Japan, just don't complain about it or expect them to bend over backward for free.

Also, colored when referring to skin color refers to the skin pigment. White people are born with very little of it and produce very little compared to colored races. Hence the reason why they say people of color i.e. people with pigments. Its really not that complicated.

Now I have to tell a joke after this.
Newspaper headline reads "Cartoonist found dead at home" ...Details very sketchy

[jonhowe]

I think men and women are different, and serve complimentary roles in a functional civilization (hence the term "complimentarism" as opposed to egalitarianism). Traditional gender roles exist for a reason, and should not be pathologically torn down by a bunch of cultural Marxists. I don't think there should be any barriers to entry keeping women from working, but in a civilization worth living in, most women would be taking care of the family and the household.

Traditional gender roles exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's a good one. We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I assure you I am not a "cultural Marxist". I think empowering woman, rather than encouraging subservience (those traditional roles), increases freedom and prosperity.

But since neither of us is in favor of enforcing gender roles using government violence, I see no problem disagreeing here.

[HankRicther12]

Traditional gender roles exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean it's a good one. We'll have to agree to disagree here, but I assure you I am not a "cultural Marxist". I think empowering woman, rather than encouraging subservience (those traditional roles), increases freedom and prosperity.

But since neither of us is in favor of enforcing gender roles using government violence, I see no problem disagreeing here.

You use those phrases yet claim you're not a cultural marxist? I really would like you to come to my town and I'll introduce you to several women who are homemakers, I want you to tell them what they do is "subservient" I want you to tell them they don't have a real job, tell them they are not "empowered" and that caring for their kids somehow makes them less than a woman who goes out into the work force.

You most definitely are a cultural marxist if you believe caring for your home and children is subservience. It is a very difficult job, and yes, IT IS a job, and not only difficult but very important. I think it's sad you hold so little regard for parents who stay home and care for their children rather than dropping them off at some daycare center. Most men in traditional roles do not leave the home every day to go out and let the good times role, they do so to earn a living to provide for their families.

[JustinTime]

The whole story about "microaggression" was a microaggression against white people...

I'm not worried about microagressions of any kind.

I am worried about real aggression. Real murder. Real wars.

Not insults and stupid people's blogs.

Get a grip, losers.

You're not worried about this professors blog, but you sure are worried about the posts in this thread.

[JustinTime]

You use those phrases yet claim you're not a cultural marxist? I really would like you to come to my town and I'll introduce you to several women who are homemakers, I want you to tell them what they do is "subservient" I want you to tell them they don't have a real job, tell them they are not "empowered" and that caring for their kids somehow makes them less than a woman who goes out into the work force.

You most definitely are a cultural marxist if you believe caring for your home and children is subservience. It is a very difficult job, and yes, IT IS a job, and not only difficult but very important. I think it's sad you hold so little regard for parents who stay home and care for their children rather than dropping them off at some daycare center. Most men in traditional roles do not leave the home every day to go out and let the good times role, they do so to earn a living to provide for their families.

Mocking and portraying motherhood and childrearing as subservience or subjugation of women was cooked up to get mothers away for a while and let the state grab greater power over the little skulls full of mush and raise them to be, surprise surprise, subservient and subjugated.

Its a process still going on today, take the debate over spanking, they wont rest until they have total power over every child, which means mom and dad have none, and its always done under the guise of fighting for someones rights.

Like I said before, understanding Cultural Marxism is crucial and sadly most people just don't get it.

[juleswin]

Mocking and portraying motherhood and childrearing as subservience or subjugation of women was cooked up to get mothers away for a while and let the state grab greater power over the little skulls full of mush and raise them to be, surprise surprise, subservient and subjugated.

Its a process still going on today, take the debate over spanking, they wont rest until they have total power over every child.

Like I said before, understanding Cultural Marxism is crucial and sadly most people just don't get it.

That is true and I also heard that the folks who invented the disposable diaper, microwave, the washing machine, dish washer etc etc that made homemaking a lot easier where in collusion with the cultural Marxists in order to take women away from the home. Its all about taking women away from the home instead of the fact that the world has changed a lot since civil society emerged and gender roles cannot remain static while evrything around it changes

[JustinTime]

That is true and I also heard that the folks who invented the disposable diaper, microwave, the washing machine, dish washer etc etc that made homemaking a lot easier where in collusion with the cultural Marxists in order to take women away from the home.

