There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I do believe Britain has lost the narrative war.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ssion=true

[TiBo]

Hi there long time no see...
Two recent thoughts made me think about getting your input, so here they are:

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

(2) I've stumbled upon a category of statements which I find have a special quality to them:
These statements, and their opposite, can be true at the same time. And in addition to that, while being technically true, such a true statement can nonetheless convey a falsehood.

An example:
Rachel Dolezal is as white as Shaun King. (True, as they're both 100% white)
Rachel Dolezal is as black as Shaun King. (True, as they're both 0% black, while the wording falsely suggests that they are black)

Okay, not the greatest of discoveries, but it's something that falls into the category of "grammatical illusions".

[comhcinc]

Hi there long time no see...
Two recent thoughts made me think about getting your input, so here they are:

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

This is very easy for me. No. I don't want that button. While I think I know better than most people (btw I also think everyone thinks this) I don't feel like anyone should have such easy control over life and death like this.

You know the best Superman stories are all about this. Here is a guy who is basically a God and he has to figure what exactly he should and shouldn't do with those powers. I can honestly say I get a slight panic attack thinking about it.


(2) I've stumbled upon a category of statements which I find have a special quality to them:
These statements, and their opposite, can be true at the same time. And in addition to that, while being technically true, such a true statement can nonetheless convey a falsehood.

An example:
Rachel Dolezal is as white as Shaun King. (True, as they're both 100% white)
Rachel Dolezal is as black as Shaun King. (True, as they're both 0% black, while the wording falsely suggests that they are black)

Okay, not the greatest of discoveries, but it's something that falls into the category of "grammatical illusions".

Meh, I honestly don't care if they want to be black. It seems like so petty to me.

[Ape+lust]

Cunt doesn't want Cunt used by men cos women have Cunt's and so only they can say Cunt.

Decades before narcissistic slackers dreamed up pussy hats, military garrison covers were called cunt caps. Mostly by men.

https://imgur.com/1my2gkj.jpg

Of course, US soldiers should defer to the authority of an expert at puking from moving cars.

[MarcusAu]

You are making me think of 'The Phantom Tollbooth'

Probably because I'm as smart as Can Be, though I'm also as dumb as Can Be.

[MarcusAu]

...
You know the best Superman stories are all about this. Here is a guy who is basically a God and he has to figure what exactly he should and shouldn't do with those powers. I can honestly say I get a slight panic attack thinking about it.

The Great Gazoo got in trouble for this sort of thing too.

[katamari Damassi]

Re: Germaine Greer on Rape.
She's actually been quite consistent on this, I remember about 15/20 years ago , on a BBC programme, QuestionTime
basically saying "Rape isnt as bad as some people make out".
Here's a fuller report on what she said:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... be-reduced

There were 2 occasions were you could say I had been raped. One of those times was because of a miscommunication and frankly the guy was a bit dense. The other time was a guy who was bigger than me and not going to take "no" for an answer-that time was a bit upsetting mostly because I feared HIV. Neither time was traumatizing, and I'd meet up with that first guy again if my husband was into it.

[katamari Damassi]

You are making me think of 'The Phantom Tollbooth'

Probably because I'm as smart as Can Be, though I'm also as dumb as Can Be.

I hated that The Phantom Tollbooth. Its message seemed to be, "Bored? Go do some algebra."

[comhcinc]

Neither time was traumatizing, and I'd meet up with that first guy again if my husband was into it.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 18/b57.gif

[CommanderTuvok]

You know you have "Trump derangement syndrome", which turned some level-headed liberals into mad-shit far left Commies?

Well, there is also a "Brexit dereangement syndrome", and AC Grayling is a famous sufferer of it.

He had a chat with Guy Verhofstadt, an EU bigwig, and essentially told him to made it as hard as possible for the UK to get a deal. Cue accusations of "traitor". Funny stuff.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/96742 ... et-meeting

[CommanderTuvok]

If you want a laugh, or a cry, have a gander at this.

