[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.73 MB, 240x135, jim lahey.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3199795 No.3199795 [Reply] [Original]

Assuming a society is civilized, is it not better to encourage all opinions to be discussed openly, rather than to force some opinions to be kept quiet? Is someone who simply wishes to silence the opposition merely unsure of the veracity of their claims?

Example 1: Racists are generally looked down upon and forced to express their views in secrecy. Would it not be better to encourage them to speak openly so that we may convince them the error of their ways through polite discourse in an open forum?

This is my main example, because I feel as though racism is one of the more "black and white" issues that could be solved easily through discussion.

Example 2: LGBT activists tend to protest in rather egregious ways (IMO), such as recently in france. Could the church and the LGBT community solve their differences more effectively through polite discourse in an open forum, rather than through fighting in the streets?

Of course the LGBT vs. church issue is much more complicated, but would peace and love through discussion and understanding be more effective than both sides assuming the moral and factual high ground and refusing to even consider the other side's opinion?

>> No.3199812

No one will go into a open discussion when they know that they are wrong from the start.

>> No.3199814

You're expecting the unreasonable to be reasonable.

>> No.3199823

>>3199812

But most people assume they are 100% correct

>>3199814

So you feel as though if two groups were but on stage to discuss their groups' opinions and try to find common ground they would still refuse to budge? There would be a moderator to keep them from ad hominem and strawman.

>> No.3199832

>>3199795

I remember my sophomore year of college.

>> No.3199834

Personally, I would rather everyone keep their opinions to themselves.

People seem to think too highly of themselves these days, and tend to think that every aspect of them is highly interesting, and every thought is a gem and should absolutely be shared.

I do agree with you at some points, but I think you're forgetting that people are complicated and they come with different traits.

Very little people like to listen to reason and argue their points. It is very hard to get a person to actively listen when they have made it clear their mind is made up.

>> No.3199836

>>3199832

The funny thing is you are 100% correct. Do you have anything to say though or did you just come here to be a cynical asshole?

>> No.3199842

>>3199823
They would argue past each other the entire time while their respective audiences would do stupid shit to show agreement or disagreement and nothing would be resolved.

>> No.3199847

>>3199834
>>3199842

Hmm. Sort of like the U.S. election debates. I see what you mean. Especially because the representatives would be voted off if they budged in the slightest.

>> No.3199858

>>3199834
I keep my opinions for myself most of the time and people are like "why the fuck are you so silent?"

>> No.3199866

>>3199847
Eh, I'm >>3199842
>>3199814
and I was thinking it's actually closer to someone asking for advice from an expert on ethics.
The thing is, the ethicist can break it down and explain it all thoroughly and could even possibly come out with some near-perfect approach which sums up the reasonable and most-kind/least-harmful answer to the problem.
The issue there is that someone who wants advice doesn't really want that anyhow. They want some simple, practical thing, and generally they want the simple, practical thing that most coincides with what they are already wanting to do.

>> No.3199867
File: 14 KB, 342x456, IsaacAsimov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3199867

>>3199834
This.

>> No.3199881

>>3199858
If you think of this as a problem, then share your opinions, I'm not saying this is something everybody should follow, neither am I someone that's relevant to your social life.

>> No.3199886

Holy shit. I've seen the pic in the OP about a million times on this board, and never considered that it might be a gif. What a feel.

>> No.3199887

>>3199866

Do you think people wouldn't be more open to budge in a polite discussion, though? Such as a discussion on abortion where the left can't misrepresent the right by saying they hate women and the right can't misrepresent the left by saying they are sluts that want to have more sex.

This also sort of applies to >>3199834

>> No.3199892

>>3199887
I'm saying the polite discussion would be a facade, like asking the ethics expert for advice.

>> No.3199893

>Example 1: Racists are generally looked down upon and forced to express their views in secrecy
Fail example at start. Nobody stops them from expressing their bullshit, right? So why the bitching if they get the same threatment, they ask for their targets?
"oh noes, I am a racist fuck who hates people, I wonder why people hate me"
Since racist are generally weak people, there is a good chance that they will change their views over time or forever stay social outcasts with some other racist buddies.


>Example 2: LGBT activists tend to protest in rather egregious ways (IMO), such as recently in france. Could the church and the LGBT community solve their differences more effectively through polite discourse in an open forum, rather than through fighting in the streets?
How is this supposed to work? This guys cant solve their differences because this would mean dropping their beliefs. The protests are just to get attention from other, uninvolved people.

>> No.3199897

>>3199795
it is contrary to reality to say that discourse is something that takes place on even ground-- certain groups have more than enough power to silence others, knowingly or no.

>> No.3199903

>>3199893

A society that forces people to be outcasts is exactly the problem. Learn to reading comprehension.

>>3199897

Tumblr pls go. :(

>> No.3199904

>>3199903

*forces people to be outcasts for having certain opinions

>> No.3199906

>>3199881
>neither am I someone that's relevant to your social life

Don't worry, I appreciate every sort of advice.

>> No.3199910

>>3199887
You've probably seen the debates with Romney and Obama, or at least have the general knowledge of which side represents what. I'm going to follow your lead, and go with a direct example from politics.
They never outright say what they mean, they are vague on purpose. Each side voices their opinion in such a way that without outright knowing what the specific subject is, you think you agree with both parties. No politician would outright say their ultimate goal.

>> No.3199912

>>3199903
see? I brought up a point and you immediately dismiss it because it does not align with your expectations/beliefs about reality.

>> No.3199921

>>3199903
>A society that forces people to be outcasts is exactly the problem. Learn to reading comprehension.
The superior alternative being that we accept racists and allow them to make life more difficult for people who aren't racist?

>> No.3199922

>>3199903
But what is the society supposed to do with people who want to outcast others? Isnt giving them their own medicine the best solution? Accepting talks with them, would let more people think thats its an acceptable opinion and support racism.

>> No.3199933

>>3199912

no it is just asinine to believe that in a polite discussion moderated so both sides can speak openly without attacking or misrepresenting the other side that one side will have more power. Unless your arguments are simply bad then this isn't true.

>>3199921

No. we politely talk to them and show them the errors of their ways.

>>3199910

True, but Obama and Romney were competing for votes from the entire country, not simply advocating for one side.

>>3199922

But do you really feel as though people would see the racist opinions and ignore the overwhelming evidence that racism is futile? I only feel like good opinions would be followed but that's just my opinion.

>> No.3199944

>>3199933
how can it be equal when the stakes are so much higher for the group trying to defend itself?

>> No.3199949

>>3199944

Because if it is moderated than they would each be given ample time to express their views/rebut the other side. There would be no decision made afterwards on anything. It would simply be a tool for trying to find common ground. It is just my opinion that unless the moderator was biased themselves than there isn't a way for it to be unequal.

>> No.3199952

>>3199933
>But do you really feel as though people would see the racist opinions and ignore the overwhelming evidence that racism is futile? I only feel like good opinions would be followed but that's just my opinion

People tend to go the easiest way with lesser responsibility for own fails. Believing that its acceptable think that youre oppressed by sand niggers, mudslimes and spics, who are the real problem and the reasons for you being a failure, I believe more and more people would choose this way. Not saying that we suddently would have everybody racist but there would be sure some increase. Nobody gives a damn about facts.

>> No.3199956

>>3199933
>talk to them and show them the error of their ways

but isn't it wrong that we have to convince the people with power not to be racist? that the livelihoods and often physical well-being of minorities can be decided by others

>> No.3199963

>>3199952

So you feel as though the average person isn't smart enough to make an informed opinion based on an analysis of both sides arguments?

>>3199956

No decision or law would be made from something like this. It would simply be a forum to better try and find common ground

>> No.3199965

yo were da literature at?

>> No.3199969

>>3199965

Socrates, nigga.

>> No.3199971

>>3199965
It's a good discussion, go play in the traffic.

>> No.3199972

>>3199949
Just because both sides have equal opportunity to present their case doesn't mean that both will be equally able to impose their ideologies, though.

Ending racism is some abstract "good" for most people, but for others, it's a pressing issue every day, and it's so incredibly difficult to convince people who are comfortable that they need to re-examine themselves...

>> No.3199978

>>3199972

But how is it worse than simply doing nothing?

>> No.3199985

>>3199978
it's worse because it invalidates whatever other practices people might attempt to end racism as too radical or whatever. It's worse because it allows people to be comfortable that that is sufficient to end racism/sexism/general shittiness, and allows them to hold this conviction without having to actually do anything about it or inconvenience themselves in any way.

