UK Politics Thread: Virtual Insanity

[NewAlbion]

and why is that?

Because. It’s such a negligible thing that doesn’t negatively affect anyone.

white people are a global minority

[Neu California]

And remember what whites in Zimbabwe did to blacks before majority rule.

Hint: The black people in Zimbabwe had good reason to be pissed at whites.

So basically, racism towards white = good
racism towards black = bad. racism is reasonable to solve racism according to you
? - was it the white farmers as a whole responsible?
and I am pretty sure it had very negative effects on their nation

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

[Glasberg]

Google what happened to whites in Zimbabwe

And remember what whites in Zimbabwe did to blacks before majority rule.

Hint: The black people in Zimbabwe had good reason to be pissed at whites.

So you believe past grievances justifies committing future human rights violations and ethnic cleansing? Got it.

[Neu California]

And remember what whites in Zimbabwe did to blacks before majority rule.

Hint: The black people in Zimbabwe had good reason to be pissed at whites.

So you believe past grievances justifies committing future human rights violations and ethnic cleansing? Got it.

No...

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

[NewAlbion]

So basically, racism towards white = good
racism towards black = bad. racism is reasonable to solve racism according to you
? - was it the white farmers as a whole responsible?
and I am pretty sure it had very negative effects on their nation

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

Look at its economy now.

[Neu California]

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

Look at its economy now.

And that has what to do with my post?

The fact that Zimbabwe's economy went to shit is down to bad leadership (Mugabe was an absolutely incompetent and corrupt ruler), not the fact that said leader was black, as you obviously seem to believe.

[Glasberg]

So basically, racism towards white = good
racism towards black = bad. racism is reasonable to solve racism according to you
? - was it the white farmers as a whole responsible?
and I am pretty sure it had very negative effects on their nation

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race[quote]

I don't agree with everything this guy says but he provides a coherent counter argument

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

Look at its economy now.

Perhaps it's the fate of all countries to have a shit economy if its previous colonial masters spent all their time draining the country on everything... and when it was finally time to leave, attempted to forcibly create an apartheid state worthy of the wildest dreams of the Confederate States of America, to the disgust of the British public.

[NewAlbion]

So basically, racism towards white = good
racism towards black = bad. racism is reasonable to solve racism according to you
? - was it the white farmers as a whole responsible?
and I am pretty sure it had very negative effects on their nation

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

But people have similar and different values in certain regions, for example, western europeans share similar values. Often, people will have clashing values from different backrounds which will lead to incompatability.
There's also a thing called affinity bias.

[Neu California]

Nice, disingenuous strawman.

My point was that the black people had a lot of pent-up anger at the white people who oppressed them. It wasn't right, but it was more understandable than the assholery that whites did to blacks.

Also, as a side note, I would like to remind everyone that there is no genetic basis for race

I don't agree with everything this guy says but he provides a coherent counter argument[/quote]
Random youtuber vs. scientists who have studied genetics. Which is more believable? Hmm...

And no, I'm not buying into any race realism, aka scientific racism, under any circumstances.

[Glasberg]

Look at its economy now.

Perhaps it's the fate of all countries to have a shit economy if its previous colonial masters spent all their time draining the country on everything... and when it was finally time to leave, attempted to forcibly create an apartheid state worthy of the wildest dreams of the Confederate States of America, to the disgust of the British public.

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

[Camtropia]

Immigration and colonisation are two different things - immigration refers to moving peacefully to another country and living in its society, whereas colonisation refers to invading another country and establishing your own in the image of your home country.

So comparisons to Zimbabwe aren't really applicable here. In fact, historical comparisons in general may be difficult; I can't think of past examples of immigration (not colonisation) on the scale that exists in the UK and much of Western Europe today, mainly because modern technology has made travel so much easier and safer than in the past.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Perhaps it's the fate of all countries to have a shit economy if its previous colonial masters spent all their time draining the country on everything... and when it was finally time to leave, attempted to forcibly create an apartheid state worthy of the wildest dreams of the Confederate States of America, to the disgust of the British public.

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

It was a KKK wet dream which the then British government demanded that they implement majority rule ASAP. Whose armies, like that of its Hitlerian, Mussolinian and CSA forebears were only good at "engaging" and destroying women and children.

[Neu California]

Perhaps it's the fate of all countries to have a shit economy if its previous colonial masters spent all their time draining the country on everything... and when it was finally time to leave, attempted to forcibly create an apartheid state worthy of the wildest dreams of the Confederate States of America, to the disgust of the British public.

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. As far back as 1976, when this was published, it was obvious that this was NOT the case

Edit: from the very same linked document:

PART III — RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Introduction
Both the 1961 Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, enacted by the British Parliament, and the present pretended Constitution of 1969 passed by the illegal regime, contain Declarations of Rights which proclaim in very similar language the right of every person to enjoy the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual without distinction as to race, tribe, political opinion, colour or creed. Both Constitutions contain exceptions and derogation provisions which render these supposed guarantees of little, if any, value.1 This is hardly surprising, since the purpose of the Constitutions and the laws made under them has been to maintain the ascendency and privileged position of the white minority, of now 277,000 whites ruling over 6 million Africans.2 To ensure this a whole paraphernalia of discriminatory laws has been devised, the broad outlines of which will be considered in this Part.
The essential areas of discrimination relate to the ownership and occupation of land, so as to ensure physical separation of the races as far as possible, and the fields of education, labour and political activity, so as to restrict the development of the Africans in such a way as not to threaten the interests of the Whites.

