Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 568

Thread: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

  1. #161

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Africa required less challenges to survive in for the Neolithic man, no Winter to plan for, a relative abundance of food, less incentive to make shelters to protect from the elements, so yes.

    Africa is a continent for the love of God . It's climate varies depending where you are and time of day.At times temperatures can reach freezing in the Siouth. I defy anyone to live in Ethiopia or the Sudan without shelter. And then there's the zoonoses to deal with , and potential for drought. Central Europe with abundant water, good soil, insects that don't kill you or your livestock, it's a doddle in comparison. Where did you get your information from, a Tarzan film?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I most certainly do not, and I haven't seen any statements from others that would give me this impression. Is it just a gut feeling or are you basing it on something?
    Not pushing a false narrative on white genocide or not a supporter of apartheid? You've not made that clear.
    Last edited by mongrel; March 29, 2018 at 03:40 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  2. #162
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Not pushing a false narrative on white genocide or not a supporter of apartheid? You've not made that clear.
    I've not claimed white genocide at any point, nor would I support apartheid.

  3. #163

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    I've not claimed white genocide at any point, nor would I support apartheid.
    That's nice to know. I'm pretty sure, however that you are not the only person contributing to the thread.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  4. #164

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    It's not a buzzword, it's literally what it is. You are taking someone's private property at the point of a gun, only instead of a thief doing it, it's a government representative.
    Forcing companies to hire workers not because of skill but because of skin is not justifiable. And yes, you are discriminating. If there are 16 open slots and 17 people applying, 16 Asians and 1 Black, the black is will be accepted by default while one of the Asians will be rejected, even if he is far more qualified.
    Instead of being a meritocracy we are lowering our standards for diversity, as if diversity is some great thing to aspire to.
    Trust me, someone qualified who didn't get accepted to the work place because "we already have too many whites" won't become more accepting of minorities.
    It certainly is not discrimination and I've explained why several times. Especially when affirmative actions forces a company to hire competent, skinned workers who would otherwise not be employed due to their skin color. Because that's what was happening. Just as the historical circumstances of the apartheid left white people owning the majority of farmland, despite being a minority. Your example only proves my point, that affirmative action being racist and socially negative is entirely dependent on context, just like the one you've drawn here.

    Is this supposed to sound outrageous or something? Because over here if you want to get any social benefits you need to provide all that information and more.
    I have no idea what you mean by "over here", but most social systems require an establishment of disability. They do not cater specialized packages based on the entire of your individuality.

    Rising black nationalism, seizure of private property from minorities, widespread murder of said minority and a political leader singing songs about killing said minority, blaming it for all the problems that his country faces... Replace the word black with white, and this becomes a description of Germany just before Hitler was elected.
    You haven't established that there is a widespread murder of Whites in South Africa. There isn't a seizure of private property, at least not on the scale you're suggesting. There's a fairly small-scale program designed to help poor Black Africans by seizing small amounts of farmland from White farmers. Emphasis on small-scale, as this effort has been going on for a decade now, and as far as I can see, White South Africans still own a significant amount of farmland despite constituting a fraction of the total population.

    While you did not outright say it, this was your response to when I stated that the case of Israel-palestine is not a race related one:
    Unless you were just making a random unrelated statement, which I doubt you were, this is an attempt to allege that what is happening to the palestinians is a case of racism via Islamophobia, which it isn't, since Muslim Israeli's and Christian ones are both fully equal to Jews, meanwhile Christian palestinians are in the same situation as the Muslim ones.
    It wasn't random and it doesn't imply at any kind of racism in Israel. Not that I need to, racism in Israel is a real thing. It clarifies what exactly racism is since the thread constantly dances around that topic.

    So when the Nazi's just confiscated Jewish property, but hadn't yet started killing, it was a good thing? Had the Nazis not killed Jews, would the seizing of their property be a great thing, in your opinion?
    You need only listen to what Malema is saying to see what motivates this current redistribution.
    The two are unrelated and you haven't addressed what I said. There isn't a similarity between what's going in South Africa today and Germany in the late 1930s. For one, the form of Government is different. Two, this policy has been in effect for over 10 years and a consideration to expand the law to eliminate compensation has been debated for quite a long time now. Three, there isn't a monolithic ANC autocracy, but a wide range of conflicting interests in the current legislative arm as with most healthy democracies. Furthermore, what one person says does not prove that their words are fueling the "current redistribution" especially when you consider that this policy is years old.

    Why does the skin colour of the rich matter? Why is making a white guy poor and a black guy rich in his place a good thing?
    For one thing, there are hardly any poor Whites in South Africa. Second, define how we are making a black guy "rich".

    [quote]Why are poor white people excluded?]/quote]

    They're not. There's hardly any of them that are poor.

    If there are so few poor whites, why not extend the benefits to them aswell? why exclude them just because other people who have the same skin colour are doing well?
    Can you really not see how this only causes more division along racial lines?
    Because they haven't been historically persecuted and don't suffer from the historical and social effects of the apartheid regime.

    Holy hell. A white person in poverty will not get benefits from affirmative action while a middle class black person will. That is racial discrimination. One is eligible to benefits, while the other isn't, solely on the basis of their skin colour. If the US government decided to hand out 50$ to all citizens of the US except for Blacks, the blacks would be discriminated against, even if without the policy their situation would be the same.
    Your argument is the equivalent of saying "so what if white's have privilege and blacks don't? even if the white's didn't have privilege, it would still be the same for the blacks".
    Except that's not what's happening. What did happen was employers selectively refusing to employ black people because of their skin color, so a law was made to force those employers to hire them. Pretty simply.

    It most certainly is a precedent of a government taking away private property due to the perception that their race is more deserving of this property than the race of those who own it.
    Uhh no. It's taking away land from a historically and currently economically privileged group to a historically disadvantaged group. It's the same reason why taxation is progressive.

    Lmao, Lauren is not alt-right. And it's not a meme, Lauren IS legally a man. You could get sued over this in Canada, you know.
    She can certainly be described as alt-right and it is a meme. It's literally a publicity stunt meant to troll the LGBT movement. I don't live in Canada.