I kind of share's PZ's sentiments about small business owners, with regard to this bakery.

[DrokkIt]

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

Yes.

My group would be "people who would press said button".

[Bhurzum]

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

Yes.

My group would be "people who would press said button".

Yes.

All theists (including feminists).

[AndrewV69]

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

My thought was why stop at one group? Long story short. I would up eliminating around 90% of the current world population.

Oh I did make up an exclude list. No doubt everyone here is relieved they made it?


(You might think I am kidding. You would be wrong)

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Well put me on ignore then, but the ruck I specifically referred to where Robinson was shouting 'EDL till I die' led to a 12 month community rehabilitation order, 150 hours' unpaid work and a 3-year ban from attending football matches.

Okay I'll bite again .. Do you mean the ruck in 2011, seven years ago (former hooligan) and the banning order that he appealed against and won in 2016?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 84f7f1fcb1

Now I'm gone, I don't put anyone on ignore, no hard feelings mate, as I said, life's too short. ;)

The 'EDL till I die' incident was the earlier incident. That's why I referred to it before I mentioned the 2016 incident. And I don't take getting arrested for something different as 'reformation'. Saying ''He's not a football hooligan anymore, and he's given up mortgage fraud too, he's just guilty of contempt of court these days' isn't evidence of a reformed character.

The 2016 "incident" was the Beds police trying to stop Robinson from attending matches when even they admit he has not been involved in criminal activity since 2011. It was basically the usual "stirring racial hatred BS" conflating anti-Islamic statements and racism initiated by a national policing body. The usual chant is "English 'til I die".

[shoutinghorse]

You know you have "Trump derangement syndrome", which turned some level-headed liberals into mad-shit far left Commies?

Well, there is also a "Brexit dereangement syndrome", and AC Grayling is a famous sufferer of it.

He had a chat with Guy Verhofstadt, an EU bigwig, and essentially told him to made it as hard as possible for the UK to get a deal. Cue accusations of "traitor". Funny stuff.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/96742 ... et-meeting

If we had a PM with any moral fibre we would have said "Up Yours" and left a year ago with a no deal deal, be a year into trading WTO rules (like nearly every other country) and getting on with 'MBGA'
Unfortunately we have a Remainer PM with the spine of an amoeba, no negotiating skills and who appears to cave in to EU demands at the drop of a hat. On the back benches we have a man, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has the mind of three planets when it comes to the nuances of the EU and would be running rings around Barnier, Verhofstwat and that drunken oaf Juncker within minutes but she ignores him and keeps him on the back benches while it appears undermining David Davis' job at almost every turn. With the help of the House of Lords and Labour's complete climb down over Brexit we'll end up with a Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) A kind of halfway house purgatory, a Hotel California Brexit.

There was a time when I thought I would never have said this but if only we still had Maggie. She would have took none of this shite.

[Tigzy]

Cunt doesn't want Cunt used by men cos women have Cunt's and so only they can say Cunt.

What's the f-word? :think:

[MarcusAu]

It seems rather presumptive to call men "poor censored babies" when no one is going to be taking her advice on anything.

[MarcusAu]

What's the f-word? :think:

free thoughtpolice

[TiBo]

My thought was why stop at one group? Long story short. I would up eliminating around 90% of the current world population.
Oh I did make up an exclude list. No doubt everyone here is relieved they made it?
(You might think I am kidding. You would be wrong)

Noone said you could push the button only once. I know I'd be playing that thing like a set of drums.
And I said "freely designated by you", so you don't have to kill people whom you don't want to kill...

Any other takers?

[free thoughtpolice]

:P

[Old_ones]

Cunt doesn't want Cunt used by men cos women have Cunt's and so only they can say Cunt.

What's the f-word? :think:

Probably fag. It doesn't mean cigarette in the US.

[Stankeye]

My thought was why stop at one group? Long story short. I would up eliminating around 90% of the current world population.
Oh I did make up an exclude list. No doubt everyone here is relieved they made it?
(You might think I am kidding. You would be wrong)

Noone said you could push the button only once. I know I'd be playing that thing like a set of drums.
And I said "freely designated by you", so you don't have to kill people whom you don't want to kill...

