(untitled)
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
85 comments displayed.
#46
-
xsap (01/07/2016) [+] (6 replies)
stickied by bloodrocutation
the original comic is the exact opposite of what would happen tho. sending a racist out to experience everything he knows to be true first hand isn't gonna change his mind.
visiting india hell find how dirty the people are and experience DEIGNATED ****** streets first hand because they are afraid of the witch that goes boo in the loo
visiting Africa other than the nature/animals all hes gonna see is half naked tribesman living in slums surrounded by filth.
Brazilians the same with the high-rise slums and murdered streets. the only way to enjoy brazil is to stay at the resort and enjoy the beach.
middle east is the same as india just more bombs and higer chances of being kidnapped. visiting egypth you better take food and water with you because the waters are dirty and the food is cooked using that water
visiting hong kong and japan is the only decent places outside of the white nations. most of china is depressing as ****
visiting india hell find how dirty the people are and experience DEIGNATED ****** streets first hand because they are afraid of the witch that goes boo in the loo
visiting Africa other than the nature/animals all hes gonna see is half naked tribesman living in slums surrounded by filth.
Brazilians the same with the high-rise slums and murdered streets. the only way to enjoy brazil is to stay at the resort and enjoy the beach.
middle east is the same as india just more bombs and higer chances of being kidnapped. visiting egypth you better take food and water with you because the waters are dirty and the food is cooked using that water
visiting hong kong and japan is the only decent places outside of the white nations. most of china is depressing as ****
#9
-
sheepnut (01/06/2016) [-]
I've always believed that the solution to our issues is to celebrate diversity, not pretend we are all the same.
because that's a lie
because that's a lie
#41 to #40
-
bigmanfifty (01/07/2016) [-] How? Apart from some very superficial differences such as height or skin colour.
#43 to #41
-
catpisseverdeen (01/07/2016) [-] We are so different biologically, that scientists can tell what race and gender you were just by looking at your bones. There are certain diseases that only certain races can get. You cannot transfer organs/ blood between different races. Blacks and whites are something like %0.5 genetically different (take into account that humans and chimps are like %2 different, genetically). Brain size, muscle density, skin pigmentation, eye color, organ size, bone structure, it's all different.
#45 to #43
-
bigmanfifty (01/07/2016) [-] Yeah yeah, Inuit have larger livers, natives Nepalese can process oxygen better etc. But it's all surface level stuff.
Trust me, the scientific community as a whole sees these differences as superficial. The thing that makes us truly human, our intelligence and sociality, are equal.
Trust me, the scientific community as a whole sees these differences as superficial. The thing that makes us truly human, our intelligence and sociality, are equal.
#95 to #94
-
bigmanfifty (01/07/2016) [-] I meant 'surface' as in 'superficial'.
And the Inuit in northern Canada do have larger livers to process their meat-heavy diet. Look it up.
And the Inuit in northern Canada do have larger livers to process their meat-heavy diet. Look it up.
#85 to #43
-
anon (01/07/2016) [-]
While it is true that there are many differences between people, it's not true that different races are significantly different from a genetic standpoint. The average difference between any two humans (regardless of race, but not of sex) is about 0.1%. Interestingly, the average difference between any two humans of opposite sexes is 1-2%, which is about the same as the average difference between a human and a chimpanzee of the same sex.
#86 to #85
-
catassassin (01/07/2016) [-] I would also like to point out that the average genetic difference between humans is much lower than other species. So despite our outward differences (and yes, of course there are many), we are actually much more similar to each other than other animals. This would actually suggest some sort of population bottleneck sometime in the (geologically) recent past. Not that we know what that would be of course.
#52 to #38
-
drekinn (01/07/2016) [-] A distinct group of people process oxygen better, this very recognisable group has larger livers, this group can run faster, this group is stronger, why is it so inconcievable that different groups have different levels of genetic makeup for intelligence? how can we have distinct features in every organ and bodily function but the brain is somehow the same in everybody?