That stuff would give stay at home moms more time with the kids, none of it would take them away from them.


Its all about taking women away from the home instead of the fact that the world has changed a lot since civil society emerged and gender roles cannot remain static while evrything around it changes

Says who?

[smokemonsc]

So much bullshit in this thread.

I want to live in a society where men and women are free to pursue their life's goals in whatever pursuits that entails. I think cultures that don't allow for this choice are evil. I think cultures that have traditional roles, as long as they are voluntary and not coerced, are fine. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I want to live in a society where the individual is treated with respect. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I want to live in a society where the individual is treated equally under the law, not where the law is applied to ensure the equality of outcomes. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I think some cultures are shit because they want the opposite of what I want. Does this make me a racist?

I think some people are superior to others because of what they've done, accomplished, think, and DO. Does this make me a racist, cultural marxist, or evil?

I think some people are evil for the same reasons listed above. What term do you have for people like me?






Please say extremist :)

-Smoke

[parocks]

I would say you need to look into the topic more. If you don't honestly see how Straight, White, (Christian) Males are under attack in Western Society you are just blind. Sure, this particular article might not be making huge headlines but are you saying you miss all these things with bakers and florists? The Duke Rape Case, this recent Rolling Stone fiasco?

It is crazy to me how so many RP supporters, libertarians, anarchists, etc see clearly the leftist-marxism on the economic front yet completely ignore it on the social front, and if you even try to bring it their attention they immediately whip out the same ole Alinsky tactics to try and shut down any conversation about it.

Well, you're right, but this isn't as much the socon board.

[europa arise]

The problem with this kind of article is that it in a way misrepresents the characters of the people featured in it. I have read the article a few times now and no where it in did it show the non whites who were uncomfortable in a room full of whites believed they were micro aggressed by anyone.

Racial Microaggressions Research Project's report

In one of my lecture classes, we were talking about something related to the Latino community. The TA called on me to explain what Latinos think of the issue since I am Latina, as if I am the voice of all Latinos. (Latina, Female)

Color-blind remarks, such as “When I look at you, I don’t see color” are demeaning refusals to acknowledge a person’s race. According to Sue et al. (2007) these statements are examples of microinvalidations, which are “verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate or nullify the psychological thoughts, feeling or experiential reality of a person of color”(p. 278). More broadly, the denial that racism or White privilege (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV3-OnfEp98) exists (or the insistence that a perceived racial microaggression is nonexistent) invalidates an actual experience of a person of color. Like microinsults, racial microinvalidations may also be unconscious.

racial microaggressions: microinsults, microinvalidations and microassaults.

http://www.racialmicroaggressions.illinois.edu/files/2015/03/RMA-Classroom-Report.pdf

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem with this kind of article is that it in a way misrepresents the characters of the people featured in it. I have read the article a few times now and no where it in did it show the non whites who were uncomfortable in a room full of whites believed they were micro aggressed by anyone. No where did it present evidence that the student feeling uncomfortable demanded any accommodation or therapy of any kind. But just about half the response from the people who read it came out thinking these people are demanding therapy money, somehow blaming white people or thought it was microaggression.

The article does not explicitly state that the non-whites who reported being micro-aggressed-against wanted anything (though one can infer that they did based on their choice to participate in the survey, assuming they knew what the survey was about).

In any event, whatever the students wanted, it's clear what the study organizers wanted.


the study still recommends that the school take drastic measures to stop them: requiring that all students complete a “General Education requirement about race, White privilege, and inequality in the United States” as well as “both a non-Western culture and a US people of color cultural course”; fundamentally altering the curriculum to ensure that a third of all college 101 classes “include diversity and inclusion”; providing workshops, trainings, campaigns, and brochures “to help students identify when racial microaggressions are occurring”; creating a “slogan or language” — such as the phrase “Racism Alert” — to use when they identify one; and developing a “mechanism for students to report perceived racial microaggressions.”

Now, having read that, I have to go vomit blood. Excuse me.

[parocks]

Not only that, but "people of color" is the new PC term, but "colored people" is still considered racist. Modernity is a cancer.