Any other takers?

Twilight Zone already did this.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734580/

Wish it into the cornfield Anthony.

[Tigzy]

Probably fag. It doesn't mean cigarette in the US.

Nor even a large minced pork and offal meatball in a rich West Country sauce.

https://i.imgur.com/PDcNxQI.jpg

[Brive1987]

Brivesman wrote:

Goldy is clearly looking at the specific non-lethal genocial actions listed by the UN and channeling Lemkin circa 1930.

So please. Enlighten me with your thought process.

You brought up Lemkin again? A few days ago I addressed how St. Goldy's usage of genocide doesn't fit the Lemkin definition.

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[11]

Did you read that the first time I posted it? Or maybe you forgot all about in just a few days? Do you want to claim that is what is happening in Canada?
I get it that you don't like admitting when you are wrong, but wake the fuck up. It's not the other side wearing the dunce cap here.

Ah, the sociological definition of 'genocide'. I guess there's no such thing as reverse genocide either?

:D

Oh I read it. I just didn’t want to embarrass you by acknowledging your google gotcha.

Let’s take this slowly.

Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer who grew up in the 1920s and 30s in Poland/Ukraine, was principally interested in the loss (destruction) of national/ethnic identity as a consequence of state action. Murder was clearly one mechanism in this but not the actual focus of his interest. Ie means and ends.

This higher order concern can be seen in his interest in the Ukraine.

Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation... This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of the destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation

*** Pause. Think. Contemplate. ***

“This is not simply a case of mass murder”. The destruction of individuals is secondary to the destruction of culture and nation.

Ok. Breathe again.

In 1933 Lemkin codified proto “Genocide” in his address to an International Law Conference in Madrid. He proposed a new law which would criminalise the mechanisms by which the removal of a ‘culture-people construct’ could be achieved. He didn’t get much traction.

Barbarity - ie physical destruction
Vandalism - attacks on cultural and essential foundations

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/m ... nglish.htm

During the war, Lemkin researched German intent and concluded “the wholesale destruction of the nations over which Germans took control as an overall aim”. Naturally the holocaust was an extreme and unprecedented example of methods designed to bring about the destruction, in whole or part, of a people.

The Nuremberg Trials laboured under the weakness of missing international law that could accommodate both the actions and intent. They had to use “crimes against humanity” which had a big problem as only actions undertaken during war counted. So pre war Germany escaped.

The UN was keen to rectify this. They also wanted to establish a basis by which future, possibly less overt, acts could be prevented.

They re-engaged with Lemkin and a compromise definition (excluded political groups due to Russia) was hammered out and the term became a “thing” other than a general descriptor for a specific unprecedented instance (holocaust).

The definition remained true to Lemkins intent that essential essence of a people was the thing to be defended. Not just individuals. Hence the non leathal parts. It was also coloured by the War and obviously also specified physical destruction as a no—no method.

Ok, breathe again.

Now the whole scholastic and legal world knows that the effort to define a fairly nebulous concept, one shadowed by nazis, was a failure. Genocide, in so far as it has defined meaning, is too general to be applied but too specific to be ignored. The default is to assume that the holocaust is the benchmark against which to measure an action. Which clearly over specifies a term which was invested to cover more general less, umm, extreme examples.

So we have genocides in counties without legitimate governments (Rwanda). Genocides against economic classes that don’t count as a “people” (Cambodia), genocides “in part” where no one dies (Stolen Generations), genocides caused by land redevelopment (Brazil), genocidal activities occurring within non genocidal population shifts (Bosnia), cultural genocide by proxy (South Africa), auto-genocide by mass immigration (The self loathing and self destructive West).

The term is pragmatically useless unless (((you))) want to reserve it for facsimiles of the very weird events that occurred during WWII. Not surprisingly, the move today is away from using the term, rather using new, more specific, laws that are fit for purpose.