  5. #165
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    It certainly is not discrimination and I've explained why several times. Especially when affirmative actions forces a company to hire competent, skinned workers who would otherwise not be employed due to their skin color. Because that's what was happening. Just as the historical circumstances of the apartheid left white people owning the majority of farmland, despite being a minority. Your example only proves my point, that affirmative action being racist and socially negative is entirely dependent on context, just like the one you've drawn here.
    Apartheid is over, people are (or at least I assume are) employed on merit on who can do the job best, modern South Africa no longer discriminates against blacks.

    I have no idea what you mean by "over here", but most social systems require an establishment of disability. They do not cater specialized packages based on the entire of your individuality.

    You haven't established that there is a widespread murder of Whites in South Africa. There isn't a seizure of private property, at least not on the scale you're suggesting. There's a fairly small-scale program designed to help poor Black Africans by seizing small amounts of farmland from White farmers. Emphasis on small-scale, as this effort has been going on for a decade now, and as far as I can see, White South Africans still own a significant amount of farmland despite constituting a fraction of the total population.
    The thing is, most of these farmers didn't actually steal the land. They inherited it. This is an immoral seizure of private land, and an abuse of democracy (a majority infringing the rights of a minority through majority vote). There is widespread murder of South Africans living in rural areas.

    Of course little progress has been made in a decade, people generally don't want to giveback up their land if they have a choice. But now land redistribution with compensation is devolving into illegal land grabs based on skin colour. A poor farmer will have his private property taken just as much a rich farmer will. Here's an idea, don't distribute land or jobs on ethnicity like Nazi Germany, Andy have a meritocracy that respects basic property rights. Yes, apartheid took land from many blacks. But why Ian that the farmer's fault, who now have to be force does off their land even though they are the better farmers.

    It wasn't random and it doesn't imply at any kind of racism in Israel. Not that I need to, racism in Israel is a real thing. It clarifies what exactly racism is since the thread constantly dances around that topic.

    The two are unrelated and you haven't addressed what I said. There isn't a similarity between what's going in South Africa today and Germany in the late 1930s. For one, the form of Government is different. Two, this policy has been in effect for over 10 years and a consideration to expand the law to eliminate compensation has been debated for quite a long time now. Three, there isn't a monolithic ANC autocracy, but a wide range of conflicting interests in the current legislative arm as with most healthy democracies. Furthermore, what one person says does not prove that their words are fueling the "current redistribution" especially when you consider that this policy is years old.

    For one thing, there are hardly any poor Whites in South Africa. Second, define how we are making a black guy "rich".

    They're not. There's hardly any of them that are poor.
    It's exactly like Nazi Germany, deciding who gets what treatment base does on ethnicity is unacceptable in any context.

    But for the whites that are poor, their skin colour excludes them from affirmative action aimed a thing equalising wealth? Which I don't personally agree with as it smacks of communism, but still there's an extra racist element there you can't deny.

    Because they haven't been historically persecuted and don't suffer from the historical and social effects of the apartheid regime.

    Except that's not what's happening. What did happen was employers selectively refusing to employ black people because of their skin color, so a law was made to force those employers to hire them. Pretty simply.
    I believe he was referring to race quota so where a certain amount of blacks need to do this, a certain amount of coloureds that and so on... it's idiotic, as well as inefficient to base employability on anything other than merit.

    Uhh no. It's taking away land from a historically and currently economically privileged group to a historically disadvantaged group. It's the same reason why taxation is progressive.
    Well it's literally randomly deciding that one person is more deserving of this land because of their race. It is not the same reason why taxes are progressive, progressive tax has nothing to do with racial discrimination. But I have no doubt progressive taxes on how white you are could be the next step if the EFF had their way, as they have with land theft.

    She can certainly be described as alt-right and it is a meme. It's literally a publicity stunt meant to troll the LGBT movement. I don't live in Canada.
    The LGBT movement is frankly a bit of a 'meme' in its own right tbh.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  6. #166

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Apartheid is over, people are (or at least I assume are) employed on merit on who can do the job best, modern South Africa no longer discriminates against blacks.
    Effects and ramifications of the apartheid are not over.

    The thing is, most of these farmers didn't actually steal the land. They inherited it. This is an immoral seizure of private land, and an abuse of democracy (a majority infringing the rights of a minority through majority vote). There is widespread murder of South Africans living in rural areas.
    And they inherited land that was gained through suppression of Blacks. "Morality" is dependent on context, and seizure of private land does not constitute abuse. Especially in a case like this, where neither you nor nhytgbvfeco2 have provided much to infer from. Accusations and attempts to paint ANC as a racist "Nazi-esque" regime do not help.

    Of course little progress has been made in a decade, people generally don't want to giveback up their land if they have a choice. But now land redistribution with compensation is devolving into illegal land grabs based on skin colour. A poor farmer will have his private property taken just as much a rich farmer will. Here's an idea, don't distribute land or jobs on ethnicity like Nazi Germany, Andy have a meritocracy that respects basic property rights. Yes, apartheid took land from many blacks. But why Ian that the farmer's fault, who now have to be force does off their land even though they are the better farmers.
    Show me how many "poor farmers" lost land. You would first have to prove that this targets specifically poor farmers.

    It's exactly like Nazi Germany, deciding who gets what treatment base does on ethnicity is unacceptable in any context.

    But for the whites that are poor, their skin colour excludes them from affirmative action aimed a thing equalising wealth? Which I don't personally agree with as it smacks of communism, but still there's an extra racist element there you can't deny.
    No. It's nothing like Nazi Germany. White people aren't being rounded up. White people aren't being forced to give up everything except a suitcase and clothes. White people aren't having their bank accounts emptied. Your only connection to this being like "Nazi Germany" is that a relatively small amount of farmland is being redistributed slowly to try to equalize land ownership. Most of which isn't even taken anyway. If this is the benchmark for a "Nazi regime" than the majority of the Western world has been conquered by Hitler long ago. Our affirmative action is far more invasive and widespread than this piece of legislation.

    Stop invoking Nazis. You're only ridiculing your own argument.

    I believe he was referring to race quota so where a certain amount of blacks need to do this, a certain amount of coloureds that and so on... it's idiotic, as well as inefficient to base employability on anything other than merit.
    Tell that to Blacks in 1970. Tell that to Blacks today. You really think employment discrimination stopped in 1860s? Affirmative action is necessary in many cases to force institutions and employers to accept people they would otherwise not accept. Your mistake is in thinking that everyone is driven ultimately by economic interests. That's absolutely false, as the people who pick who to accept where, or the programs they write to make selections, are all prone to biases of the people in charge. This was most obvious post Civil Rights Act. Where despite the abolishing of segregation, racism persisted and affected Blacks to an immense degree. This is why it was such a breakthrough when Jackie Robbinson broke the color barrier. Affirmative action is often necessary to destroy discrimination as opposed to vice versa as you guys have been suggesting for the last 3-4 pages. The refusal to acknowledge this basic fact is grating, as my points have been convoluted or outright ignored and a ridiculous analogy of Nazis has popped up in the last two pages.

    Well it's literally randomly deciding that one person is more deserving of this land because of their race. It is not the same reason why taxes are progressive, progressive tax has nothing to do with racial discrimination. But I have no doubt progressive taxes on how white you are could be the next step if the EFF had their way, as they have with land theft.
    No. It's not random. All policy makers, economists, etc work under certain assumptions. There are limits to these assumptions but we are forced to rely on them in order to make broad and effective policies. That people get left out or certain groups are disadvantaged inadvertently is part of the calculus. We balance the costs and the benefits and determine which outcome to achieve. The reason these policies are even made in the first place is because of an existing imbalances that are unacceptable. Such as Blacks being discriminated against, or a historical apartheid regime that gave white people ownership of the majority of the farmland despite being a minority. These things aren't random, let's stop implying that.

    The LGBT movement is frankly a bit of a 'meme' in its own right tbh.
    Yeah. I mean why get upset over not being able to marry the person you love. This is what pisses me off about so much right-wing rhetoric today. You trivialize important issues. You simplify complex problems. You ignore context. This South African land redistribution effort is probably wrong and there's many things to criticize. Yet the discussion over the last three pages has been about whether the ANC is deliberately trying to strip Whites of their property because they are Nazi racists and any affirmative action can be distilled down to that characterization. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to debate such a strawman? I don't even think there should be redistribution because it seems silly to attempt to combat wealth inequality by passing around land that doesn't get taken anyway, but the on-going discussion is completely tangential and largely unrelated to the actual issue at hand.

  7. #167
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Effects and ramifications of the apartheid are not over.

    And they inherited land that was gained through suppression of Blacks. "Morality" is dependent on context, and seizure of private land does not constitute abuse. Especially in a case like this, where neither you nor nhytgbvfeco2 have provided much to infer from. Accusations and attempts to paint ANC as a racist "Nazi-esque" regime do not help.
    The problem isn't you're persecuting people for a crime they didn't personally commit, Andy holding their entire race to account.

    Show me how many "poor farmers" lost land. You would first have to prove that this targets specifically poor farmers.
    It targets all white farmers, regardless of economic standing.

    No. It's nothing like Nazi Germany. White people aren't being rounded up. White people aren't being forced to give up everything except a suitcase and clothes. White people aren't having their bank accounts emptied. Your only connection to this being like "Nazi Germany" is that a relatively small amount of farmland is being redistributed slowly to try to equalize land ownership. Most of which isn't even taken anyway. If this is the benchmark for a "Nazi regime" than the majority of the Western world has been conquered by Hitler long ago. Our affirmative action is far more invasive and widespread than this piece of legislation.

    Stop invoking Nazis. You're only ridiculing your own argument.
    It's nowhere near Germany was in terms of magnitude, but the ideology is the same, "the Jews wronged us, so their entire race should be held Tom account."

    Tell that to Blacks in 1970. Tell that to Blacks today. You really think employment discrimination stopped in 1860s? Affirmative action is necessary in many cases to force institutions and employers to accept people they would otherwise not accept. Your mistake is in thinking that everyone is driven ultimately by economic interests. That's absolutely false, as the people who pick who to accept where, or the programs they write to make selections, are all prone to biases of the people in charge. This was most obvious post Civil Rights Act. Where despite the abolishing of segregation, racism persisted and affected Blacks to an immense degree. This is why it was such a breakthrough when Jackie Robbinson broke the color barrier. Affirmative action is often necessary to destroy discrimination as opposed to vice versa as you guys have been suggesting for the last 3-4 pages. The refusal to acknowledge this basic fact is grating, as my points have been convoluted or outright ignored and a ridiculous analogy of Nazis has popped up in the last two pages.
    It's not 1970, since 1998 blacks are advantaged when it comes to employment due Tom affirmative action and being part of a 'designated group'. Funny how in western countries it's the black minority that's protected, but the black majority in South Africa.


    1. promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair discrimination; and
    2. implementing affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment experienced by designated groups, to ensure their equitable representation in all occupational categories and levels in the workforce.



    1.2 Application of the Act: Section 4

    1. Chapter II (sections 5 – 11) applies to all employers and employees.
    2. Chapter III (sections 12 – 27) applies to designated employers.
    3. A designated employer means an employer who employs 50 or more employees, or has a total annual turnover as reflected in Schedule 4 of the Act, municipalities and organs of state. Employers can also volunteer to become designated employers.
    4. A designated group means black people, women, or people with disabilities.
    5. The South African National Defence Force, National Intelligence Agency, and South African Secret Services are excluded from this Act.
    Equal opportunity is compromised by making people employ someone on their race and not their employability. Yes there's historical injustices, but SA needs to move past it or the country will suffer for not doing so. Living in the past helps no-one. It's not fair when 21st century young black and white South Africans who could go to the same school, have the same grades, but something as arbitrary as race is the deciding factor of whether they get a job. They've actually contradicted themselves, saying they want 'equal opportunity' and 'fair treatment' while giving advantages to a 'designated group' which includes all black people. The outcome of this is race-hate, not race-equality.

    No. It's not random. All policy makers, economists, etc work under certain assumptions. There are limits to these assumptions but we are forced to rely on them in order to make broad and effective policies. That people get left out or certain groups are disadvantaged inadvertently is part of the calculus. We balance the costs and the benefits and determine which outcome to achieve. The reason these policies are even made in the first place is because of an existing imbalances that are unacceptable. Such as Blacks being discriminated against, or a historical apartheid regime that gave white people ownership of the majority of the farmland despite being a minority. These things aren't random, let's stop implying that.
    By random I meant that it didn't nuance between different white people, it'll take the land of the small time subsistence farmer or rancher as well as the wealthy industrialist.

    Yeah. I mean why get upset over not being able to marry the person you love. This is what pisses me off about so much right-wing rhetoric today. You trivialize important issues. You simplify complex problems. You ignore context. This South African land redistribution effort is probably wrong and there's many things to criticize. Yet the discussion over the last three pages has been about whether the ANC is deliberately trying to strip Whites of their property because they are Nazi racists and any affirmative action can be distilled down to that characterization. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to debate such a strawman? I don't even think there should be redistribution because it seems silly to attempt to combat wealth inequality by passing around land that doesn't get taken anyway, but the on-going discussion is completely tangential and largely unrelated to the actual issue at hand.
    'The South African redistribution is probably wrong" but it's okay because blacks don't want to buy back the land, which I would have no problem with and was the solution agreed after apartheid ended.

    I believe in equal opportunity, but beyond that it is down to whatever is given to you by your parents and your own life choices. Race should play no part, yet that's what your advocating.

    The 'actual issue' is that whites are being discriminated against on crimes they didn't themselves commit. An entire race is being held collectively responsible with absolutely no nuance.

    On genocide, here's something I hadn't seen before.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_Africans

    Genocide Watch has theorised that farm attacks constitute early warning signs of genocide against White South African and has criticised the South African government for its inaction on the issue, pointing out that the murder rate for them ("ethno-European farmers" in their report, which also included non-Afrikaner farmers of European descent) is four times that of the general South African population.[17] There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa[citation needed]. Since 1994 close to three thousand farmers have been murdered in thousands of farm attacks,[18] with many being brutally tortured and/or raped. Some victims have been burned with smoothing irons or had boiling water poured down their throats.[19]
    Last edited by Aexodus; April 03, 2018 at 02:46 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  8. #168

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The problem isn't you're persecuting people for a crime they didn't personally commit, Andy holding their entire race to account.
    You'd have to prove that this is persecution, as opposed to a wealth transfer from an economically successful class to a an economically destitute class. Little evidence has been brought forth.

    It targets all white farmers, regardless of economic standing.
    And you would have to prove that poor farmers are being targeted, otherwise this is not discrimination.

    It's nowhere near Germany was in terms of magnitude, but the ideology is the same, "the Jews wronged us, so their entire race should be held Tom account."
    White people in America are still held accountable for slavery and this is a constant political card played against them in issues such as voter ids, immigrant laws, etc. Are we being ideologically fascist to white people?

    It's not 1970, since 1998 blacks are advantaged when it comes to employment due Tom affirmative action and being part of a 'designated group'. Funny how in western countries it's the black minority that's protected, but the black majority in South Africa.
    Statistics show that black people are still disproportionately disadvantaged socially and economically with a big source of these inequalities being their historic standing in american society, which goes back to segregation.

    Equal opportunity is compromised by making people employ someone on their race and not their employability. Yes there's historical injustices, but SA needs to move past it or the country will suffer for not doing so. Living in the past helps no-one. It's not fair when 21st century young black and white South Africans who could go to the same school, have the same grades, but something as arbitrary as race is the deciding factor of whether they get a job. They've actually contradicted themselves, saying they want 'equal opportunity' and 'fair treatment' while giving advantages to a 'designated group' which includes all black people. The outcome of this is race-hate, not race-equality.
    Moving past historical injustices means making efforts to erase the consequences of historic injustices. This is the reason why there are so many civil action suits in America for things like Japanese American internment and crimes against Native Americans. In fact, there are still activist groups who fight to bring attention to these issues. Why? Because the consequences of American policy in regards to groups like African and Native Americans still affect them to this day. The classic conservative stance of being "colorblind" ignores the ramifications of past wrongs. It assumes that merely instituting equal civil rights makes things okay. It doesn't and it's not about retribution, it's about making sure that disadvantaged groups have just as much of a chance to succeed as those who were born with better means. There are arguments to be made about which policies work best where, but turning a blind eye and saying "affirmative action is always discrimination" or "we need to move on not counter-discriminate" is not an argument I will ever support. I see similar themes in economics where pundits are prone to saying "less government is always better" as opposed to admitting that there are things where government intervention is needed and areas where the government has gone too far or screwed up. There are valuable criticisms to be made of existing affirmative action, questioning whether its necessary, whether its effective whether it needs to be changed. There are areas where affirmative action is needed and its not there. Et cetera, but these are not the arguments either of you are making.

    By random I meant that it didn't nuance between different white people, it'll take the land of the small time subsistence farmer or rancher as well as the wealthy industrialist.
    How do you know that? Do you know how the process is done? How the selection is done? What kind of queue they have to receive compensation? How the money given is calculated? If you're gonna criticize a policy I want specifics and citations.

    'The South African redistribution is probably wrong" but it's okay because blacks don't want to buy back the land, which I would have no problem with and was the solution agreed after apartheid ended.

    I believe in equal opportunity, but beyond that it is down to whatever is given to you by your parents and your own life choices. Race should play no part, yet that's what your advocating.

    The 'actual issue' is that whites are being discriminated against on crimes they didn't themselves commit. An entire race is being held collectively responsible with absolutely no nuance.

    On genocide, here's something I hadn't seen before.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_Africans
    I don't think they are being discriminated against. I think there is a real issue of racism and polarization against White people in South Africa, but by and large White people remain wealthy and own a disproportionate amount of wealth in South Africa. Their civil rights are mostly respected. Is there a problem in South Africa? Yes, but being hyperbolic about it does not promote dialogue with the other side. Which is irrelevant for us I suppose as none of us will ever wield political power in South Africa. Being hyperbolic in this discussion of South Africa is not particularly useful to the discussion either.

  9. #169
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Avi Yemini called a 'Nazi' by pro-refugee activists in Australia

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    You'd have to prove that this is persecution, as opposed to a wealth transfer from an economically successful class to a an economically destitute class. Little evidence has been brought forth. And you would have to prove that poor farmers are being targeted, otherwise this is not discrimination.
    We don't yet know the specifics of the bill, as it is yet to be reviewed which will finish August 30th.

    It is not clear when the change to Section 25 of the constitution to allow expropriation of land without compensation take place but the constitution review committee has been tasked by parliament to review the constitution and report back to it by August 30.
    The case study we have for this is Zimbabwe, where 100% of white farms were expropriated. Which make sure no nuance between rich and poor farmers. Just admit it, this is about race, not classes. If it was about equalising the economic classes it would be land reform for all races, which it is not.

    White people in America are still held accountable for slavery and this is a constant political card played against them in issues such as voter ids, immigrant laws, etc. Are we being ideologically fascist to white people?
    The white race is not responsible for the institution of slavery, it never has been, every country has practiced slavery, even the blacks sold to the Europeans were rounded up and sold by other African tribes.

    Statistics show that black people are still disproportionately disadvantaged socially and economically with a big source of these inequalities being their historic standing in american society, which goes back to segregation.

    Moving past historical injustices means making efforts to erase the consequences of historic injustices. This is the reason why there are so many civil action suits in America for things like Japanese American internment and crimes against Native Americans. In fact, there are still activist groups who fight to bring attention to these issues. Why? Because the consequences of American policy in regards to groups like African and Native Americans still affect them to this day. The classic conservative stance of being "colorblind" ignores the ramifications of past wrongs. It assumes that merely instituting equal civil rights makes things okay. It doesn't and it's not about retribution, it's about making sure that disadvantaged groups have just as much of a chance to succeed as those who were born with better means. There are arguments to be made about which policies work best where, but turning a blind eye and saying "affirmative action is always discrimination" or "we need to move on not counter-discriminate" is not an argument I will ever support. I see similar themes in economics where pundits are prone to saying "less government is always better" as opposed to admitting that there are things where government intervention is needed and areas where the government has gone too far or screwed up. There are valuable criticisms to be made of existing affirmative action, questioning whether its necessary, whether its effective whether it needs to be changed. There are areas where affirmative action is needed and its not there. Et cetera, but these are not the arguments either of you are making.
    Why is black economic poverty automatically down to discrimination, the civil rights laws stopped that. Can you even entertain the notion that it could be down to poor life choices, a lack of black fathers, or black on black crime, none of which is the fault of white people who apparently need to give others their money because they can't take responsibility for themselves. There's lots of successful black people in Americans society.

    How do you know that? Do you know how the process is done? How the selection is done? What kind of queue they have to receive compensation? How the money given is calculated? If you're gonna criticize a policy I want specifics and citations.
    No-one has a finalised land expropriation bill in great detail. All we know is that all white farmers are vulnerable to having their land taken without compnesation, which is whatI am against.

    Being colourblind isn't a conservative stance, it's a liberal one. And not the American bastardisation of the word liberal btw. It's all about equal opportunity, which has been achieved, not equality of outcome, which is down to the individual. No-one is entitled to someone the fruits of someone else's labour because of a general economic or other perceived deficiency in their race. With affirmative action, you're saying that they are unable to do it on their own. Their was a time when blacks and whites were on an equal footing, in pre-history, everything after that is down to the better or worse decisions made by individuals.

    I don't think they are being discriminated against. I think there is a real issue of racism and polarization against White people in South Africa, but by and large White people remain wealthy and own a disproportionate amount of wealth in South Africa. Their civil rights are mostly respected. Is there a problem in South Africa? Yes, but being hyperbolic about it does not promote dialogue with the other side. Which is irrelevant for us I suppose as none of us will ever wield political power in South Africa. Being hyperbolic in this discussion of South Africa is not particularly useful to the discussion either.
    Well, it looks like this is just where we'll never be on quite the same page. Why is white people being wealthy a problem? Why does that have to be stopped? They still had to work for what they had, to say to the average white personal in SA that everything they have is down to their racial privilege and not their hard work, that would be incredibly disrespectfully.

    The white people built the farms, the irrigation, the infrastructure, why wouldn't they be the ones to benefit most from it.
    Last edited by Aexodus; March 29, 2018 at 11:32 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  10. #170

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    We don't yet know the specifics of the bill, as it is yet to be reviewed which will finish August 30th.
    Which is an amendment to an existing policy.

    The case study we have for this is Zimbabwe, where 100% of white farms were expropriated. Which make sure no nuance between rich and poor farmers. Just admit it, this is about race, not classes. If it was about equalising the economic classes it would be land reform for all races, which it is not.
    This is nowhere close to Zimbabwe.

    The white race is not responsible for the institution of slavery, it never has been, every country has practiced slavery, even the blacks sold to the Europeans were rounded up and sold by other African tribes.
    White Americans aren't responsible for slavery in America?