>> No.3199986

>>3199963
Not generally but if we talk about racists, I guess we talk about people with intelligence bit lower than the average and probably not in the best situation, so having a target to blame their situation on, would make them feel much better. Then they hear some racist guy, while the society proves him wrong but accepts his opinions, this stupid, people with shitty lifes might consider them, since his opinion means they arent failures. The other options is exactly the opposite and basically makes them responsible for their situation. Who would like that?

I guess its just being realistic to say that we have a lot stupid people in shitty situations, so why giving racism even more chances to attract them?

>> No.3199996

Wow, this thread is fucking awful. Godamnit, /lit/, read more.

>> No.3200003

>>3199986
it's not only poor/uneducated people, but also people who don't have any direct links to diverse communities or don't want to be inconvenienced by, say, not being able to say "nigger" or make "whore" jokes any more.

>> No.3200006

>>3199985

Do you have any evidence to these claims? I ask with all due respect and sincerity. I personally feel as though if black rights activists were given an opportunity to really show the disparities between whites and blacks in America today then white people would wake up and realize that when the MSM tells us that blacks have it the same and are just lazy, that it isn't true. All we see in the news is "black man holds up gas station" but we never get to see the statistics that show the huge differences in funding for white/black schools and all of the other statistics that show that blacks have it tougher in today's societies.

>>3199986

I can understand this argument. You raise a good point. I just feel as though racism at least permeates through white society already enough to where these people would already be racists if that was what they wanted

>> No.3200011

>>3199996
Whatever you say big boy.

>> No.3200013

Gotta go though. Thanks for the input guys

>> No.3200026

>>3200006
Meh, not really, except for just the difficulty people have in recognizing structural racism/ways people are drowned out-- Even on tumblr, the "latina" tag is overwhelmed by pornography, the "bindi" tag is all white girls with bindis, and such.

>> No.3200039

>>3200003
Well, that would need a huge rethinking in the society but this is a part I agree on. Taboo words are just childish. I have no problem being called cracker by niggers or asshole by girls and would love to be able to call them niggers/whores back...though it at least works with friends.

>>3200006
Think your perspective might be screwed by 4chan a bit, in real life, such blanant racism is usually a joke and limited to a minority.

>> No.3200048

>>3199795
>Assuming a society is civilized, is it not better to encourage all opinions to be discussed openly, rather than to force some opinions to be kept quiet?

No. Absolute egalitarianism is silly.

>> No.3200063

>>3200039
The problem here is that being called "cracker" by a group that has very little power over you is very different than calling someone "nigger" when a large majority of the US will take your word over theirs every time, and when they have had to struggle with being treated differently their entire life.

For a clearer analogy-- if I was mocked for being awkward, it'd be the worst thing in the world, but if I yell at the most popular athlete at my school for being a man-whore or whatever, he won't give the slightest bit of shit because he is in the dominant position.

>> No.3200073

>>3200063
>he won't give the slightest bit of shit
He'll care enough to knock your shit in

>> No.3200074

>>3199795
Nice bourgeois construction of the liberal democratic state. It is a shame politics doesn't work like that. Politics is the condition where people agree not to fight in the street over issues they agree upon, such that they can politely discuss matters on which "reasonable men" may disagree.

The only thing is, many of my issues are excluded from the central agreement of the state, such as maintenance of wage slavery.

>> No.3200081

>>3200063
Mhm, you have a good point man.

>> No.3200084

>>3200073
which is an analogy for the various ways that white people can shit on black people (and historically have).

Everything else being equal, most people will trust the white person, find the white person more attractive, pay more attention to the white person, etc etc.

>> No.3200088

>>3200084
You're bad at analogies

>> No.3200094

The error you make in your first example op is that the "racists" are right and it takes non-stop brainwashing to get people to think in wacky unnatural cultural marxist ways.

>> No.3200095

>>3200063

but does it really matter if their feelings get hurt more?

>> No.3200096

>>3200088
yes.

>> No.3200099

>>3200063
lol liberals, slurs don't matter when men/whites are the "victim".

Literally fuck off and eat shit.

>>3200006
yes it isn't the same, blacks have a massive advantage in regards to schooling and jobs and so on. Look at obama if you need an example for that, a literal nobody who coasted through life to the presidency on affirmative action.

>> No.3200100

>>3200095
Beyond "hurting feelings" there's an underlying otherizing implicit in your unwillingness to listen to/respect the wishes of others.

also it continues to reflect on what you can do to them vs what they can do to you as being unequal

>> No.3200104

>>3200099
>coasted through life
You think Romney had a more difficult time getting to the point where he could run for president?