Btw it cost me good money and lots of time being exposed at Uni to more detail than I can deliver here. I will need to bill you if you can’t break free from your Dunning Krueger cage. (Haha what a wanker)

..............

Also, btw, I see Goldy is now going by the variant “ethnocide” I mentioned yesterday. Creepy, in a pleasurable way, coincidence.




Finally. Here is passably reasonable leverage of the concept and shit definition. Mark needs a bit more context, but he has clearly read more widely than a couple on this board.





So in closing you have three things to bounce around.

Lemkin who was concerned with destruction “of a culture and a nation”
The holocaust example which popularly prescribes and dominates the concept by sheer presence
The UN which sought a working synthesis and produced a flawed definition closer to Lemkin’s intent, but functionally useless.

[Brive1987]

In short Bear (Shatterface is just expressing) is coming at this from the wrong direction.

Probably due to gas chambers, he is looking for specific mechanisms, planning and clear intent that combine to form “genocide”.

Lemkin, and the term itself, works backwards. If the disappearance of a nation, people, culture (in whole or part) was state sanctioned then it forms “genocide”, regardless of the methods that were used. So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill. A la Keating and libtard multiculturalism.

Even if other motives were also in play.

[free thoughtpolice]

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of nation

OK. Show me where there is a coordinated plan.
Were you even stupider before you went to uni?
Stop it with this Dunning Kruger projection. You are rapidly moving from a regular dumbass to an arrogant self important dumbass.
Using this phony sophistry to try defend the idea that white genocide is happening in Canada is really silly.

[free thoughtpolice]

So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill.

Bullshit. Saying that a bald dude with a dick and a hairy back is a woman is bullshit and so is your willful attempt to change the definition of even the broadest definition of the word to fit your preconceived ideas or win a weak argument that if you were as smart asw yousay you are would never have continued.
Answer me this in yes or no. Do you think white genocide is occurring in Canada?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Cunt doesn't want Cunt used by men cos women have Cunt's and so only they can say Cunt.

What's the f-word? :think:

Faggot. Not the cigarette kind.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

:nin: again.

[shoutinghorse]

The end of the internet is nigh. :?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

In short Bear (Shatterface is just expressing) is coming at this from the wrong direction.

Probably due to gas chambers, he is looking for specific mechanisms, planning and clear intent that combine to form “genocide”.

Lemkin, and the term itself, works backwards. If the disappearance of a nation, people, culture (in whole or part) was state sanctioned then it forms “genocide”, regardless of the methods that were used. So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill. A la Keating and libtard multiculturalism.

Even if other motives were also in play.

Even if you were granted that the word genocide was stretched (no matter what sophistry you use, it is still going to be a stretch) to include Australia and Canada, the word means only as much as the public is willing to accept. The word "racist" has been abused to the point were many people are entirely skeptical of its application. I don't think it is useful to belabor a point that is unlikely to have even the remotest traction in the real world. It is very much like Steersman and his quixotic quests that only succeeded in annoying the piss out of everybody that wasn't Steersman.

And that's what you're doing. You have people that agree immigration is too high, and that assimilation needs a serious look, and you're trying to berate them into further agreeing with you on a rather extreme position that would never fly in the real world. If you don't believe me, please try it in the real world. Write an op-ed, letter to the editor. Start a movement.

And the bear is right. You're being arrogant, snotty and obsessive. "Breath again" Dafuq is wrong with you?

[comhcinc]

[ You are rapidly moving from a regular dumbass to an arrogant self important dumbass.

Yeah, stop it goddamnit. What will my role around here be then?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

[ You are rapidly moving from a regular dumbass to an arrogant self important dumbass.

Yeah, stop it goddamnit. What will my role around here be then?

Wrestling GIFs and moobs. Hey, do you still have that ferret?

[Brive1987]

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of nation

OK. Show me where there is a coordinated plan.
Were you even stupider before you went to uni?
Stop it with this Dunning Kruger projection. You are rapidly moving from a regular dumbass to an arrogant self important dumbass.
Using this phony sophistry to try defend the idea that white genocide is happening in Canada is really silly.