What year are all you from? Is "person of color" just coming to your attention?

[juleswin]

The article does not explicitly state that the non-whites who reported being micro-aggressed-against wanted anything (though one can infer that they did based on their choice to participate in the survey, assuming they knew what the survey was about).

In any event, whatever the students wanted, it's clear what the study organizers wanted.



Now, having read that, I have to go vomit blood. Excuse me.

I don't know where or what era you went to college. But nowadays, there are fliers in usually the arts and science building advertising surveys. Some of them pay you to participate, others are just put up by other students running some social experiment for some school project. I took a few surveys in my college stint and thought nothing of it. I answered the questions I was asked as honestly as I can and that was it.

The only people that take these surveys seriously are the people trying to use the result to promote their agenda. The problem is not with people taking the survey but with the manipulators. There are areas where the University system screws white people(mostly men) like with affirmative action and new era rape rules, but this is not one of them.

[UWDude]

The properties "strong, tall, smart, and poor" cannot be defined precisely in a non-arbitrary way because, just like race, they exist on a spectrum.

Oh boy, I'd love to see this spectrum. Perhaps some of the stormfronters here can post this spectrum for us. Where are albinos, blonde hair blue eyes, asians, east asians, south asians, caucasians, and semites? What about latinos?


The theory would, presumably, be that there is some (yet undiscovered) gene(s) which people with skin color X are more likely to have than people with skin color Y. It's not that there's any causal connection between skin color and behavior themselves.

People on planet A and B might, over the millennia, develop a variety of genetic differences due to different selection pressures in their respective habitats (both natural and social). Some of these might be visible - height, skin color, etc. Others might be invisible - resistance to some disease, intelligence, tendency for violence, etc

Oh, genes! Yeah! That makes it sound scientific!
Tendency for violence? Lets see, what "race" has killed more people in the world than any other "race"? On this spectrum, black people would be at the "non violent" end, and white people would take the cake for the most violent, with asians not far behind. Was that the spectrum you were thinking of?

Ohh, I get it, WORLD WARS and MASSIVE EUROPEAN WARS, as well as worldwide COLONIAL WARS, MASSACRES and SUBJUGATIONS don't count on this spectrum, right? This "spectrum" only applies to THUGS and LOOTERS!* Amirite or Amirite!?


Yes, the people of Haiti would have been better off under European colonial rule (as would virtually all of the peoples formerly ruled by the European colonial powers). This is not debatable.

Dumbass.

There are millions of Haitian slaves who did not die in the sugarcane fields by being worked to death after the successful slave revolt, who would be happy to debate your idiotic position.

See, your blind spot is, you don't consider Haitian slaves to be Haitians.


You're not worried about this professors blog, but you sure are worried about the posts in this thread.

My house, bitch. I didn't go looking for it, it came here.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are millions of Haitian slaves who did not die in the sugarcane fields by being worked to death after the successful slave revolt, who would be happy to debate your idiotic position.

You appear to think that there would still be slavery in Haiti if it weren't for independence.

The Haitians achieved independence in 1804.

France abolished slavery in the colonies in 1848.

So, the Haitians saved themselves 44 years of additional slavery. Yep, that's good. But, on the other hand, they cost themselves 211 years (and counting) of bad horrifyingly incompetent government. In my opinion, Haitians would be living much better lives today had they remained a French colony, the slaves been freed in 1848 rather than 1804, and they had been able to enjoy all the advantages of stable government for those 211 years. It's hardly conceivable that the Haitians could be worse off, considering that they're basically living at substance level (worse off = dead of malnutrition). Have the Haitians actually made any progress since 1804?


See, your blind spot is, you don't consider Haitian slaves to be Haitians.

What?

[UWDude]

You appear to think that there would still be slavery in Haiti if it weren't for independence.

The Haitians achieved independence in 1804.

France abolished slavery in the colonies in 1848.

So, the Haitians saved themselves 44 years of additional slavery. Yep, that's good. But, on the other hand, they cost themselves 211 years (and counting) of bad horrifyingly incompetent government. In my opinion, Haitians would be living much better lives today had they remained a French colony, the slaves been freed in 1848 rather than 1804, and they had been able to enjoy all the advantages of stable government for those 211 years. It's hardly conceivable that the Haitians could be worse off, considering that they're basically living at substance level (worse off = dead of malnutrition). Have the Haitians actually made any progress since 1804?

