So, let me get this straight- I’m English, and I need a list of people I’m supposed to be wary about. Help me out here;
So far I’ve got the French, the Irish- in fact pretty much all of Europe if you go back enough, so it’s probably best to play it safe and avoid all of them, as they’re pretty much all the same race anyway. Oh, but come to think of it, I probably should be asking you guys, 'cos most of you are Americans, and we do have a pretty troubled history there. Hm.
There was quite a lot of conflict in the Colonial era, so I guess anyone from Africa, or India’s out. Oh yeah, and the Japanese. Better not go there. I should probably be counting China and the rest of Asia in there too, y’know. Same race. I expect they have the same temperament, and just didn’t get round to fighting with us yet.
Any Australians around? I think I’m OK talking to you guys- you might take the piss a bit, and my government may have been a bunch of bastards to you at various times, but we’ve never actually fought. Unless you’re Aboriginal, I guess.
Anyone from any recently contacted South American or New Guinea tribes on here? No problems with you guys! You can come right over!
Things were neck & neck for a while but the subject of this pitting has pulled ahead in the “racist, stupid, racist” event. (He’s got “can’t work the shift key” all wrapped up.)
Not sure I want to comment on the last post there!
And yes, there was a lot of migration in Europe’s history but it was usually called an invasion rather than migration. And immigration can be a very good thing, in moderation. After all, look what it did for the American Indian.
The Migration Period is the more current name for what used to be called the Barbarian Invasions. The problem with the Columbian Exchange is that it happened suddenly–not in moderation…
In the Old World, knowledge had travelled back & forth between different regions for millenia So had disease.
Maybe try treating people as individuals rather than focussing on their group membership? Maybe stop blaming all unequal outcomes on discrimination which require positive discrimination to address? Stop fretting about whether there are enough people from [insert underrepresented minority group] at places like MIT. As Peter Singer points out in "ADarwinian Left":
No, they are expected to huddle in the fetal position, whispering, “Make it stop, make it stop, make it stop.” They are also excepted to use cough at least readable punctuation.
Of course ideally they will listen and learn. Some do.
Mac_bollan00’s arguments typically lack both substantiation and incisiveness. I fear that this poster suffers the double burden of incompetence in argument and a lack of the sort of meta-cognitive ability necessary to recognize his errors in judgment. It’s a vicious circle. Very unfortunate. For the board.
Well, do you disagree that people should be treated as individuals? I only point out the Darwinian reality (as Singer does above) because some mistakenly blame group disparities solely on discrimination or unfairness. This leads to absurd complaints like the one above about MIT, or this kind of racist discrimination:
wow, two long words per sentence. so, what do i call people like you who tend towards stupid generalization? i lack substantiation, incisiveness, competent argument, and meta-cognitive abilities IN THIS THREAD. i have not risen to any serious arguing here, but i have elsewhere. therefore, your post is as stupid and useless as this thread.
Actually, I was alluding to your GQ remarks, admittedly and hypocritically without substantiation. Your idiosyncratic punctuation tends to call attention to the weakness of your remarks.
i thought they weren’t bad as short remarks go. i’m referring to casual one-liners; intended to amuse or momentarily derail a thread, but otherwise considered normal doping; recognized and allowed by this board.
i do start valid discussions from a wide range of subjects, with something of substance and depth. they don’t turn out too bad.
so i am called here to answer for my poor GQ posts. :smack: