Is Sexual Preference Racist? - Page 2

On April 02 2016 23:33 tapatapaz wrote: i am not even going to read this thread. i am already vomiting with the title

So this means what? You believe that preference is racist or no?

White women that are slim with a plump ass and some nice cans. It's what everyone wants.

Open a diccionary, read the definiton of racism and answer your own question

On April 03 2016 02:01 soberstone wrote: White women that are slim with a plump ass and some nice cans. It's what everyone wants.

+1

Just ask your nearest brotha, it's the dream

I think anyone who uses the phrase 'cultural marxism' without intending on bashing someone for using the phrase 'cultural marxism' is completely full of shit, always. Literally 100% correlation.

I think it's racist to look everywhere for a racial problem. (doesn't matter what race you are)

On April 03 2016 15:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think anyone who uses the phrase 'cultural marxism' without intending on bashing someone for using the phrase 'cultural marxism' is completely full of shit, always. Literally 100% correlation.

what word should they use for it?

use for what?

I can accept that the original academic use of the phrase from the 70s can have soome extremely esoteric applications, but the way literally everyone has used cultural marxism for the past 5 years has been the same way anders behring breivik did, as some derogatory term for multiculturalism-political correctness. He's literally the guy who popularized the phrase. And if you want to be critical towards multiculturalism or political correctness, be my guest, but using cultural marxism is basically like using Al-Baghdadi-phrases in describing western imperialism. Anyone who uses it in a serious manner basically confirm their adherence to a conspiratorical belief in that leftists are deliberately attempting to undermine 'western culture'. It's basically like believing in 'eurabia'.

Marx hardly even writes about culture. It's an idiotic term used by idiots and it should be an immediate red flag for people looking for people to ignore.

On April 03 2016 09:22 Baalim wrote: Open a diccionary, read the definiton of racism and answer your own question

this basically... racism is a belief so it has nothing to do with sexual preference. you don't get to decide what turns you on, but you do get to decide what you believe in (to some extent at least)

Since the original topic is basically dead, I may as well respond to your comments.

I use "Cultural Marxism" as a blanket term to underline destructive sociological issues predominantly occurring within Western Civilization. Whether Cultural Marxism is a deliberate effort by Western Governments to undermine Western civilization is largely irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that it is happening.

Mass immigration is proving to be harmful to Western civilization. It is important to note the distinction I'm choosing to use as there is a difference between immigration and mass immigration. The former of which I'm not opposed to.

Cultural relativism - Not all cultures are equal yet they are being treated as such or greater than Western culture.

Feminism in its current state is damaging to both women and men.

Free speech is being eroded and replaced with Liberal fascism. Just ask your neighbor - Sweden; the regressive kingpins of the world.

These are facts, and they fall under the umbrella of Cultural Marxism.

agree quest

liberal fascism is about as nonsensical of a term as cultural marxism is. just adding an unrelated misnomer to a word, be it culture or liberal, doesn't make for a new coherent phrase. liberal fascism is like saying communist capitalism or whatever, they are actually pretty much opposites.

I accept that cultural relativism is a real thing in liberal academia, but it is certainly not about treating other cultures as greater than western culture. It's the combination of two different factors; firstly considering tolerance and acceptance two of the virtues of western culture that must be preserved - which is not something that can simply be stated, it must be practiced. For tolerance and acceptance to continue being virtues of western culture, we must be tolerant and accepting. The second factor is that the previous time xenophobic sentiments, racial thinking, us-vs-them mentalities ruled european mindsets, we committed one genocide, engaged in slave trade and colonial oppression, and attempted another genocide.

There are feminists who have fairly radical ideas on what gender equality should entail. I don't agree with the most radical ones, but I am also fairly certain I don't agree with your impression of what the current state of feminism is -because I know many self-professed feminists I consider very rational.

Free speech being eroded - I vehemently disagree, I think overall, more people are able to express their thoughts and opinions than what has ever before been the case. People are just somehow confusing people vehemently disagreeing with attempting to stifle free speech. Granted, there are opinions that can't really be publicly uttered if you wish to hold public jobs - but this is largely because expressing hateful thoughts and sentiments towards a group of people that you have to interact with makes this interaction difficult. Then there are also actual real problems with media underreporting incidents to not spark more negative sentiments - this I have no defense for and think is really, really stupid, because it fuels these conspiratorical ideas that have little root in reality.

Either way, cultural marxism makes no sense to use as this umbrella term. Here is a long blogpost detailing why;
http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.no/201...al-marxism-cultural-conservatism.html

Thread title makes you want to go on a massive innocent kittens killing spree

Fortunately didn't read the rest

so we shouldn't say cultural marxism and we shouldn't say liberal fascism but you don't know what to call it? how about regressive totalitarianism?

are people still allowed to use the terms "social darwinism" and "free market" and "intelligent design"

Social mariximism is basically a conspiracy theory, not really a rigid scientifically sound theory. So i dont see why opposing or plain out negating social Marxism as invalid is not correct.

Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables); dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya
Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application.

On April 04 2016 17:31 uiCk wrote: Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables) ; dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application.

What? Ofcourse they exist in the real world. Perhaps not an international or national scale, but certainly free markets exist between individuals, between small groups of people, and in black markets, there are certainly free markets. Dunno wtf you mean by this. I don't know what you mean by changing variables but they certainly don't imply innately un-free markets. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but I really don't think a) you know what you are talking about, or b) you haven't adequately presented your argument. A or B or both are true.

Just because we can't create the conditions by which to prove through first-hand, pure evidence that something exists doesn't mean it has no real world application. That's an absurd, Niche-like assumption that is ultimately quite harmful. Are you saying gravity is a worthless concept with no real world application because we can't see it and don't fully understand it's causes? Sure bud. At a certain point the preponderance of evidence and successful application of certain theories within broader models creates just cause for the unanimous accepting of such theories. Free-market economics should be one of those things... but socialist politicians and information distributors keep holding us back from moving on from this stupid argument. Thank god for social media.

On April 04 2016 22:11 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On April 04 2016 17:31 uiCk wrote: Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables) ; dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application. What? Ofcourse they exist in the real world. Perhaps not an international or national scale, but certainly free markets exist between individuals, between small groups of people, and in black markets, there are certainly free markets. Dunno wtf you mean by this. I don't know what you mean by changing variables but they certainly don't imply innately un-free markets. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but I really don't think a) you know what you are talking about, or b) you haven't adequately presented your argument. A or B or both are true. Just because we can't create the conditions by which to prove through first-hand, pure evidence that something exists doesn't mean it has no real world application. That's an absurd, Niche-like assumption that is ultimately quite harmful. Are you saying gravity is a worthless concept with no real world application because we can't see it and don't fully understand it's causes? Sure bud. At a certain point the preponderance of evidence and successful application of certain theories within broader models creates just cause for the unanimous accepting of such theories. Free-market economics should be one of those things... but socialist politicians and information distributors keep holding us back from moving on from this stupid argument. Thank god for social media.

dig deep there, i was merley refering to the fact that you will never see free markets at it's purest form; there will always be forces that influence price aside from suply/demand theory (human behaviour: greed, monopolistic tendencies, oligarchies, human "preferences",) thus making 'free market' something unachivable. Unless we all become robots with same OS and same data bucket.


Edit: in short, free market is simply a characteristic of an actual market, composed of diferent forces.
Note to self, use less examples for less possible future tangents.

You don't sound entirely unreasonable but I still disagree. At the very least you're able to identify *some of the problems.