Well, Haiti was sanctioned, fully blockaded and forced to pay reparations for daring to free themselves.... ...that could not have impacted their history and stability any, do you think?

Oh, and 1915 - 1934. I don't see a whole lot of good happening then for the actual Haitian people then, either.

Oh, look, corvees forced upon the Haitians by the US. Look up "corvee", tell me what it means. LoL

And good one, just poo-pooing away 44 more years of THE MOST BRUTAL SLAVERY IN THE WORLD, then saying everything would be magical racial reconciliation with the french landowners after 1848. This must be this thing you claim to have knowledge of called "reality".

LoL!!

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, Haiti was sanctioned, fully blockaded and forced to pay reparations for daring to free themselves.... ...that could not have impacted their history and stability any, do you think?

Oh, and 1915 - 1934. I don't see a whole lot of good happening then for the actual Haitian people then, either.

Oh, look, corvees forced upon the Haitians by the US. Look up "corvee", tell me what it means. LoL

You sound like an aging Soviet sympathsizer blaiming North Korea's problems on the sanctions.

Yes, France imposed a heavy debt on Haiti in 1825, which must have depressed it economically to some extent. That debt was settled in full by 1893. The American occupation, partially for geopolitical purposes and partly to collect debts, had nothing to do with that debt. The Haitian government from independence onward was horribly corrupt and incompetent and amassed gigantic debts of its own, nothing whatsoever to do with the French debt. The proximate cause of the US occupation was the total political chaos in Haiti in the preceding years, which both interrupted debt payments and opened to the door to European intervention (Europeans being the major creditors), which the US would not tolerate in the Western Hemisphere.

Haiti's fundamental problems were local in origin, having to do with the instability of its new government. It was and is a classic "anarcho-tyranny." Just like sub-Saharan Africa, and other post-colonial countries which had not already been civilized at the time of colonization. That is my whole point. This is how weak states behave. This is what states looked like in the early days of european civilization or any other civilization. There was no possibility of a functioning state emerging from within that society. Hence the value of a colonial state supported from outside. The training wheels were removed before the kid could balance properly.


And good one, just poo-pooing away 44 more years of THE MOST BRUTAL SLAVERY IN THE WORLD

Compared to what? The fabulous living conditions in modern Haiti?

[UWDude]

Compared to what? The fabulous living conditions in modern Haiti?

Ok, Ill take the side that says any Haitian would rather be dirt poor and live under poor government, than worked to DEATH by their late twenties to mid thirties, and be ruled by their slave masters, who they toiled to make rich.

Argument 1: DUH

Your go.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ok, Ill take the side that says any Haitian would rather be dirt poor and live under poor government, than worked to DEATH by their late twenties to mid thirties, and be ruled by their slave masters, who they toiled to make rich.

Argument 1: DUH

Your go.

There's nothing more for me to say.

You did not respond to what I've already said.

[UWDude]

There was no possibility of a functioning state emerging from within that society.

Blockades and forced reparation helped, HUH?
I mean, these benevolent Colonizers obviously just wanted what was best for Haiti!!

You're so full of shit.
The colonies never were for the people of the colonies. They always were for the collaborators and the colonizers. Duh.

We can go to the Congo, Africa, Asia, anywhere.

We can talk the filipino-American war, which American classrooms STILL DON'T teach because it was such a shit sandwich that flew in the face of EVERYTHING America supposedly stands for.

What you are telling me is the same reason America made for taking the Philippines from the Filipinos. It was bullshit back then, and it is bullshit now!

And you keep saying "civilized" Exactly what is "civilized"? The way the "civilized" Belgians treated the People of the Congo? The civilized way the Germans treated the Africans in German East Africa? What exactly is this "civilized" you speak of? Do you mean the "civilized" death camps of Nazi Germany? Perhaps the "civilized" civil war in the United States, and its "civilized" institution of slavery.

[r3volution 3.0]

Blockades and forced reparation helped, HUH?

No, who said they helped?


I mean, these benevolent Colonizers obviously just wanted what was best for Haiti!!

Who said they did?


You're so full of shit.

Compelling argument


The colonies never were for the people of the colonies. They always were for the collaborators and the colonizers. Duh.

Who ever said anything to the contrary?


We can go to the Congo, Africa, Asia, anywhere.

We can talk the filipino-American war, which American classrooms STILL DON'T teach because it was such a shit sandwich that flew in the face of EVERYTHING America supposedly stands for.

What you are telling me is the same reason America made for taking the Philippines from the Filipinos. It was bullshit back then, and it is bullshit now!

It sounds like you're too overcome with emotion to think clearly.

I originally took your astounding misinterpretations of my statements as dishonesty.

Now I am certain that your problem is pathological.


And you keep saying "civilized" Exactly what is "civilized"?

The first condition is civil peace, which requires a stable state. The culmination is a liberal economic order.

It is a spectrum, or more accurately a journey.

Haiti or sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, were way to the left of the spectrum, at the very beginning of the journey toward civilization at the time of independence - and consequently went completely pear-shaped. Given enough time, they'll move rightward, further down the path, but their progress would have been more rapid had they never become independent. They also would be further along had they never been colonized in the first place.

The best possible scenario for the natives would have been colonization which never ended (or at least not for a long time after it historically did). This would have catapulted them ahead further along the path than they would have been left to their own devices.

The second best would have been no colonization at all. Under this scenario, they would have developed at their own natural pace.

The worst case scenario was what actually happened; the Europeans came, but then left too soon.

...and, not that it really matters, but one cannot blame the Europeans for that last bit. They were pushed out by the natives and by "enlightened" members of their own, who seriously misunderstood what would happen post-independence. Colonialism became a problem only because of anti-colonialism. And, one final item, just to ensure that your head reaches critical mass; colonialism was bad for the Europeans (the colonies were always a money-losing proposition) and good for the natives, while anti-colonialism was good for the Europeans (stopped the red ink) and bad for the natives.

*The colonial powers were not irrational. The enterprise was a loser for the country as a whole, but the costs and benefits were not equally distributed. People in power reaped the rewards, while taxpayers footed the bill.


The way the "civilized" Belgians treated the People of the Congo? The civilized way the Germans treated the Africans in German East Africa? What exactly is this "civilized" you speak of? Do you mean the "civilized" death camps of Nazi Germany? Perhaps the "civilized" civil war in the United States, and its "civilized" institution of slavery.

LOL

[heavenlyboy34]

Blockades and forced reparation helped, HUH?
I mean, these benevolent Colonizers obviously just wanted what was best for Haiti!!

You're so full of shit.
The colonies never were for the people of the colonies. They always were for the collaborators and the colonizers. Duh.

We can go to the Congo, Africa, Asia, anywhere.

We can talk the filipino-American war, which American classrooms STILL DON'T teach because it was such a shit sandwich that flew in the face of EVERYTHING America supposedly stands for.

What you are telling me is the same reason America made for taking the Philippines from the Filipinos. It was bullshit back then, and it is bullshit now!

And you keep saying "civilized" Exactly what is "civilized"? The way the "civilized" Belgians treated the People of the Congo? The civilized way the Germans treated the Africans in German East Africa? What exactly is this "civilized" you speak of? Do you mean the "civilized" death camps of Nazi Germany? Perhaps the "civilized" civil war in the United States, and its "civilized" institution of slavery.
+rep

[UWDude]

I originally took your astounding misinterpretations of my statements as dishonesty.



There's nothing more for me to say.

Guess I misinterpreted that one too!


You don't fool me, bozo. Your storyline stinks to high hell, and I've exposed flaw after flaw to your logic and line of thinking, which in response, the best you can do is say I've misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

No, I understand completely. It's not like anything you are saying is new. It's old, rehashed imperialist rhetoric for colonization and slavery. Same shit as going into Iraq to spread democracy. Now that Iraq has been turned to a hell hole, people like you point and say "see, Muslims cant rule themselves, they are savages! they can't handle democracy! They were better off with a strongman! All they understand is power!"

Remember, you are the one that thinks 44 years of slavery and death is better than 211 years of "horrible" government, even though you do not recognize the slave master's government as "horrible". In fact, you call the slave masters "civilized" and the slaves "uncivilized". "Anarcho-tyranny", you apply not to the slave masters, thousands of miles from their homeland, and de facto rulers of the colony, but to the newly founded governments afterward trying to unify a mass of people with no common culture besides slavery, while under the full blockades of three of the most powerful nations in the world. You do not ascribe the label "anarcho-tyranny" to the US ships blockading Haiti, just because they were afraid the ideas of freedom might reach their own slaves, in their own "civilized" world.

Your whole world view is backwards. To even argue that colonialism is good for any country, is to show how much you really misunderstand the reason colonies exist. The Belgians didn't cut off hands and force corvees on the people of the Congo because they were trying to "civilize" them, fool They did it because they wanted free labor to milk the rubber to make themselves more rich and powerful, so they could spread like a cancer over Africa and force more africans to be slaves, even though slavery had already supposedly been outlawed in the civilized world.


Now take another hour to read up on essays and wiki articles about how the Belgians in the Congo were misunderstood, and how bad the Congo is now, compared to when it was ruled by the benevolent Belgians. I can't wait for your next sophomoric wikipedia article classroom report.

[UWDude]

It is a spectrum, or more accurately a journey.


Oh god, not another one of your spectrums. How about you explain your first spectrum, the one of racial intelligence, first.

Just lay it all out there, smart boy. Let the whole world see your zany theories on racial intelligence. This outta be good.

[r3volution 3.0]

https://i.imgflip.com/lqsb5.jpg

[parocks]

Oh god, not another one of your spectrums. How about you explain your first spectrum, the one of racial intelligence, first.

Just lay it all out there, smart boy. Let the whole world see your zany theories on racial intelligence. This outta be good.

Won't it be like "The Bell Curve"?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

can you guys stop arguing over a fake article

[HankRicther12]

That is true and I also heard that the folks who invented the disposable diaper, microwave, the washing machine, dish washer etc etc that made homemaking a lot easier where in collusion with the cultural Marxists in order to take women away from the home. Its all about taking women away from the home instead of the fact that the world has changed a lot since civil society emerged and gender roles cannot remain static while evrything around it changes

O gee, that was so clever, pat yourself on the back. As is typical with people who have no argument you have to make up absurd straw men because you can't address the actual issue.

[HankRicther12]

So much bullshit in this thread.

I want to live in a society where men and women are free to pursue their life's goals in whatever pursuits that entails. I think cultures that don't allow for this choice are evil. I think cultures that have traditional roles, as long as they are voluntary and not coerced, are fine. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I want to live in a society where the individual is treated with respect. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I want to live in a society where the individual is treated equally under the law, not where the law is applied to ensure the equality of outcomes. Does this make me a cultural marxist?

I think some cultures are shit because they want the opposite of what I want. Does this make me a racist?

I think some people are superior to others because of what they've done, accomplished, think, and DO. Does this make me a racist, cultural marxist, or evil?

I think some people are evil for the same reasons listed above. What term do you have for people like me?






Please say extremist :)

-Smoke

Why would any of that make you a cultural marxist? Don't know anyone claiming traditional roles should be forced, but they should not be attacked either and there are natural traits unique to each sex that should not be ignored, are those traits absolutes for every single man, every single woman that must dictate their life, no, but they are the norm.

[Origanalist]

can you guys stop arguing over a fake article

Absolutely not.

[JustinTime]

So much bullshit in this thread.

I want to live in a society where men and women are free to pursue their life's goals in whatever pursuits that entails.

Did somebody say they shouldn't be free to do that?

[Ronin Truth]

I can adapt to and live with Micro. ;) :)

[JustinTime]

can you guys stop arguing over a fake article

How's it fake? I've seen it reported by other sources, all corraborate each other.

[donnie darko]

This just drives me crazy. American society in general has no idea of actual suffering. And it just goes to show you that people who fight so-called discrimination are not solving the problem. The whole culture of college and university has turned into a giant therapy session.

Oh, there is plenty of suffering in this country, it's just not happening to spoiled, bratty SJW's.

[jonhowe]

You use those phrases yet claim you're not a cultural marxist? I really would like you to come to my town and I'll introduce you to several women who are homemakers, I want you to tell them what they do is "subservient" I want you to tell them they don't have a real job, tell them they are not "empowered" and that caring for their kids somehow makes them less than a woman who goes out into the work force.

You most definitely are a cultural marxist if you believe caring for your home and children is subservience. It is a very difficult job, and yes, IT IS a job, and not only difficult but very important. I think it's sad you hold so little regard for parents who stay home and care for their children rather than dropping them off at some daycare center. Most men in traditional roles do not leave the home every day to go out and let the good times role, they do so to earn a living to provide for their families.

You're misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying being a home maker is 'subservient' or bad in any way; my stay-at-home mom was the hardest worker I knew. Being forced into home making, however, is a problem, and yes it does exist. Being discriminated against in the workforce because you are a woman and are expected to be making babies IS a problem. It's not one government can solve (just as government can't force others to respect the role of homemaker), though. Cultural attitudes should (I believe) become more accepting of women in either role they choose (just as it should allow for men to be stay at home dads).

[HankRicther12]

You're misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying being a home maker is 'subservient' or bad in any way; my stay-at-home mom was the hardest worker I knew. Being forced into home making, however, is a problem, and yes it does exist. Being discriminated against in the workforce because you are a woman and are expected to be making babies IS a problem. It's not one government can solve (just as government can't force others to respect the role of homemaker), though. Cultural attitudes should (I believe) become more accepting of women in either role they choose (just as it should allow for men to be stay at home dads).

OK, I'd very much like to see your evidence on any of this, and when I say that I don't mean you go pluck out some rare exceptions, I mean I want you to demonstrate it is a common problem.

It's funny you say the baby thing because I have been in 3 serious relationships and every single time once I made it known that I did not want children she ended the relationship, now I just tell them up front and I've yet to get a 2nd date. Find me a woman who doesn't want to make babies, send her my way.

Look, you seem to be open minded, which is good, but it seems to me like you've bought into quite a bit of the feminist propaganda. Fact is, most women naturally want to be homemakers, and men physically are better suited to labor (tho many jobs aren't always physical), it's just how we are.

If some woman just has some burning desire to be " " and she can do so with no special laws or standards, I have no issue with it, but I can tell you most women are not looking to work and many of them now due to economic realities are being forced to.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You're misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying being a home maker is 'subservient' or bad in any way; my stay-at-home mom was the hardest worker I knew. Being forced into home making, however, is a problem, and yes it does exist. Being discriminated against in the workforce because you are a woman and are expected to be making babies IS a problem. It's not one government can solve (just as government can't force others to respect the role of homemaker), though. Cultural attitudes should (I believe) become more accepting of women in either role they choose (just as it should allow for men to be stay at home dads).
I don't see anything wrong with having a culture that maintains a healthy civilization, and encouraging women to value family is one of those cultural norms. I don't think that's oppressive, any more than encouraging men to be providers and protectors is oppressive. That's what a society worth living in looks like.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It's funny you say the baby thing because I have been in 3 serious relationships and every single time once I made it known that I did not want children she ended the relationship, now I just tell them up front and I've yet to get a 2nd date. Find me a woman who doesn't want to make babies, send her my way.

Yeah, that is definitely NOT something one should say on a first date. If you want girls who don't want kids, start dating lefty broads.

[HankRicther12]

I don't see anything wrong with having a culture that maintains a healthy civilization, and encouraging women to value family is one of those cultural norms. I don't think that's oppressive, any more than encouraging men to be providers and protectors is oppressive. That's what a society worth living in looks like.


Yeah, that is definitely NOT something one should say on a first date. If you want girls who don't want kids, start dating lefty broads.

Oh, I know, but saying off the bat is better than getting involved and saying it 2yrs down the road. Lefty broads, oh, can't do that, they drive me nuts.

[europa arise]

Thread: University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474937-University-Report-A-Room-Full-of-White-People-Is-a-Microaggression&p=5873940#post5873940)
Sock. Puppet.




UWDude (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?26268-UWDude)

Thread: University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474937-University-Report-A-Room-Full-of-White-People-Is-a-Microaggression&p=5872555#post5872555)
YOu suck puppet




How do I change my name to Mr. Socko?

http://www.wwe.com/f/styles/ep_trending/public/video/thumb/2012/05/19981005_socko.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ny5As.gif

[muh_roads]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgQITcfJd0

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgQITcfJd0
Gavin McInnes is probably the best commentator in the mainstream media. The full video was even better.