A United Front for a Sane Foreign Policy? Can Left and Right co operate?

[hitmouse]

(Shrugs).

Good point, that is also where they make shrugs as well.

 

[krtek a houby]

A routine and normal concept in Marx and Marxism before people on the left got so precious.

"precious" as in "easily offended", "snowflake", "killjoy"?

 

[8ball]

"precious" as in "easily offended", "snowflake", "killjoy"?

I don't think that what it means.
Though I can't say that RD2003 definitely didn't mean it that way.

 

[RD2003]

I don't think that what it means.
Though I can't say that RD2003 definitely didn't mean it that way.

I did mean it that way. Most of the left went fucking mad ages ago.

 

[Humberto]

I did mean it that way. Most of the left went fucking mad ages ago.

When you look at 'Labour', Corbynism, there is no left there right?

 

[krtek a houby]

I did mean it that way. Most of the left went fucking mad ages ago.

Whereas, the commentary people are reacting to, isn't "mad" at all?

The common thread that runs through the Left is celebration of paedophilia -- Hollywood came out in droves for Mr Polanski, and starting way back in the 1960s there has been an openly pro-Paedophile current in the Left -- check out the Paedophile Information Exchange in the UK, or the North American Man-Boy Love Association in the US -- plus, pleasure when people trying to establish a liberal democracy in backward Muslim shitholes are defeated, and women are dragged back into semi-slavery, with young girls forced to marry the Left's mujahadiin heroes.

It has to be those who take issue with it that are at fault, of course. Too sensitive and prickly by far.

 

[RD2003]

Whereas, the commentary people are reacting to, isn't "mad" at all?

Don't think I've said anything about it directly, have I?

 

[NoXion]

I did mean it that way. Most of the left went fucking mad ages ago.

Buncha fuckin' snowflakes these days. Can't even advocate eugenics or engage in casual queerphobia without some SJW jumping down your throat, right?

 

[Pickman's model]

Pretty much, yes. We could have an interesting discussion on this, because it's something I'm interested in, and know a bit about. I think that within a culture, it generally is.
But I also believe there are pieces of the puzzle that we are missing. When I was in military prison, there were a number of Black soldiers in as well -- they had passed the Army's
equivlaent of the IQ test (which had, I think, recently been lowered, in order to drag in more cannon fodder). Now ... I doubt that they would have done very well on a standard IQ
test, or on any academic test. But ... they were definitely not stupid. They were, by and large, unpleasant people -- several were Chicago gang-bangers. But they were very verbally
sharp. Had a Martian dropped in to observe all of us, it was the Southern white farm boys that he would have put at the bottom of the intelligence pile.

And ... if you go to Guatemala today, and travel in the countryside among the Indian population ... you are not going to be impressed with their apparent intelligence. But these people
are the descendants of the Maya -- who had an exponential-positional numbering system, a complex calendar, monumental public buildings ... all the basics of civilization on the rise.

Koreans are pretty smart people ... in Korea, and the US. In Japan, they're looked upon as rather stupid.

Irish mean IQ has climbed close to ten points over the last few years ... independently of the so-called "Flynn Effect". Why? Does it have anything to do with the loosening of the dead
hand of the Catholic Church from that country?

So I think there are aspects of IQ that we don't understand yet .. 'social' aspects. But in general, yes, you and I and all the Politically-Correct parrots reading this, if we needed a lawyer badly,
and we had a choice between one whose IQ score was 95 -- assuming such a person could even become a lawyer -- and one whose IQ score was 135, would choose the latter, all else being equal.

Of course, the real question -- the radioactive one -- is, (1) is IQ substantially affected by one's genetic heritage, and (2) are these genes -- or their alleles responsible for high IQ -- equally distributed
across the whole human family? I wouldn't disagree with the fellow who said " ... in mental ability [members of Group A] are probably genetically superior to [ members of Group B ]" .. it may
very well be true.

I won't go into this question further, but will just say: it's irrelevant. Because within a few decades, if we do not smash up civilization by a big war, we will know just what genes influence IQ -- probably hundreds, interacting weakly -- and what variants of them give people high IQs, and ... we'll be incorporating them into our desendants, maybe with improvements.

Just so long as there is not a big war. Which is why we must seize the day if there is a chance to do something to prevent it.

There's going to be a big war.

 

[Pickman's model]

A routine and normal concept in Marx and Marxism before people on the left got so precious.

Ah a nod to the gollumism of the left

 

[RD2003]

Buncha fuckin' snowflakes these days. Can't even advocate eugenics or engage in casual queerphobia without some SJW jumping down your throat, right?

Is that what I said? I thought I pointed out to one of the boards' language policemen that the concept of backward countries was once routine and uncontroversial in Marxist circles. Implying that the term 'backward' was never meant to suggest that the people of the societies in question were mentally deficient (as Krtek wants to believe was the intention) but, as I said, existing in societies left behind and exploited by the economically and scientifically advanced countries (ie scientifically and economically backward...) I don't know, and can't be bothered analysing the relevant posts to see, if Virulent NC was simply expressing himself in the time-honoured lingo of the Marxist past he says he's had, or if just trying to wind people up, knowing what many of you are like these days.

Of course we all know that since the left started sanitising language and keeping the smelly proles, with their dubious ideas and coarse manners, at bay, the socialist project (or whatever you want to call it) has come on in leaps and bounds.

 

[NoXion]

Is that what I said? I thought I pointed out to one of the boards' language policemen that the concept of backward countries was once routine and uncontroversial in Marxist circles. Implying that the term 'backward' was never meant to suggest that the people of the societies in question were mentally deficient (as Krtek wants to believe was the intention) but, as I said, existing in societies left behind and exploited by the economically and scientifically advanced countries (ie scientifically and economically backward...) I don't know, and can't be bothered analysing the relevant posts to see, if Virulent NC was simply expressing himself in the time-honoured lingo of the Marxist past he says he's had, or if just trying to wind people up, knowing what many of you are like these days.

Of course we all know that since the left started sanitising language and keeping the smelly proles, with their dubious ideas and coarse manners, at bay, the socialist project (or whatever you want to call it) has come on in leaps and bounds.

Terminology has evolved throughout society, not just among socialists. So if you want to blame that for whatever ills you think beset the left these days, you're gonna have to do a better job of detailing cause and effect.

 

[RD2003]

Terminology has evolved throughout society, not just among socialists. So if you want to blame that for whatever ills you think beset the left these days, you're gonna have to do a better job of detailing cause and effect.

'Evolved'

And no, I don't think that it's because the left and the liberals started trying to sanitise society that the socialist project is dead. It comes about because this kind of thing is all they have left in the armoury.

 

[Yossarian]

And ... if you go to Guatemala today, and travel in the countryside among the Indian population ... you are not going to be impressed with their apparent intelligence. But these people are the descendants of the Maya -- who had an exponential-positional numbering system, a complex calendar, monumental public buildings ... all the basics of civilization on the rise.

Koreans are pretty smart people ... in Korea, and the US. In Japan, they're looked upon as rather stupid.

Irish mean IQ has climbed close to ten points over the last few years ... independently of the so-called "Flynn Effect". Why? Does it have anything to do with the loosening of the dead hand of the Catholic Church from that country?

This shithead's barely a step away from phrenology and people are debating whether his use of 'backward countries' is racist.

 

[NoXion]

'Evolved'

Yes Timothy, language evolves. If you think that's laughable then you're a fucking idiot.

 

[RD2003]

Yes Timothy, language evolves. If you think that's laughable then you're a fucking idiot.

Have another

 

[RD2003]

And ... if you go to Guatemala today, and travel in the countryside among the Indian population ... you are not going to be impressed with their apparent intelligence. But these people are the descendants of the Maya -- who had an exponential-positional numbering system, a complex calendar, monumental public buildings ... all the basics of civilization on the rise.

Koreans are pretty smart people ... in Korea, and the US. In Japan, they're looked upon as rather stupid.

Irish mean IQ has climbed close to ten points over the last few years ... independently of the so-called "Flynn Effect". Why? Does it have anything to do with the loosening of the dead hand of the Catholic Church from that country?

This shithead's barely a step away from phrenology and people are debating whether his use of 'backward countries' is racist.

You might have seen that I, for one, already said that I can't be bothered analysing his motives, and merely pointed out that the term backward was routinely used by Marxists for describing 'underdeveloped' countries.

 

[NoXion]

You might have seen that I, for one, already said that I can't be bothered analysing his motives, and merely pointed out that the term backward was routinely used by Marxists for describing 'underdeveloped' countries.

It didn't occur to you to wonder why a racist old dinosaur from a failed political cult who makes excuses for its abuse would be using dated terminology?

 

[RD2003]

I think that's what all my contributions have been about, haven't they?

That's what you get though, with people from failed political cults (although the Sparts were a sect, not a cult). Better to stick with the wisdom of the sects that succeeded.

 

[krtek a houby]

Is that what I said? I thought I pointed out to one of the boards' language policemen that the concept of backward countries was once routine and uncontroversial in Marxist circles. Implying that the term 'backward' was never meant to suggest that the people of the societies in question were mentally deficient (as Krtek wants to believe was the intention)

Of course we all know that since the left started sanitising language and keeping the smelly proles, with their dubious ideas and coarse manners, at bay, the socialist project (or whatever you want to call it) has come on in leaps and bounds.