[Glasberg]

Immigration and colonisation are two different things - immigration refers to moving peacefully to another country and living in its society, whereas colonisation refers to invading another country and establishing your own in the image of your home country.

So comparisons to Zimbabwe aren't really applicable here. In fact, historical comparisons in general may be difficult; I can't think of past examples of immigration (not colonisation) on the scale that exists in the UK and much of Western Europe today, mainly because modern technology has made travel so much easier and safer than in the past.

The fact that is so unprecedented provides a stronger argument for resisting it.

But for what's it's worth go look at Bramptom and tell me that immigrants haven't been establishing a society in the image of their home countries. In only 20 years it's become unrecognizable from what the GTA used to look like.

[Camtropia]

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

It wasn't meritocratic, because people were very literally judged by appearances rather than merit.

And it wasn't a democracy, because less than 10% of the population could vote.

Why are you dying on a hill for a near-universally despised apartheid state?

[Neu California]

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

It wasn't meritocratic, because people were very literally judged by appearances rather than merit.

And it wasn't a democracy, because less than 10% of the population could vote.

Why are you dying on a hill for a near-universally despised apartheid state?

Because white supremacists mythologize Rhodesia, no matter the facts on the ground

[Camtropia]

Immigration and colonisation are two different things - immigration refers to moving peacefully to another country and living in its society, whereas colonisation refers to invading another country and establishing your own in the image of your home country.

So comparisons to Zimbabwe aren't really applicable here. In fact, historical comparisons in general may be difficult; I can't think of past examples of immigration (not colonisation) on the scale that exists in the UK and much of Western Europe today, mainly because modern technology has made travel so much easier and safer than in the past.

The fact that is so unprecedented provides a stronger argument for resisting it.

But for what's it's worth go look at Bramptom and tell me that immigrants haven't been establishing a society in the image of their home countries. In only 20 years it's become unrecognizable from what the GTA used to look like.

Well that's clearly a concern, and we need to reduce net immigration and ensure better integration of immigrants who are already here.

Also I'm pretty sure you don't mean Grand Theft Auto, but I don't know what else GTA stands for!

[Glasberg]

:rofl:

Rhodesia was a meritocratic democracy.

It was a KKK wet dream which the then British government demanded that they implement majority rule ASAP. Whose armies, like that of its Hitlerian, Mussolinian and CSA forebears were only good at "engaging" and destroying women and children.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini is particularly humourous as white Rhodesians enlisted in the British forces to fight Nazims and fascism at a rate higher than any other part of the British Empire.

[Neu California]

:rofl:
It was a KKK wet dream which the then British government demanded that they implement majority rule ASAP. Whose armies, like that of its Hitlerian, Mussolinian and CSA forebears were only good at "engaging" and destroying women and children.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini is particularly humourous as white Rhodesians enlisted in the British forces to fight Nazims and fascism at a rate higher than any other part of the British Empire.

And were still racist as fuck towards blacks.

I note you didn't try to counter the accusations that the state was a KKK wet dream.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It was a KKK wet dream which the then British government demanded that they implement majority rule ASAP. Whose armies, like that of its Hitlerian, Mussolinian and CSA forebears were only good at "engaging" and destroying women and children.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini is particularly humourous as white Rhodesians enlisted in the British forces to fight Nazims and fascism at a rate higher than any other part of the British Empire.

And yet when it came to enforcing their own private little CSA could only destroy women and children... like its forebears who counted ordinary women and children as "partisans" and "insurgents" to be killed and burnt down at will.

[Glasberg]

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini is particularly humourous as white Rhodesians enlisted in the British forces to fight Nazims and fascism at a rate higher than any other part of the British Empire.

And yet when it came to enforcing their own private little CSA could only destroy women and children... like its forebears who counted ordinary women and children as "partisans" and "insurgents" to be killed and burnt down at will.

Not their fault ZANLA employed child soldiers. Also the majority of civilian casualties were inflicted by insurgents on the white minority.

[Neu California]

And yet when it came to enforcing their own private little CSA could only destroy women and children... like its forebears who counted ordinary women and children as "partisans" and "insurgents" to be killed and burnt down at will.

Not their fault ZANLA employed child soldiers. Also the majority of civilian casualties were inflicted by insurgents on the white minority.

[Citation Needed]

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Local racist says murdering women and children is ok as long as you cover your crimes against humanity with a fig leaf. Rest of UK thread doesn't have the foggiest idea as to what he's doing here. In other news: Bears shit in woods, Pope is Catholic and the Earth orbits the Sun.

[Glasberg]

Anyways this getting quite boring so I think I'm done debating with a bunch of commies and libs.