    Why is black economic poverty automatically down to discrimination, the civil rights laws stopped that. Can you even entertain the notion that it could be down to poor life choices, a lack of black fathers, or black on black crime, none of which is the fault of white people who apparently need to give others their money because they can't take responsibility for themselves. There's lots of successful black people in Americans society.
    Civil Rights Laws are difficult to enforce. How do you prove that someone is discriminating instead of picking a White employee based on "merit"? It's hard to prove, if not outright impossible except in the most egregious of cases. Entertain the idea of "poor life choices"? One of the biggest indicators of what income bracket you're going to end up, is what income bracket you were born in. Thus, if your parents were born poor, you are likely to remain poor. Considering that the majority of wealth was concentrated in the hands of Whites even in 1967, the fact that Blacks are economically the most disenfranchised group isn't surprising. The argument of "pull yourself up by your boot straps" is disgusting. The fact is, your life is not entirely in your control. There are a great deal of factors and influences which will determine whether you are successful or not. The household you are born in is extremely important and the historic disenfranchisement and discrimination of black people puts their descendants today at a notable disadvantage.

    No-one has a finalised land expropriation bill in great detail. All we know is that all white farmers are vulnerable to having their land taken without compnesation, which is whatI am against.
    As mentioned before, there is an existing program that the current legislation expands upon. Before getting all up in arms, perhaps post the details of that one first. I don't think anybody in this thread knows the details of how the procedure is done, yet so many are up in arms over it.

    Being colourblind isn't a conservative stance, it's a liberal one. And not the American bastardisation of the word liberal btw. It's all about equal opportunity, which has been achieved, not equality of outcome, which is down to the individual. No-one is entitled to someone the fruits of someone else's labour because of a general economic or other perceived deficiency in their race. With affirmative action, you're saying that they are unable to do it on their own. Their was a time when blacks and whites were on an equal footing, in pre-history, everything after that is down to the better or worse decisions made by individuals.
    American definition of liberal is perfectly valid. It is a conservative stances, Libertarianism today is firmly in the conservative, or right-wing, spectrum. Especially American libertarianism. Affirmative action doesn't say you are unable to do it on your own. Who gave you that preposterous idea? The problem is, not the ability to do something, but the likelihood of doing so. A black person should not have to put much more effort than a white person to get the same education or financial position. That's what affirmative action seeks to correct. And don't talk about pre-history. It's completely irrelevant that once upon a time we were all cavemen. Are you seriously going to make that argument?

    And don't presume this libertarian nonsense of "entitlement" being an absolute truth. Your myth of self-made man is wrong. You are nothing without the society you live in. There is a difference between your own accomplishments and standing on shoulders of others. You are not entitled to call everything you are today, your own merit. The society you live in, the books you read, the parents you grew up with, and ultimately the country you live and stability it has thanks to your government is what you owe your position to. You did not build the roads you drive on, you did not write the books that taught you, and you did not create the language you speak. You owe a debt to your society, your community, and your community decides how you repay it. This is done in form of taxes and an agreement to abide by the laws of the land. Affirmative action is society's way of spending the resources you paid them for being part of it.

    Well, it looks like this is just where we'll never be on quite the same page. Why is white people being wealthy a problem? Why does that have to be stopped? They still had to work for what they had, to say to the average white personal in SA that everything they have is down to their racial privilege and not their hard work, that would be incredibly disrespectfully.

    The white people built the farms, the irrigation, the infrastructure, why wouldn't they be the ones to benefit most from it.
    The wealthy owe a portion of their wealth to the state, which they pay, that the State then spends how it wish. Secondly, the wealth of the White people is not the problem, the absolute disparity between the wealthy and the poor is, as well as the historical context of how they acquired that wealth. Your arguments here are dangerous teetering on implying that White people deserved their economic status and wealth they gained during the apartheid and maintained after it. Quite frankly, White people are very lucky there wasn't a genocide and a complete confiscation of their wealth. They should count their lucky stars and be happy to promote dialogue to help their country. The way South Africa handled regime change was very mature considering many other countries that resorted to more extreme measures.

  11. #171
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Which is an amendment to an existing policy. This is nowhere close to Zimbabwe.
    The existing policy compensated farmers, the amendment to the constitution is the same as Zimbabwe, seizure of land without compnesation, illegal land grabs are already happening, encouraged by the EFF.

    White Americans aren't responsible for slavery in America?
    No, and here's why -
    -Slavery has been abolished since the 19th century
    -Even if you were intent on holding people responsible to everything people sharing their race has done you would need to hold African-Americans responsible for the other Africans that sold them to the Europeans. Arab and African merchants sold humans a small early as the 1500s
    -The Portuguese were the first to take slaves from West Africa to the Americas, thus starting the slave trade. Now, I would absolutely consider the Portuguese as white in Europe, but by 'white Americans' I don't think you meant descendants of the Portugese.

    All in all, this is why it's so stupid to hold people somehow responsible for crimes they didn't commit, simply because they share the same race. Yes, white people were once responsible for slavery, over 150 years ago. Not now.

    Civil Rights Laws are difficult to enforce. How do you prove that someone is discriminating instead of picking a White employee based on "merit"? It's hard to prove, if not outright impossible except in the most egregious of cases. Entertain the idea of "poor life choices"? One of the biggest indicators of what income bracket you're going to end up, is what income bracket you were born in. Thus, if your parents were born poor, you are likely to remain poor. Considering that the majority of wealth was concentrated in the hands of Whites even in 1967, the fact that Blacks are economically the most disenfranchised group isn't surprising. The argument of "pull yourself up by your boot straps" is disgusting. The fact is, your life is not entirely in your control. There are a great deal of factors and influences which will determine whether you are successful or not. The household you are born in is extremely important and the historic disenfranchisement and discrimination of black people puts their descendants today at a notable disadvantage.
    Life isn't a fair playing field, never has been. It's completely possible to lift yourself into the middle classes through good grades in school and a degree, which should be the goal of the ANC (good education for all) and not what the skin colour of whoever owns the land is. This is about a communistic government having land privately owned, and wants to own that land with black Africans as rent paying tenants, which gives the government far too much control.