In my opinion, "Liberal Fascism" became institutionalized soon after the widespread acceptance of political correctness within mainstream politics. Political correctness is a tool the left has successfully harnessed to stifle debate and shame dissent. I think we can both agree that if you're unable to identify a problem you're unable to identify a solution and the left refuses to aptly identify many problems it deems to be offensive or insensitive. Why? Because they might offend a segment of its voter base that they imported. The left seems to have a bigger problem with the language used over the actual severity of the crime itself unless it's being perpetrated towards a minority.
Liberal Fascism has become an increasingly appropriate phrase to use since the bulk of bad ideas currently stem from the left and these ideas are dominating political discourse whether the left is in power or not. It should be quite clear by now that I disagree with political correctness and without a doubt it has been used for political gain by the left. I don't care about people's feelings, I care about the truth. "That is offensive to say and therefore should not be said" is not a legitimate argument and shouldn't be a legitimate reason to avoid discussing something. This is why we are seeing the rise of Donald Trump in America and the rise of the far right in Europe. These people wouldn't exist if not for the past and present insanity of the left. The general public is tried of being told what to think and how to feel. So yes, I equate Liberalism with Fascism because if it doesn't fit the liberal paradigm of moral righteousness you will be shamed, you will be demonized and you may even lose your career and family.

For those unfamiliar with politics and sociology I suppose I'll drop a list below to illustrate some of the many issues I'm referring to.

-Recently the Scottish Police issued a warning on Twitter stating that it will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated. The Scottish police WILL visit your house for any language they deem "unnecessary" or "unkind." That is basically police harassment of a citizen and this does not seem like a reasonable use of police resources when no crime has been committed.

-Angela Merkel is working with Mark Zuckerberg to clamp down on anti-immigrant and anti-refugee speech on Facebook. This is not conspiracy. The audio recording can be found online.

-Politicians have been fined for using government statistics to highlight societal issues. In Sweden a court fined a politician for hate speech because he mentioned that Muslims are over represented in rape statistics. The court ruled that "it does not matter if the statement is true."

-Paul Weston was arrested in the UK for quoting Winston Churchill.

-Gregory Alan Elliott of Canada was tied up in court for three years over disagreeing with feminists on Twitter.

-Canadian Mike Ward was put on trial because he made a joke about a disabled person. Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock won't even perform comedy skits on university campuses anymore due to Liberal (aka regressive Liberal students.)

-The racial backgrounds of the UK Rotherham gang rapists were covered up and reports of rape were ignored for many years because the police were worried about being viewed as racist and politically incorrect. Often times siding with the perpetrators as opposed to the victims. Not disclosing the race or ethnic background of the perpetrators is a common tactic of Swedish media.

-There are "safe spaces" on Liberal university campuses in America and Europe banning various language they don't agree with. Clicking instead of clapping because clapping is is said to be "triggering" etc. You have professors being fired for simply disagreeing with their students. It is appalling to realize that some day these people may be our future leaders.

-You have "Welcome Refugee" advocates that were eventually raped by "refugees" and coerced into remaining silent by the Liberal organizations they work for.



Your perception of "us-vs-them" is ironic.
The West has been unable to engage in fair discourse regarding mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. As result we may be heading for an us-vs-them civil war scenario because politicians failed to listen.

So the left and the people that voted for these politicians are to blame.

We should not allow past acts of barbarism--for which almost every civilization is guilty of--to cloud future decisions. What I'm focused on is the present, and I would argue that the events of the past are clouding future judgement. Angela Merkel welcoming over a million "refugees" into Germany in 2015 is a prime example of abandoning reason to atone for a guilt-ridden past.

Modern feminism seems to be about women looking for problems where problems don't exist. For example: The gender pay gap that two feminists and various other people and institutions have already debunked. And every other issue I've looked into seems to be a complete fucking lie. Now, I'm not going to claim that I've investigated every women's issue, because I haven't. I've got more interesting things to study. There are however people that make a lot of money peddling the victim narrative and feminism seems to be facilitating that process. If moderate feminists are so concerned about equal rights, maybe they should switch their sights toward misogynistic countries and avoid making false accusations of rape against university campuses. Women have many advantages over men, and men's rights groups have been bulled into closure by feminists so I find it difficult to feel any degree of compassion toward feminists. The problem is, the feminist discourse has been hijacked by radical feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian. These radicals are at the forefront pushing their ideology on the rest of us and unfortunately people---mostly leftists--are listening, and It's influencing policy in regressive ways. This form of "equality" does not sound like equality to me; it sounds like female superiority advocacy. Western women don't have it bad. Men and women are not the same, and as a result there will never be perfect equality. Boo Hoo. Fuck feminism.

User was banned for this post.

why?