So, "backward Muslim shitholes" being used is just baiting and not racist or reeking of imperialism?

Hmmm.

 

[RD2003]

So, "backward Muslim shitholes" being used is just baiting and not racist or reeking of imperialism?

Hmmm.

As I said, I don't know what his intentions are, and nor do I much care. But they have little or nothing to do with the point I was making, in the first instance to you.

 

[krtek a houby]

As I said, I don't know what his intentions are, and nor do I much care. But they have little or nothing to do with the point I was making, in the first instance to you.

If you're just going for point scoring, fair enough. Just admit it.

The language, sneering and derogatory comments he's made in his short time here doesn't have much to endear anyone here, does it?

Or should he be an genuine option for the salvation of humanity, as he appears to believe he is?

Personally, don't think he's a messiah. Just messy.

 

[RD2003]

If you're just going for point scoring, fair enough. Just admit it.

The language, sneering and derogatory comments he's made in his short time here doesn't have much to endear anyone here, does it?

Or should he be an genuine option for the salvation of humanity, as he appears to believe he is?

Personally, don't think he's a messiah. Just messy.

If you think it's point scoring to highlight the fact that calling 'underdeveloped' countries backward was once normal among Marxists, then I can't stop you.

As for the rest, I don't care whether he stays or goes, but at least he's sparked a reaction. But I quite like reading posts which oppose or challenge my own viewpoint (which, like yours or anybody else's, isn't sacred.)

 

[krtek a houby]

If you think it's point scoring to highlight the fact that calling 'underdeveloped' countries backward was once normal among Marxists, then I can't stop you.

As for the rest, I don't care whether he stays or goes, but at least he's sparked a reaction. But I quite like reading posts which oppose or challenge my own viewpoint (which, like yours or anybody else's, isn't sacred.)

Fair enough.

Personally, don't like racism and don't like reading it here.

Any right wing twat can get a reaction.

Is it needed here, though?

Feeling that urban is better without it.

But each to their own.

 

[RD2003]

Fair enough.

Personally, don't like racism and don't like reading it here.

Any right wing twat can get a reaction.

Is it needed here, though?

Feeling that urban is better without it.

But each to their own.

Racism wasn't the main thrust of his posts in this thread or any of the others he's been on until relatively recently. But racists aren't usually difficult to argue with if you're inclined to, and it isn't like most of us don't frequently encounter them in real life.

 

[krtek a houby]

You might have seen that I, for one, already said that I can't be bothered analysing his motives, and merely pointed out that the term backward was routinely used by Marxists for describing 'underdeveloped' countries.

You merely described people who took offence at racism as "precious" and "mad".

You agreed with my suggestion that such people are easily offended, snowflakes and killjoys.

You admitted to not really reading his posts or at the very least, bothering with them.

Far, far more important to bemoan that his language and ideas are repellant to people here.

 

[RD2003]

You merely described people who took offence at racism as "precious" and "mad".

You agreed with my suggestion that such people are easily offended, snowflakes and killjoys.

You admitted to not really reading his posts or at the very least, bothering with them.

Far, far more important to bemoan that his language and ideas are repellant to people here.

People who take offence at a term that was (once again, sigh) routinely used among Marxists are precious in my book. And maybe a little mad (but who isn't these days?) And definitely snowflakes and killjoys (ditto).

I did read his posts. I thought they were mostly an interesting read until he saw fit to introduce The Bell Curve and all that, and refreshingly unorthodox for here, without agreeing with him on much at all. I've never before read an insight into the Sparts, whom I only ever encountered as weirdly angry paper-sellers with banners that looked like they'd been worded by the security forces.

 

[Sue]

People who take offence at a term that was (once again, sigh) routinely used among Marxists are precious in my book. And maybe a little mad (but who isn't these days?) And definitely snowflakes and killjoys (ditto).

Why would people necessarily know (or care) what terms were routinely used by Marxists?

 

[RD2003]

Why would people necessarily know (or care) what terms were routinely used by Marxists?

I don't suppose they would generally. I was just trying to head off Krtek's implied and well-rehearsed outrage at the term backward. I didn't expect that it would be still going on pages later. (Note to myself: stay off here when on the red wine.)

 

[Sue]

I don't suppose they would generally.

So questioning its use doesn’t make them precious then?

I was just trying to head off Krtek's implied and well-rehearsed outrage at the term backward. I didn't expect that it would be still going on pages later. (Note to myself: stay off here when on the red wine.)

If someone's writing for a more general audience (assuming that was VirulentNeoCon's intention), it's important they keep that in mind and use appropriate language/terminology, no?

And it sounds like even Marxists have moved on with their language anyway.