That is really what you took from my post? :doh:

Ok. You want to run with Lemkin’s 1943 hopeful attempt to technically define his general intent. A successful formulation which has defied scholars for over 60 years.

What defines coordination? Or for that matter a plan? Was the overall holocaust a coordinated plan? Or just parts of it?
“Different actions”. The poor bastard doesn’t even try to define what these maybe. Of yes he did, kind of, in 1933.
What defines an effective institution?
Over what time period does this destructive process have to happen?
Can we please lock down the term “National feelings”
Where do roundups fit into plans to ‘destroy’ essential foundations like language or religion? Can these be destroyed overtime?

Can the genocide occur in a series of stages, a process even, as various blocks of semi coordinated actions come together and general intent crystalises? Or is a Big Bang required?

Clearly Lemkin recognised the issues here because he offered up a seperate definition to the UN, didn’t he? One you don’t quote so much.

“Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide.”

So now attacks on liberty and property are the issue. Bags not be the policeman who arrested Tommy. :lol: :lol:

Lemkin, despite feeling the vibe, couldn’t articulate a usable definition any better than his contemporary (and future) academic and legal peers.

........

Re Dunning Kruger

I have some (limited) experience with the topic, or at least more than you. And my views are consequently less certain, more nuanced on the application of “Genocide”. On the basis on feelz and google you have strident certainty on what is and isn’t covered by this contested term.

This can be a complex dynamic. So I have plotted it for you.

http://i.imgur.com/NQjSgXe.jpg

[free thoughtpolice]

Fuck you Brive. And you can take your Postmodernist Genocide Studies and shove that too.
Still can't answer a simple question can you?

[Keating]

(1) Be honest: If you had a red button, that if pressed, would immediately kill all members of a group, freely designated by you, would you use it? And if so, on whom? (I thought a long time about it. I couldn't find a single moral objection powerful enough to outweigh the overwhelming net benefit of such an event. So I guess, it's only honest to admit that.)

That’s easy. All men who are not me.

[Keating]

I don’t think genocide is a useful or accurate term for what’s happening anywhere in the West. Doesn’t mean what is happening in the West isn’t a catastrophic moral failure that will cause much bloodshed and moral hazards in the future. Genocide is useful as a relatively funny meme, like X did nothing wrong.

[Old_ones]

Brive couldn't help but follow the trend in the humanities. Abandon logic and reasonable categorization and use sophistry to defend a fringe political position. I guess you can't really blame him - it's what all of his peers are doing.

[Keating]

Brive did nothing wrong.

[Brive1987]

Fuck you Brive. And you can take your Postmodernist Genocide Studies and shove that too.
Still can't answer a simple question can you?

The point is you think the concept has some form of absolute practical meaning when a whole school of non po-mo historians and lawyers say it’s as robust a concept as “white privilege”. My point and argument is actually the opposite to the SJ wankery you claim. Which is hilarious. And sad.

Now you want to anchor on a specific definition, of the many, one you happen to feel comfortable with. Good on you. And you want Collett et al to dance to this tune. Whatever.

If she wanted to play your game, as opposed to holding to the UN definition which simply says “intent”, Goldy would no doubt point to the implications of Trudeau’s stated goal of a post national state and the impact of this on extant “national feelings” and “dignity” of the individuals belong to old stock Canada. She would point to considered actions which results in the disintegration of extant religious national essence, the erosion over time of the dual language, the economic consequences and viability over time of mass immigration etc etc etc she would argue this post national state is a process of erosion and replacement without obvious kill zones. But that the goal is over what? 50 or 100 years? Canada’s unique
cultural identity would be demolished.

The UN, which is slightly more authoritative than PZ Myers (and you) has gone a different route to your definition and Mark Collett and Faith Goldie have discovered the weaknesses therein. But they have a choice of maybe 48 serious variants to peruse.