>> No.3200109

>>3200100
It's like you have absolutely no idea about how the world works, did you learn this shit in college or something? Maybe you should try taking a glance at the local news and paying attention to black crime?

Maybe go ask the local convenience store how often they are robbed by these negros.

>>3200104
romney is a successful selfmade businessman.

>> No.3200111

>>3200109
you're telling me his father's success had nothing to do with providing Romney access to all of the opportunities in the world?

>> No.3200117

>>3200109
maybe if anyone gave a shit enough to provide the slightest bit of opportunity to these people, the crime rate would start to go down

>> No.3200119

>>3200111
romney gave his whole inheritance to charity

>> No.3200125

>>3200117
Are you really this ignorant?

>>3200111
Oh also, it's like you liberals feel its evil for the parents to give to their children, to provide them with something. No wonder you liberals think its evil for whites to benefit from the success of our ancestors. Of course you always make exceptions for yourselves...

>> No.3200126

>>3200119
doesn't change what it means to grow up under people who know how success works/wish to imbue as much of it as possible in their progeny.

>> No.3200127

>>3200126
ok? Do you think obongo grew up poor or something?

>> No.3200128

>>3200125
I think it's awful not to recognize that some people get more out of the conditions of their birth than others.

>> No.3200133

>>3200127
no, but i don't believe in the slightest that he had more opportunity than romney.

>> No.3200137

>>3200133

is it a competition?

>> No.3200138

>>3200133
you think obama "earned" the presidency while romney didn't?

What did obongo do which was so deserving of getting elected that romney failed to do?

be born black and be a democrat?

>> No.3200142

>>3200137
You made it out as if he had everything handed to him vs Romney being a successful businessman and such. (assuming you're >>3200109 )

I just question that assertion.

>> No.3200148

>>3200138
Not being a mormon was a good start. But obama is a piece of shite

>> No.3200151

>>3200142

wasnt me, i just dont understand why everyone focuses on Romney's wealth so much

>> No.3200156

>>3200138
>What did obongo do which was so deserving of getting elected that romney failed to do?

He got more votes. I'm no political science guy, but even I know that. You have to start reading the newspaper or something, bro.

>> No.3200160

>>3200156
Now, are you counting non-white aliens as "votes"? Personally, i would not count people who wouldn't be citizens when the nation was founded as true americans.

>> No.3200161

>>3200138
Well, I can't speak to whether he earned it or not, but here's why I supported him over Romney
>Not pick Paul Ryan as VP
>I largely support his stances on social issues
>Doesn't reject global warming as a human-caused phenomenon
>Keynesian economics

I dunno. It's not like you "earn" the presidency through hard work so much as people decide that you're the person they'd rather have in charge, or you convince them that you are. I think that that's kind of an irrelevant question.

>> No.3200169

>>3200161
>I largely support his stances on social issues

The bombing of pakis, libyans and syrians?
deporting of mexicans?
indefinite detention of americans?

>> No.3200170

>>3200160
Why not just explicitly state "black people shouldn't be allowed to vote"? No sense beating around the bush.

>> No.3200171

>>3200160
>would not count people who wouldn't be citizens when the nation was founded

What do you mean by this? Only WASPs voting (and women or no?)

>>3200151
I think that it's not so much just his wealth as that people perceive him as someone who is not able to understand/be sympathetic towards people who are not born with as many opportunities available.

I don't think he's a bad guy for it, just rather have Obama as someone who I believe more closely represents my interests (especially socially).

>> No.3200178

>>3200169
Yeah, those are problematic. Do we have a better alternative in Mitt Romney, though?

Err, I realize that that's not really a good argument, but also couldn't see a third party candidate winning. US foreign policy is a clusterfuck of awful.

>> No.3200179

>>3200171
Why do you feel that a black halfbreed is closer to you socially than a white person even if he is fairly rich?

>> No.3200180

>>3200160
Why count them indeed. Why count the woman votes? Why count the votes of the poor?

The people who founded the nation aka. stole it by killing native fags, are long dead anyway and you didnt contribute to it more than a random nigger did.

>> No.3200183

>>3200179
Because some people are not retarded enough to rate their connection with other people by the race.

>> No.3200190

>>3200180
Is a child not entitled to his inheritance? Let us read the preamble to the constitution.

>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To ourselves and our posterity, not every single alien from all around the world that the leftist government deems pertinent to hand citizenship to.

>>3200183
Are you calling 95% of blacks in america "retarded"?

I assure you, race and blood matters a lot.

>> No.3200199
File: 9 KB, 312x240, 1354339434803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3200199

Woah...the anxiety over sexual unfulfillment in this thread is over 9000!!!

>> No.3200200

>>3200179
Well, I'm an Asian-American with a first generation Chinese father and a probably 4th-5th generation (we kind of stop counting after a couple generations) Japanese mother and relatives in Hawaii, so there's that.

Maybe I'm brainwashed from having been raised in LA, but I do support liberal social policies (the other anon pointed out the fucked-ness of foreign policy/NDAA and shit, but I didn't think that Romney would be better in that respect)

>> No.3200202

>>3200200
ah well you are non-white, you should have said that.
Maybe you should look up what happened in the LA riots.

>> No.3200203

>>3200199

>>>/b/

>> No.3200205

>>3200190
>Is a child not entitled to his inheritance?
Its different from case to case.

>To ourselves and our posterity
means
>We the People of the United States
So what makes one a "person of the united states" or from any other country? The citizenship, exactly. So a random nigger is just as much of a american as you are. Sorry.

>> No.3200206

>>3200190
Implying Romney represents the interessts of the majority of blacks.

>> No.3200208

>>3200190
>I assure you, race and blood matters a lot.

oh u

>> No.3200209

>>3200190
Of course, of course, but i firmly believe that you would categorize most changes that have happened in the last 200ish years to fall under the category of "progress" like the advances of medicine/transportation/information technology.

The founding fathers were human beings, not some infallible deities. They did the best they could at the time.

>> No.3200212

>>3200205
Blacks weren't citizens until after the civil war, indians weren't citizens the 20''s or something, further clearly citizenship didn't grant suffrage.

>> No.3200213

>>3200209
Technological progress is one thing, "social progress" is liberal mumbo jumbo.

Further the last 60 years of liberal "progress" has been objectively harmful.

>> No.3200214

>>3200212
As you might have noticed, they are now though.

>> No.3200216

>>3200214
Is what we have now, the end all be all of everything?

>> No.3200221

>>3200216
What we have now is accepted by the majority, so guess its fine that way.

>> No.3200226

>>3200221
acceptance doesn't mean liked.

>> No.3200230

>>3200226
We cant expect everybody to like everything, besides the amount of people who have problems with niggers is pretty small too. All good.

>> No.3200236

>>3200230
you being serious? You are aware that mexican gangs kill niggers on sight right? So clearly its more then just a "pretty small" amount of people who have problems with them.

>> No.3200242

>>3200236
So the way gang members think should be relevant for our own thinking?

>> No.3200245

>>3200242
my point is that pretty much all mexicans making up 50 million persons have problems with the negros, and certainly a vast amount of whites also embraces "racialist" thoughts to one extent or another.

After all, white flight is a reality, ethnic cleansing of negros in the south west is a reality.

>> No.3200248

>>3200245
Slow down, its a huge step from some gang members to every mexican.
Same with whites, couple idiots are not represantative for 200+ million.

>> No.3200253

>>3200213
because we can no longer in good conscience use black people as chattel, yes, it's economically harmful, but i think that's a necessity.

>> No.3200255

>>3200202
Of course I know what the LA riots are. However, I think it's kind of a gross exaggeration to imply that obama wishes to incite another round of them. Nor do my interests inherently align with the Korean community that experienced them. Maybe if I voted solely on race, but as I indicated earlier, I voted on the basis of keynesian economic policy and (somewhat more) liberal social policy.

>> No.3200263

>>3200255
You think keynesian economic policies are real?

Hell look at japan, they've been trying them for 20 years to no avail.

>>3200248
In my experience, mexicans do not have much fondness for blacks. Hell, outside of liberal echo chambers, neither do whites.
The situation is much akin to other totalitarian countries such as the soviet union, where the truth and reality is obvious but noone dares mention it.

>> No.3200287

>he thinks modern racism is about skin color and not about culture

>> No.3200288

>>3200287
>if we repeat "race is meaningless" enough, eventually people will believe it!

>> No.3200297

>>3200288
>implying it isnt
Shouldnt you be on /pol/?

>> No.3200302

>>3200297
its only whites who think that way. So we have hordes of alien colonists who all think tribally infesting the country, and white "individualists" who pretend race doesn't matter...

>> No.3200304

A big part of the reason, op, is that anti-racists are generally unable to argue without resorting to an hominem attacks, as this thread has shown.