I think the biggest part of intelligence by far is environmental factors like nutrition and education, but completely disregarding genetics is just childish
But where this gets fun and my views differ from a racist is that blending together differences is the best evolutionary step, when asked to rate people by attractiveness, people rated mixed people much higher than other, and many research papers support the claim that mixed people are taller and more intelligent.
It's also been documented in other animals, it even has a name, Heterosis.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/02/diverse-parental-genes-lead-to-taller-smarter-children-says-extensive-study
I think the biggest part of intelligence by far is environmental factors like nutrition and education, but completely disregarding genetics is just childish
But where this gets fun and my views differ from a racist is that blending together differences is the best evolutionary step, when asked to rate people by attractiveness, people rated mixed people much higher than other, and many research papers support the claim that mixed people are taller and more intelligent.
It's also been documented in other animals, it even has a name, Heterosis.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/02/diverse-parental-genes-lead-to-taller-smarter-children-says-extensive-study
#65 to #9
-
anon (01/07/2016) [-]
Well yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with "celebrating" diversity if we didn't have diversity quotas, if our government didn't pay random people from the middle east to live here, if billions of our tax dollars didn't go directly to people who didn't earn it just because of the color of their skin, and if they didn't disrespect our culture.
But all of that **** happens. So what's a man to do?
But all of that **** happens. So what's a man to do?
#8
-
rmoran (01/06/2016) [-] >Multicultural society free of hate
>First and last panel shows hate in society
>First and last panel shows hate in society
#1
-
nanako ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] this is pretty poignant. globalism is gradually destroying a lot of interesting cultures, and replacing them with baseless capitalism
I miss the Samurai
I miss the Samurai
#5 to #1
-
paddypancake (01/06/2016) [-] That's Darwinism. Survival of the fittiest. Some parts of cultures are worth keeping. Others are not. This "baseless capitalism" makes people happier than the older cultures it replaces. I think its pointless to complain about the death of cultures which one doesn't work towards keeping alive oneself. If you want to keep samurai culture alive spread it to others and keep it alive yourself. It reminds me about how people complain about products like media and video games without buying them. You have no say in a video games content if you don't keep it alive (aka buy it) and you don't have a say in samurai culture dieing if you don't keep it alive yourself either. Globalism is the result of not restraining people's freedoms.
#10 to #5
-
greyhoundfd (01/06/2016) [-] But just like Darwinism, there are many different combinations of traits that allow a culture to thrive, not just one.To replace many effective cultures with just one that has all the "good" things in it destroys any sense of wonder or approval of the world.
#13 to #10
-
paddypancake (01/06/2016) [-] I don't intent to replace any cultures. I intend to let them be replaced naturally. All cultures which have enough traits worth keeping for some will survive until this changes. Destroying approval and sense of wonder isn't a natural consequence. It is something which people choose to. I am not for having a single culture. Nor am i for enforcing multiculturalism. What i oppose is this stupid opposition towards globalism (which is beneficial to human advancement) because of it naturally replacing cultures which people no longer choose to like. Multiculturalism (which i am neutral towards, for me it is important how it comes to be ->enforced=bad, naturally happening=good) is a cluster of cultures which keep the good parts while gradually abandoning the bad parts of cultures (just as normal culture does, i don't say multiculturalism is better by default, it is just as good as a single culture my point whatever happens more natural is better here).
It's like disliking the natural, best product of earths evolution (human) because it surpasses other lesser species which go extinct. Only differrence being in this example the human is the cause. In the culture debate however, its not the culture smashing other cultures, its people abandoning their own culture for a better one.
It's like disliking the natural, best product of earths evolution (human) because it surpasses other lesser species which go extinct. Only differrence being in this example the human is the cause. In the culture debate however, its not the culture smashing other cultures, its people abandoning their own culture for a better one.