My point is the whole term is bunk and open to feelz.

You can’t just criticise Goldy for leveraging this fact. Go chase the Brazilian Genocide proponents. The word Is broken, take it out and shoot it and retain “holocaust” to describe the War.

And Bruce says stop being so damn sensitive. It’s unbecoming of a western male. Seek redemption from the Golden One.

[AndrewV69]

So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill.

Bullshit. Saying that a bald dude with a dick and a hairy back is a woman is bullshit and so is your willful attempt to change the definition of even the broadest definition of the word to fit your preconceived ideas or win a weak argument that if you were as smart asw yousay you are would never have continued.
Answer me this in yes or no. Do you think white genocide is occurring in Canada?

/wave

It was obvious to me after a few years that there was going to be a population replacement one way or the other. It really does not matter what you attribute it to or what you call it.

I can not begin to tell you of the number of Canuk couples (my age) who have either no children, or children who are never going to reproduce. Compare and contrast where together with my four siblings we have produced 20 children. Extend this ratio to my three cousins.

Demographics is destiny. The future belongs to who shows up. Which reminds me, the First Nations have a rapidly diminishing window to make good their claims from the guilt ridden Whitey, because I have a funny feeling that once Whitey is gone, their replacements are going to be less than sympathetic.

Anyway, It is not over till the fat lady sings. Or the teenager? Whatever man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord)

[Brive1987]

Brive couldn't help but follow the trend in the humanities. Abandon logic and reasonable categorization and use sophistry to defend a fringe political position. I guess you can't really blame him - it's what all of his peers are doing.

I had to look up “sophistry” to see if this was a compliment.

Unfortunately it wasn’t: “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

The upshot was that it seemed you might be about to deconstruct my false argument(s) and maybe provide some Freudian input around my intent.

But then you didn’t.

:bjarte:

[Old_ones]

Brive couldn't help but follow the trend in the humanities. Abandon logic and reasonable categorization and use sophistry to defend a fringe political position. I guess you can't really blame him - it's what all of his peers are doing.

I had to look up “sophistry” to see if this was a compliment.

Unfortunately it wasn’t: “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

The upshot was that it seemed you might be about to deconstruct my false argument(s) and maybe provide some Freudian input around my intent.

But then you didn’t.

:bjarte:

You should look back at the last page.

:cdc:

[free thoughtpolice]

So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill.

Bullshit. Saying that a bald dude with a dick and a hairy back is a woman is bullshit and so is your willful attempt to change the definition of even the broadest definition of the word to fit your preconceived ideas or win a weak argument that if you were as smart asw yousay you are would never have continued.
Answer me this in yes or no. Do you think white genocide is occurring in Canada?

/wave

It was obvious to me after a few years that there was going to be a population replacement one way or the other. It really does not matter what you attribute it to or what you call it.

I can not begin to tell you of the number of Canuk couples (my age) who have either no children, or children who are never going to reproduce. Compare and contrast where together with my four siblings we have produced 20 children. Extend this ratio to my three cousins.

Demographics is destiny. The future belongs to who shows up. Which reminds me, the First Nations have a rapidly diminishing window to make good their claims from the guilt ridden Whitey, because I have a funny feeling that once Whitey is gone, their replacements are going to be less than sympathetic.

Anyway, It is not over till the fat lady sings. Or the teenager? Whatever man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord)

Those are the facts.
White people have been choosing to have fewer kids in Canada for years, I am one that didn't do my bit to replace the population.
Meanwhile, politicians of all parties have supported bringing in people from other countries to fill the workforce that is needed to fill the demand.
Capitalism 101.
My parents came from families with 6 to 8 kids not counting the ones that died early, they had 2, my brother had 2, I had 0. Dropping birthrate.
It makes sense to bring in workers and business class when needed that can keep the economy afloat.
Sometimes you have to allow outsiders in. It should be tailored to get the right people in.

[Brive1987]

Back to immigration and jobs eh. Food carts will be next.