    American definition of liberal is perfectly valid. It is a conservative stances, Libertarianism today is firmly in the conservative, or right-wing, spectrum. Especially American libertarianism. Affirmative action doesn't say you are unable to do it on your own. Who gave you that preposterous idea? The problem is, not the ability to do something, but the likelihood of doing so. A black person should not have to put much more effort than a white person to get the same education or financial position. That's what affirmative action seeks to correct. And don't talk about pre-history. It's completely irrelevant that once upon a time we were all cavemen. Are you seriously going to make that argument?
    I said liberal, as in liberalism, simple capitalist classical liberalism, which is not conservatism, and not libertarianism.

    And don't presume this libertarian nonsense of "entitlement" being an absolute truth. Your myth of self-made man is wrong. You are nothing without the society you live in. There is a difference between your own accomplishments and standing on shoulders of others. You are not entitled to call everything you are today, your own merit. The society you live in, the books you read, the parents you grew up with, and ultimately the country you live and stability it has thanks to your government is what you owe your position to. You did not build the roads you drive on, you did not write the books that taught you, and you did not create the language you speak. You owe a debt to your society, your community, and your community decides how you repay it. This is done in form of taxes and an agreement to abide by the laws of the land. Affirmative action is society's way of spending the resources you paid them for being part of it.
    This is more personal information than I would be really willing to share, but my grandfather grew up in abject poverty, by modern standards, in the 50s. He shot game and grew almost all his own food for sustenance. They didn't have a toilet, no to so much as an out house. Yet through hard work, going to extra classes and working, no white privilege no nothing, he owned his own home by the time he was 30. Now, he is many times better off than his own father was, or his siblings.

    Black people need better education, not more land.

    So don't say the self made man is a myth, you seem to think that all that matters is your race, your parents, and who writes your books. Yes, each generation relies on the accomplishments of the last, but each generation also betters itself upon the previous one, that's what progress is, your mentality would result in nothing changing, a society apparently wealth comes mostly from circumstance and not effort. In apartheid South Africa, that's was not the case, but post-Apartheid, with some imperfections, it was. Segregationist laws were lifted, and affirmative action laws gave blacks an extra boost. But it was a long walk to freedom for Mandela, and it will will also take time for the economic disparities in South Africa to close. And I refuse to see it in purely racial terms, as that is what led to the downfall of Apartheid.

    The wealthy owe a portion of their wealth to the state, which they pay, that the State then spends how it wish. Secondly, the wealth of the White people is not the problem, the absolute disparity between the wealthy and the poor is, as well as the historical context of how they acquired that wealth. Your arguments here are dangerous teetering on implying that White people deserved their economic status and wealth they gained during the apartheid and maintained after it. Quite frankly, White people are very lucky there wasn't a genocide and a complete confiscation of their wealth. They should count their lucky stars and be happy to promote dialogue to help their country. The way South Africa handled regime change was very mature considering many other countries that resorted to more extreme measures.
    What are you going to do, take all the white people's land and tax their 'illegal' wealth back to the black population? Ah, well you're already doing the first part. A quick solution is no solution, it's fighting fire with a flamethrower. White people owed their opportunities to Apartheid, not their entire economic standing. They still hadn't to put in the work on an individual basis. Some didn't, and as a result those white people are poorer overall, despite you assuming all white people are wealthy. I feel not that, then they are the victim of racist affirmative action. Fighting historical racism with racism is never going to work. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Apartheid.html

    Policies like this, and whites certainly will start to leave, I know I would. And they will bring their wealth with them, whatever a black nationalist Marxist government wants.
    Last edited by Aexodus; April 03, 2018 at 03:00 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  12. #172

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The existing policy compensated farmers, the amendment to the constitution is the same as Zimbabwe, seizure of land without compnesation, illegal land grabs are already happening, encouraged by the EFF.
    A problem of corruption and inefficient bureaucracy not one of the law itself.

    No, and here's why -
    -Slavery has been abolished since the 19th century
    -Even if you were intent on holding people responsible to everything people sharing their race has done you would need to hold African-Americans responsible for the other Africans that sold them to the Europeans. Arab and African merchants sold humans a small early as the 1500s
    -The Portuguese were the first to take slaves from West Africa to the Americas, thus starting the slave trade. Now, I would absolutely consider the Portuguese as white in Europe, but by 'white Americans' I don't think you meant descendants of the Portugese.

    All in all, this is why it's so stupid to hold people somehow responsible for crimes they didn't commit, simply because they share the same race. Yes, white people were once responsible for slavery, over 150 years ago. Not now.
    Slavery gave rise to the Jim Crow era. Jim Crow era lead to segregation. Legacy of segregation persists to this day via social and economic inequality. Much of which is perpetuated by unconscious biases and materialistic differences in wealth between African Americans and Whites. White have a significant responsibility in perpetuating this situation. We're getting better, an this path of progress is paved with affirmative action. That's what it means to be responsible and holding your country accountable. You make changes and make attempts to fix inequality.

    Life isn't a fair playing field, never has been. It's completely possible to lift yourself into the middle classes through good grades in school and a degree, which should be the goal of the ANC (good education for all) and not what the skin colour of whoever owns the land is. This is about a communistic government having land privately owned, and wants to own that land with black Africans as rent paying tenants, which gives the government far too much control.
    God forbid we try to make it more fair.

    I said liberal, as in liberalism, simple capitalist classical liberalism, which is not conservatism, and not libertarianism.
    Which doesn't get ownership or monopoly of the concepts you've told us. Classical Liberalism is essentially today's conservatism anyway.

    This is more personal information than I would be really willing to share, but my grandfather grew up a peasant in the countryside, by modern standards, in the 50s. He ate rabbit and grew almost all his own food for sustenance. They didn't have a toilet, no to so much as an out house. Yet through hard work, going to extra classes and working, no white privilege no nothing, he owned his own home by the time he was 30. Now, he is many times better off than his own father was, or his siblings.
    He had the opportunity to take classes. He lived in a stable country. The subsequent generations had the privilege of living off his accomplishments. You're under an illusion of self-sufficiency and self-achievement. It's important to value hard work, but its important to recognize where you owe to others.