>> No.3200317

>Racists are generally looked down upon and forced to express their views in secrecy. Would it not be better to encourage them to speak openly so that we may convince them the error of their ways through polite discourse in an open forum?
Yes.
>Could the church and the LGBT community solve their differences more effectively through polite discourse in an open forum, rather than through fighting in the streets?
It's not impossible but it takes what it takes. Besides, how do you have 'polite discourse' between tens of thousands of people?

>> No.3200323

Wow great to see my thread devolved to /pol/ while I was gone.

>>3200317

I was thinking by having people who are by and large considered "experts" by people on that side of the issue. Or generally considered "leaders."

>> No.3200325

>>3200323
>I was thinking by having people who are by and large considered "experts" by people on that side of the issue. Or generally considered "leaders."
I don't consider anyone a 'leader' with regards to ideology. Besides, 'power' does things to peoples heads.

>> No.3200327

>>3200323
The Pope and the King of the Homos sit down for tea to discuss their shared interests in crossdressing...

>> No.3200331

>>3200325

well someone respected then. multiple people. even people apathetic to whatever the cause is.

>> No.3200334

>>3200331
>well someone respected then.
Why should a certain number people be representatives of truth and reason? How are they chosen and how do they renew their representative mandate?
This is stupid.

>> No.3200342

>>3200334

It's really not that serious. this isn't an election. nothing is decided. It is simple a means to find understanding and common ground. You're acting like this would be the battleground for social issues and whatever happens would be writting in stone for eternity.

>> No.3200351

>>3200342
The reason nothing like that happens today is because nobody wants to publicly debate racists because ugly truths will be brought to light.

There are certain facts that we as a society have agreed not to talk about.

>> No.3200363

Read up on Discourse Ethics son, your position has been posited before

Of course it's possible, discourse can't be created in a vacuum free from real world influence/hegemony

>> No.3200409

>>3200302
Colonialism without massacring the people? Hey, we could give it a try too.

>>3200304
>supporting anti human ideology
>complaining about ad hominem
>irony levels are high in this one.

>>3200327
The pope looks like a sith lord, the King of Homos probably looks like some boss from silent hill. What a combination.

>> No.3200423

>>3200409
>supporting anti human ideology

Nationalism is "anti-human" ?

>> No.3200481

>>3199795

I have to agree with racism being wrong. People simply wont look nature vs nurture. People should and have a right to choose sexual partners based on their preferences and shouldn't be called racist for it. But other than that, why discriminate based on ethnicity? Discriminate by intelligence. Discriminating is a central part of success, the important thing is you must learn HOW to discriminate.

>> No.3200491

>>3200423
Yap thats what history and logic tells us. Focusing on nation if you should focus on people doesnt end well for neither.

>> No.3200496

>>3200481
>why discriminate based on ethnicity?

Because such discrimination is very natural to a human being? and to "deracify" yourself in the face of larger groups who DO INDEED care about race and tribal thinking is foolish and suicidal in the extreme.

Further, is not having a racial group, a nationality and an identity a good thing? I suspect not.

Should people be able to choose whichever partner they want with no regard to society, the wishes of their parents, or the welfare of the children? And you must remember there is regression to the mean, just because you meet an outlier black doesn't mean his children and descendants will mimic him in behavior and intelligence. Averages are essential, because that is what our society is built on.

We live in democracies remember, and you libs think democracy is a good thing, mob rule with 80 IQ(for negros/mexicans) is massively different to mob rule of whites at 105 IQ.

>>3200491
because war mongering communists will declare war on you?

>> No.3200504 [DELETED] 

>>3200481
>Let's ignore facts like humanity's tribal nature and force white countries to assimilate others and then blame the whites when there is conflict between the different groups

>> No.3200513

>>3200496
>>3200504

I cite the Roman empire. Your argument using 'facts' from the 19th century is now invalidated.

I hope to our Lord God and His Son, our savior, Jesus Christ, that you know enough about the Roman Empire to know how everything you both described is false.

>> No.3200553

>>3200481

It doesn't matter if it's wrong, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for a supposedly free society to forbid the free expression opinions it finds distasteful.

>> No.3200556

>>3200553
Who forbids it?

>> No.3200626

>>3200556

Most western European and former Commonwealth nations?

>> No.3200631

>>3200513
Rome wasn't multicultural.

>> No.3200638

>>3200631
You don't know anything about the Roman Empire