How many jobs, and from where? And how about we produce a society which values (and can afford) self propagation? Are “we” even trying?

[katamari Damassi]

Question for Slymebritters; I was watching a movie and it gave me the impression that Yorkshire is where the British version of rednecks come from, am I right or wrong?

[Lsuoma]

So the argument that purposely flooding a country with inimical cultures to make said country non ethnically western could fit the bill.

Bullshit. Saying that a bald dude with a dick and a hairy back is a woman is bullshit and so is your willful attempt to change the definition of even the broadest definition of the word to fit your preconceived ideas or win a weak argument that if you were as smart asw yousay you are would never have continued.
Answer me this in yes or no. Do you think white genocide is occurring in Canada?

/wave

It was obvious to me after a few years that there was going to be a population replacement one way or the other. It really does not matter what you attribute it to or what you call it.

I can not begin to tell you of the number of Canuk couples (my age) who have either no children, or children who are never going to reproduce. Compare and contrast where together with my four siblings we have produced 20 children. Extend this ratio to my three cousins.

Demographics is destiny. The future belongs to who shows up. Which reminds me, the First Nations have a rapidly diminishing window to make good their claims from the guilt ridden Whitey, because I have a funny feeling that once Whitey is gone, their replacements are going to be less than sympathetic.

Anyway, It is not over till the fat lady sings. Or the teenager? Whatever man. Fuck. (Die Antwoord)

<SNIP>

[free thoughtpolice]

Back to immigration and jobs eh. Food carts will be next.

How many jobs, and from where? And how about we produce a society which values (and can afford) self propagation? Are “we” even trying?

It has to be handled right and has had both good and bad results from my observations. We can do it better and should. Interestingly, in my community from the African migrants a good proportion are medical and other professionals as well businessmen are white south africans and there are a similar numbers of black africans, some of which are med or other professionals and some that are working lower level service jobs. All of them so far have been nice courteous people that I have no problem with.
Some times it works out. I also have a white Russian doctor that is an immigrant.
Hate to disappoint you, but I have other things to worry about than whether Canada is getting a little browner, at least in my neighborhood.

[Brive1987]

Clearly. That's obviously because "genocide" is a word with a commonplace definition (just like "racism"). It isn't a technical term; its a common term with technical definitions that matter primarily to specialists. A technical term would be something like "nucleophilicity", which is a word that doesn't have any meaning to non-specialists. Because "genocide" has multiple definitions Goldy can use it for its emotional value - to help white people feel victimized and persecuted, and right wing clowns can try to cover her tracks by pointing to the bailey of a disputed technical definition that no one actually gives a fuck about.

Here is a common definition of genocide that lines up with how people who listen to Goldy probably understand the term, and how I believe they are meant to understand the term:

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

From Merriam-Webster

That's a lot more straightforward than this:

Genocide
is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

from UN.org

I believe that people are meant to understand Goldy's use of the word "genocide" to be in line with the first definition, because Goldy isn't a scholar and neither is her audience. If we were discussing one of your colleagues in the humanities who had come under fire for their use of the word "genocide", that might be one thing, but we are instead talking about Rebel Media.

The understanding of "deliberate and systematic destruction" that an average person has will be informed by infamous and well documented cases that aren't credibly disputed. This could include the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Ukraninan genocide under Stalin, the Rawandan genocide etc. Those historical episodes are the ones that give the word "genocide" power as a propaganda tool. This is not unlike the way that SJWs swing the word "racism" around, knowing full well that to the public, "racism" means Klan members and lynchings, not a statistical disadvantage that a minority group faces relative to the majority. The stigma of being a labeled "racist" is not rooted in impersonal disadvantages or microaggressions and the horror that the word "genocide" evokes is not rooted in differential birth rates or recessive alleles.

As much condescension as you dish out, your bullshit is actually pretty transparent. You aren't above using the same unconvincing motte and bailey tactics employed by postmodernists.