#80 to #10
-
bann (01/07/2016) [-]
Different combinations for different environments. However, I'd argue we're destroying the traditional idea of an 'environment' with all the advances in technology. In the first world, my odds of survival are the same in a dessert or a snowy tundra, because we have technology to deal with it. What make a person thrive in our man made environments? I don't fully know.
However, I think cultures will be shaped and formed by the values that got them to the point they're at now.
However, I think cultures will be shaped and formed by the values that got them to the point they're at now.
#30 to #26
-
paddypancake (01/07/2016) [-] Yeah you have a point. That sentence wen't slightly different in my head. More like "cultural darwinism". I meant to make a comparison rather than act as if its part of darwins science. That just like the better cultures survive the better species survive.
#23 to #5
-
wotlqq (01/07/2016) [-] Kind of hard to keep a culture alive if MC ********* builds 10 "restaurants" where people could have build other things and the media spams you to buy and consume and praise capitalism. Its all about the cash not a big room for Darwinism there since you can´t do **** about it even if you try to stop it
#35 to #23
-
paddypancake (01/07/2016) [-] You can't stop other people from building their "MC ********* " and you shouldn't. Thats their own right. And you and others can choose to ignore the media. It exists because people like it. Let them keep it. It doesn't harm them. But you can build your own restaurant. Or go to a restaurant and that way make sure some of the better culture (in your taste) survives. I am not saying american culture is nice, what i mean here is that we shouldn't force people to keep a culture that would otherwise be abandoned and that we shouldn't restrict globalism because of cultures being abandoned.
#24 to #5
-
klille (01/07/2016) [-]
just like korea, that has had it's culture destroyed by american capitalism (and the other part of korea has had it wrapped up and twisted with communism instead, even if a little of it still remains)
and people are happy in korea, right? it's not like it got the highest suicide rate of any developed country or anything
and people are happy in korea, right? it's not like it got the highest suicide rate of any developed country or anything
#33 to #24
-
paddypancake (01/07/2016) [-] Not saying culture is good as it is. Not even judging it. What i said is that bad cultures get abandoned by people. And i prefer to let bad cultures die. And older cultures are also just as much if not more violent. Difference is the technical advantage and destructive potential of course but while a different culture would have lead to different results the cultures that are being replaced by the newer cultures wouldn't be much different. I didn't say modern american culture is in every aspect or even overall good. I am saying however that it is better without the parts that have been abandoned in the past. For example (to a big extent since then) discrimination based on race or sex. And i think we should let people freely abandon the bad parts of their culture.
#89 to #33
-
nanako ONLINE (01/07/2016) [-] also the samurai culture, as my original example, was exterminated with the US occupation of japan, along with a great many other things, the emperor is now a figurehead.
A superpower forced their culture onto a conquered nation, deliberately replacing and destroying what was there
A superpower forced their culture onto a conquered nation, deliberately replacing and destroying what was there
#88 to #33
-
nanako ONLINE (01/07/2016) [-] the definition of bad cultures is very subjective.
not many cultures die out naturally. They tend to end either with the deaths of those who preserved them, or oppresssive governments banning them.
Fox hunting here in britain is a good example. the middle and upper classes used to be quite fond of taking packs of dogs out, to hunt down foxes. Liberal whining put an end to that because it was too violent. poor little foxes.
So now it's illegal, but the foxes are still vermin, and they're still shot whenever possible. nothing practical has changed except service to hurt feelings
not many cultures die out naturally. They tend to end either with the deaths of those who preserved them, or oppresssive governments banning them.
Fox hunting here in britain is a good example. the middle and upper classes used to be quite fond of taking packs of dogs out, to hunt down foxes. Liberal whining put an end to that because it was too violent. poor little foxes.
So now it's illegal, but the foxes are still vermin, and they're still shot whenever possible. nothing practical has changed except service to hurt feelings
#92 to #88
-
paddypancake (01/07/2016) [-] also the samurai culture, as my original example, was exterminated with the US occupation of japan, along with a great many other things, the emperor is now a figurehead.
I don't know much about japanese culture and the emperor but i think not having a powerful emperor is a good thing. That being said i disagree of course with forcefully getting rid off cultures (well there are some very few exlusions, revolutions against kings for example is nothing i disagree with).
I also disagree with the banning of fox hunting.
I think i phrased my first comment a bit badly. To some extent i am pretty sure we will find alot of space to disagree with after correcting it but what i was trying to defend is not baseless capitalism. It was "baseless capitalism" in quotation marks because you were talking about globalism and its products. What i meant was the products of globalism which i think are not properly concluded in the phrase "baseless capitalism". Thus the quotation marks. Of course i shouldn't have expected anyone to follow this train of thought which i haven't written down. Capitalism in a proper way isn't bad some regulation against artificially influencing the markets like monopolies or costs which oneself doesn't pay like greenhouse gas emissions. but of course i disagree with the literal meaning of baseless capitalism.
Globalism has alot of economical and technological advantages and i think we shouldn't yearn for a different world without it. Which is kinda the essence of what i intended to write down in the first comment.
And of course bad cultures are subjective just as pretty much everything that can be judged as good or bad. But i think with enough time and by trying to fight artificial influence on it (forcing away other cultures) the best for humanity will come out in the end. People love to complain about the common dumb person but i think (and this is statistically proven) that the common person underestimates the common person by quite a bit.
And i don't think samurai culture is completly dieing or will completly die anytime soon. It is no longer the primary culture of people but a good part of our newer (and in my mind better culture) which survived the natural selection process for millenia is that we try to conserve culture. Not keep it as our own but preserve it. I think we shouldn't yearn for a past where people ran around swinging swords at each other but we can remember it and keep it. However it didn't survive the process of natural selection as our main culture and i don't think anyone needs it as their primary culture (though if some place somewhere would decide to keep it i wouldn't mind as long as it is compatible with civilized values). But i really dislike the attempt of artificially trying to get rid off or trying to preserve cultures as the primary culture if people clearly show they prefer something else. I gave that example with media and video games and feminists wanting to affect it without buying it. Wanting to keep samurai culture as primary culture (even though people want something different) sounds really similar to me. And since it never really died as part of peoples culture i thought thats what you wanted. Not really sure now though i personally think we shouldn't artificially influence the culture in any way other than choosing ourselves to keep or discard it unless it is harmful. And nationalism and enforcing culture tend to go hand in hand its like "good communism" others might choose to believe in it, i don't.
I don't know much about japanese culture and the emperor but i think not having a powerful emperor is a good thing. That being said i disagree of course with forcefully getting rid off cultures (well there are some very few exlusions, revolutions against kings for example is nothing i disagree with).
I also disagree with the banning of fox hunting.
I think i phrased my first comment a bit badly. To some extent i am pretty sure we will find alot of space to disagree with after correcting it but what i was trying to defend is not baseless capitalism. It was "baseless capitalism" in quotation marks because you were talking about globalism and its products. What i meant was the products of globalism which i think are not properly concluded in the phrase "baseless capitalism". Thus the quotation marks. Of course i shouldn't have expected anyone to follow this train of thought which i haven't written down. Capitalism in a proper way isn't bad some regulation against artificially influencing the markets like monopolies or costs which oneself doesn't pay like greenhouse gas emissions. but of course i disagree with the literal meaning of baseless capitalism.
Globalism has alot of economical and technological advantages and i think we shouldn't yearn for a different world without it. Which is kinda the essence of what i intended to write down in the first comment.
And of course bad cultures are subjective just as pretty much everything that can be judged as good or bad. But i think with enough time and by trying to fight artificial influence on it (forcing away other cultures) the best for humanity will come out in the end. People love to complain about the common dumb person but i think (and this is statistically proven) that the common person underestimates the common person by quite a bit.
And i don't think samurai culture is completly dieing or will completly die anytime soon. It is no longer the primary culture of people but a good part of our newer (and in my mind better culture) which survived the natural selection process for millenia is that we try to conserve culture. Not keep it as our own but preserve it. I think we shouldn't yearn for a past where people ran around swinging swords at each other but we can remember it and keep it. However it didn't survive the process of natural selection as our main culture and i don't think anyone needs it as their primary culture (though if some place somewhere would decide to keep it i wouldn't mind as long as it is compatible with civilized values). But i really dislike the attempt of artificially trying to get rid off or trying to preserve cultures as the primary culture if people clearly show they prefer something else. I gave that example with media and video games and feminists wanting to affect it without buying it. Wanting to keep samurai culture as primary culture (even though people want something different) sounds really similar to me. And since it never really died as part of peoples culture i thought thats what you wanted. Not really sure now though i personally think we shouldn't artificially influence the culture in any way other than choosing ourselves to keep or discard it unless it is harmful. And nationalism and enforcing culture tend to go hand in hand its like "good communism" others might choose to believe in it, i don't.
#74 to #33
-
spoonlover (01/07/2016) [-] I get your point but that's kind of misguided. You can look at history and see it as cultures evolving and giving up the "bad aspects" and you could say that people are abandoning "bad cultures" today because they are coming in contact with better ones. But you're ignoring power relations, and I know that sounds dumb but think about it seriously. Adopting the values of the dominant culture (American in the modern case) gives you an edge over someone who rejects it. People didn't always choose to adopt the new culture, sometimes they were forced, and other times they had it stolen from them (just look at the Caribbean). And I don't think your perspective on the evolution of culture is really all that accurate tbh. Culture doesn't go from bad to good in the long haul like biology. The process of evolution eliminates organisms that simply cannot survive. Culture is a social phenomenon which distributes and regulates meaning between a group of people. It's not subject to evolution. You can argue that the economy is the basis for the culture and that changes in getting food alter the culture and act as the evolutionary process for culture then that would make more sense. But it's not a unilateral movement from primitive to civilized. And phenomena such as sexism or racism don't fade. There will always be some kind of Other, not to say we shouldn't fight it or anything but it's a constant battle. Oh and the violence bit? I wouldn't argue that for a second. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. Gulf Wars I and II. These are just the wars the U.S. (a purportedly "good culture") has been a part of. You can argue that war is waged less, but are less lives really lost? Now technology. THAT has evolved. Along with our ability to kill with it. I don't mean to be rude but when you think about it, why would anyone want to abandon the system of values they were taught and brought up on since they were born? That's like saying people willingly throw away their identity.
#93 to #74
-
paddypancake (01/07/2016) [-] People are gradually getting smarter and more compassionate over the course of history though. Racism and sexism won't go away but the extent to which they exist has changed drastically over the last 50 and 100 years. Take culture from today (any piece) and culture from 10, 50, 100, 1000 years ago and compare them. Do that as often as you wish and in the long run you should find a pattern. Pretty much everything about humanity is slowly growing better. There is nothing forcing us naturally to adapt our culture. However people influence their culture and as we grow smarter, have more time to allocate towards judging it, more possibilities to create or keep it (and the same ability to discard it) we will gradually improve it. I think this process of improving culture naturally certainly isn't quick. It's probably less people abandoning their values and more people not keeping the values of their parents. I am not saying this cultural darwinism is fair and everything goes by the rules i stated (people abandoning stuff, no force involved, no artificial influence) but i plead for trying to get as close as possible towards that. Nationalism compared to muticulturalism has to have force involved since the latter is the more natural with todays technologies so i am obviously for the latter as long as it i less forced as the former (of course you can also force muticulturalism, thats why i wrote this sentence this way).
#96 to #93
-
spoonlover (01/07/2016) [-] I don't think you know history. The Romans had a flourishing society of law and order. Their society crumbled. Baghdad used to be a hub of intellect and commerce and culture and now look at it. Culture does not get better. It is not subject to the same principles of change as evolution is. A culture may grow less violent if it changes its economy which then grows due to technological innovations. The people would not have to fight each other for food or at least not as hard. The biggest point I wanted to make was that there is no good or bad culture. Culture is systems of meaning. You could look at Western societies and say they flourished because they had the best cultures but that's rather ethnocentric and dismisses the facts of history. And the reason it's harder to commit crimes globally is because of globalization and the ability to receive information faster than ever before, like slavery (which still occurs today), but as you can see with groups like ISIS it does not prevent people from committing violence. We just get called out faster by the international community.
#81 to #1
-
shleker (01/07/2016) [-] this cartoon basically says that hate is good.
I agree on all the "mondialisation and capitalism are killing unique cultures and depraving people of their identitiy" but this cartoons just opposes tollerance and nationalism saying the former is the best.
It genuinely says that a society free of hate is a bad society... how do you end up with such ideas ?
I agree on all the "mondialisation and capitalism are killing unique cultures and depraving people of their identitiy" but this cartoons just opposes tollerance and nationalism saying the former is the best.
It genuinely says that a society free of hate is a bad society... how do you end up with such ideas ?
#2
-
gittons ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] while this has truth in the matter it will always happen.
unless you form strong segregation and rules cultures are going to mix, grow, die and become
something different but cultures never die, they just become something else.
if the entire world had 1 culture that would be a huge and complicated thing formed from the
mixing of hundreds.
unless you form strong segregation and rules cultures are going to mix, grow, die and become
something different but cultures never die, they just become something else.
if the entire world had 1 culture that would be a huge and complicated thing formed from the
mixing of hundreds.
#67 to #2
-
lapsushominum ONLINE (01/07/2016) [-] My point of view on this is that suppose hypothetically the all the world becomes so effortlessly intermixed that all culture based on olden times is eradicated (which won't happen like you said). Like you said the complexity won't just disappear, it'll live on and be integrated like culture has always done. Plus, what we already begin to see today, if the world was so effortlessly integrated people would begin to form their own cultures based on personal interests rather than based on where they were born and raised.
#68 to #67
-
gittons ONLINE (01/07/2016) [-] the more i look at this the less issues i generally see.
like you said, if you remove borders and the pride of being born on one slab of dirt compared
to any others then cultures will be formed based on personal interests and like minded ideas
instead of on races and locations.
add in colonising other planets and cultures are a really complicated thing.
like you said, if you remove borders and the pride of being born on one slab of dirt compared
to any others then cultures will be formed based on personal interests and like minded ideas
instead of on races and locations.
add in colonising other planets and cultures are a really complicated thing.
#19 to #2
-
anametoremember (01/06/2016) [-] It's just natural that there are many cultures. There will always be. The situation of one global culture is nothing but hypothetical, ESPECIALLY in this point in time. When things as simple as the territory help a society to form its identity, you would need the whole planet to be the same indistinct mass of land, and well, that's not possible.
Plus, we live at a pinnacle time of recorded history, and it will only get better from here. No one ever will be able to erase a part of history, especially recent, because it's all recorded: all over books, the internet, in the minds of the people that experienced them. It's impossible to delete a culture at this point in time.
Plus, we live at a pinnacle time of recorded history, and it will only get better from here. No one ever will be able to erase a part of history, especially recent, because it's all recorded: all over books, the internet, in the minds of the people that experienced them. It's impossible to delete a culture at this point in time.
#34
-
howyadoinmate (01/07/2016) [-] a patriot loves his country
a nationalist hates everybody else's.
a nationalist hates everybody else's.
#79 to #78
-
sketchE (01/07/2016) [-] only slightly. muslim terrorists are going on shooting sprees and blowing people up in their own country. so did the IRA. people loosely related to ISIS or al qaeda go on shooting sprees in another country. the IRA did the same. captain americas father would be from ireland shortly after it gained its independence, around the time the IRA was forming
#27
-
anon (01/07/2016) [-]
What?
In the first one he exposes himself to multiple cultures and that made him happy, nationalism would mean you stick to your own culture.
In the second one he exposes himself to the same culture and is unhappy. And also everybody else is happy.
Whoever made this is retarded, it basically says nobody should be influenced by other cultures because i want to be influenced by other cultures myself.
In the first one he exposes himself to multiple cultures and that made him happy, nationalism would mean you stick to your own culture.
In the second one he exposes himself to the same culture and is unhappy. And also everybody else is happy.
Whoever made this is retarded, it basically says nobody should be influenced by other cultures because i want to be influenced by other cultures myself.
#17
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
/pol/, believing hatred makes the world a better place since THE CURRENT YEAR!
#20
-
drsalty (01/06/2016) [-]
>sees how different people are
>not racist anymore
>sees how similar people are
>still racist
>not racist anymore
>sees how similar people are
>still racist
#36 to #20
-
thechosentroll (01/07/2016) [-] It's more like
>Sees colored people as sub-humans
>Goes to different countries
>Sees they have their own culture
>Sees they have traditions and values and morals similar to white peoples
>Sees that different cultures can get along
>Realizes hating someone for being different is stupid
>Sees colored people as sub-humans
>Goes to different countries
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Realizes he was right all along
>Sees colored people as sub-humans
>Goes to different countries
>Sees they have their own culture
>Sees they have traditions and values and morals similar to white peoples
>Sees that different cultures can get along
>Realizes hating someone for being different is stupid
>Sees colored people as sub-humans
>Goes to different countries
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Sees nothing but nig nogs ******** in the street and raping women
>Realizes he was right all along
#7
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
More like rather than having ti go thousands of miles to experience a different culture you'd have to go the next block over. Your strawman is quite amusing though.
#84
-
anon (01/07/2016) [-]
"free of hate"
I ******* hate people that have never read books about utopian societies. They are so delusional, they actually believe humans can live together in peace and believe everything can be perfect. They believe they are invincible, but at the same time act like they are made of thin paper and like they are special snowflakes. **** these retards; they breed, they vote, and they breathe oxygen all at the same time lobbying their pussy, idiotic ideals down our throats.
What's up with this multiculturalism ******** lately? What happens when the majority of one culture doesn't like the other? They separate into their own communities/neighborhoods/towns/cities. Things are exactly like they were before, except now you have a part of that other country inside of yours, creating tension, wow that must have really worked out for you.
I ******* hate people that have never read books about utopian societies. They are so delusional, they actually believe humans can live together in peace and believe everything can be perfect. They believe they are invincible, but at the same time act like they are made of thin paper and like they are special snowflakes. **** these retards; they breed, they vote, and they breathe oxygen all at the same time lobbying their pussy, idiotic ideals down our throats.
What's up with this multiculturalism ******** lately? What happens when the majority of one culture doesn't like the other? They separate into their own communities/neighborhoods/towns/cities. Things are exactly like they were before, except now you have a part of that other country inside of yours, creating tension, wow that must have really worked out for you.
#4
-
paddypancake (01/06/2016) [-] I dunno i don't think we should give up the advantages of a globalized society so that some in 20 years anyways dead asshole is less of an asshole. You can keep your culture or parts of it in a multicultural society. You don't have to give up anything. When cultures die its because the people choose to give it up in return for something else. Why take that choice from them? If you think you belong nowhere because people in the same country have different cultures then thats your own problem. Enforcing muticulturalism is stupid. Enforcing nationalism is stupid. Just leave the choices what people's culture will be to the people. As long as this doesn't involve the bad sort of thing like crimes of course.
#12
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
truth be told travelling taught me most of all that i don't want ********* in my backyard
#11
-
logicalcommonsense (01/06/2016) [-] Well the democrats were the founders of the KKK. They also believe in quality so I guess it makes sense