Incidentally, I've never seen any evidence that white people are being intentionally destroyed (paraphrasing language from your own favorite definition) in any majority white country. Saying that western countries are bringing in too many non-western minorities, and that those minorities aren't being properly assimilated and held to account for misdeeds is one thing. Saying that there is a government conspiracy to end white people is completely another.

This argument?

The Webster definition specifically defines groups but leaves out ethnic and religious. That makes a long bow for “cultural”. It doesn’t address who gets to define these groups or who and what the perpetrator should be. An individual? A gang? A nation state? It avoids the issue of physical vs conceptual or metaphysical destruction of an identity. Does the group have to be fully destroyed or only partially destroyed? Deliberate and systematic? Well I guess the Wild West fails the systematic test, Ukraine in the 1930s may fail the deliberate test. Depending on how you want to couch that term.

These aren’t pomo considerations. If you are going to apply a term that popped into existence in 1943 and achieved proper life as a basis for legal action (ie it became technical) in 1948, then it needs to mean something. In whatever context it is used. There is a reason the genocide convention failed to be ratified by the USA until 1988!!

But all this is tangential but interesting historical debate. The bottom line is that Genocide is a concept swinging in the breeze, laden with emotional resonance and open to mobilisation by everyone from the anti zionists, BLM, Brazilian Native Freedom Party, white nationalists and nation states with an axe to grind. Or not, as the Americans demonstrated when Clinton used definitional imprecision to justify not engaging in Rwanda until too late.

[Lsuoma]

Question for Slymebritters; I was watching a movie and it gave me the impression that Yorkshire is where the British version of rednecks come from, am I right or wrong?

First time I've heard it put like that, but the comparison is somewhat apt...

[free thoughtpolice]

But all this is tangential but interesting historical debate. The bottom line is that Genocide is a concept swinging in the breeze, laden with emotional resonance and open to mobilisation by everyone from the anti zionists, BLM, Brazilian Native Freedom Party, white nationalists and nation states with an axe to grind. Or not, as the Americans demonstrated when Clinton used definitional imprecision to justify not engaging in Rwanda until too late.

Dr. Brice Derrida Ph D Intersectional Genocide Studies. I mean, what does "does" really mean? :ugeek:

[free thoughtpolice]

C'mon Brive. Yes or no, is white genocide happening in Canada right now?

[Keating]

Depends. How many bodies do you have buried on your property?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://www.theonion.com/coffee-cultiva ... ssion=true
Onion is funny.

[Lsuoma]

Onion is fast losing its satirical status.

[Bhurzum]

In a call-back to the nipsy-twitching fear of heights shit a few days ago...



Talk about a health & safety nightmare!

[SM1957]

In a call-back to the nipsy-twitching fear of heights shit a few days ago...



Talk about a health & safety nightmare!

Can't we get immigrants from Mali to do these jobs?

[Brive1987]

C'mon Brive. Yes or no, is white genocide happening in Canada right now?

Not by my preferred definition.

Not by popular usage which simply concludes “Genocide” is a synonym for “Holocaust”.

It would only meet the most flexible version of the UN’s piece of shit. But isn’t entirely ruled out. Which is a comment more on the utility of that word-salad than the existence of Canadian Death Camps.

I would be interested to see how much “cultural vandalism” the young 1933 Lemkin saw in Trudeau’s soy administration and how he interpreted that. Blue haired white post-colonial self hate is not something he could have directly factored in.

There is definitely a process of deconstruction of identity going on in the West. Some of it appears to be govt policy around accommodating a global population. Some is economic. Some is based on ideologically extreme interest groups. Some is a soft response to demographic/birth challenge (which is a different form of demographic challenge). Some is the organic response by new arrivals. Some is the impact of the secret (((globalists))) agenda.

Call it what you will, or need to, to get some form of awareness. And just maybe some positive traction and informed proactive, transparent collective goal setting.

[shoutinghorse]

In a call-back to the nipsy-twitching fear of heights shit a few days ago...



Talk about a health & safety nightmare!

And no Hi-Viz neither, how on earth have we survived this long? :o