    So don't say the self made man is a myth, you seem to think that all that matters is your race, your parents, and who writes your books. Yes, each generation relies on the accomplishments of the last, but each generation also betters itself upon the previous one, that's what progress is, your mentality would result in nothing changing, a society apparently wealth comes mostly from circumstance and not effort. In apartheid South Africa, that's was not the case, but post-Apartheid, with some imperfections, it was. Segregationist laws were lifted, and affirmative action laws gave blacks an extra boost. But it was a long walk to freedom for Mandela, and it will will also take time for the economic disparities in South Africa to close. And I refuse to see it in purely racial terms, as that is what led to the downfall of Apartheid.
    It is a myth. In fact, it's a destructive myth that enforces the idea that extreme inequality is okay. Hard work is important, as are a lot of other things. Emphasizing the factors of your life that are entirely under your control is also important. It's also important to realize that not everybody is lucky enough to have two educated well-off parents.

    What are you going to do, take all the white people's land and tax their 'illegal' wealth back to the black population? Ah, well you're already doing the first part. A quick solution is no solution, it's fighting fire with a flamethrower. White people owed their opportunities to Apartheid, not their entire economic standing. They still hadn't to put in the work on an individual basis. Some didn't, and as a result those white people are poorer overall, despite you assuming all white people are wealthy. I feel not that, then they are the victim of racist affirmative action. Fighting historical racism with racism is never going to work. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Apartheid.html
    I'm not going to do anything. But your criticism of this policy is completely unfounded.

    Policies like this, and whites certainly will start to leave, I know I would. And they will bring their wealth with them, whatever a black nationalist Marxist government wants.
    It's definitely not Marxists and stop saying it as if its a slur.

  13. #173
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,258

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    It is a myth. In fact, it's a destructive myth that enforces the idea that extreme inequality is okay. Hard work is important, as are a lot of other things. Emphasizing the factors of your life that are entirely under your control is also important. It's also important to realize that not everybody is lucky enough to have two educated well-off parents.
    By stealing other epoples wealth?

    It's definitely not Marxists and stop saying it as if its a slur.

    God forbid we try to make it more fair.
    Trying to make something more fair by seizing other peoples wealth is not only disgusting it is very marxist.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  14. #174
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Common sense and positive encouragement wins over ideology and victimhood every time.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Black people were oppressed at a time in America too, but they didn't steal the wealth of another entire race and hand them everything. You gotta do it yourself, or else it counts for nothing in the long run, and breeds more social tension. Equality =/= equity.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  15. #175

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Common sense and positive encouragement wins over ideology and victimhood every time.
    .
    Then why did you open this thread?
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  16. #176
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    It certainly is not discrimination and I've explained why several times. Especially when affirmative actions forces a company to hire competent, skinned workers who would otherwise not be employed due to their skin color. Because that's what was happening. Just as the historical circumstances of the apartheid left white people owning the majority of farmland, despite being a minority. Your example only proves my point, that affirmative action being racist and socially negative is entirely dependent on context, just like the one you've drawn here.
    This is why I gave the killing someone example. Killing in self defence is still killing, just as "justified discrimination" is still discrimination, surely you must accept this much?
    Oh BS. It is illegal not to hire people because of their skin colour, and that is not what affirmative action does. What AA does is things like the Asian quota in universities, and generally results in less skilled people getting job and less educated people getting into universities.

    I have no idea what you mean by "over here", but most social systems require an establishment of disability. They do not cater specialized packages based on the entire of your individuality.
    Here, in the country I live in.
    A social benefits system based solely on race is inherently racist.
    You haven't established that there is a widespread murder of Whites in South Africa. There isn't a seizure of private property, at least not on the scale you're suggesting. There's a fairly small-scale program designed to help poor Black Africans by seizing small amounts of farmland from White farmers. Emphasis on small-scale, as this effort has been going on for a decade now, and as far as I can see, White South Africans still own a significant amount of farmland despite constituting a fraction of the total population.
    The scale is irrelevant. When you take away someone's private property, you are seizing private property, simple as that.
    Except that the law recently passed and that spawned the controversy this thread is about talks about seizing ALL farmlands from whites, without compensation.

    It wasn't random and it doesn't imply at any kind of racism in Israel. Not that I need to, racism in Israel is a real thing. It clarifies what exactly racism is since the thread constantly dances around that topic.
    Then why did you bring it up?

    The two are unrelated and you haven't addressed what I said. There isn't a similarity between what's going in South Africa today and Germany in the late 1930s. For one, the form of Government is different. Two, this policy has been in effect for over 10 years and a consideration to expand the law to eliminate compensation has been debated for quite a long time now. Three, there isn't a monolithic ANC autocracy, but a wide range of conflicting interests in the current legislative arm as with most healthy democracies. Furthermore, what one person says does not prove that their words are fueling the "current redistribution" especially when you consider that this policy is years old.
    Germany was still a democracy when Hitler was elected.
    You seem oblivious to the law recently passed, which is what is being discussed. Not a decade old policy. The law is not just about the compensation part, it's also for an immediate confiscation of private property from individuals who committed the crime of being born white.

    For one thing, there are hardly any poor Whites in South Africa. Second, define how we are making a black guy "rich".
    Irrelevant and doesn't answer my question.
    By giving him property?

    They're not. There's hardly any of them that are poor.
    This is just asinine. Even if there are 2 poor white guys in all of South Africa, they're still being excluded based solely on their skin colour. Saying "they're not" is objectively and undeniably false.
    There were hardly any Jews in Nazi Germany, so I guess they weren't being discriminated against.

    Because they haven't been historically persecuted and don't suffer from the historical and social effects of the apartheid regime.
    The solution to racial discrimination is NOT more racial discrimination.

    Except that's not what's happening. What did happen was employers selectively refusing to employ black people because of their skin color, so a law was made to force those employers to hire them. Pretty simply.
    And that law is the civil rights act, not affirmative action. Or, in the case of South Africa, section 9 of the constitution. Pretty simple.

    Uhh no. It's taking away land from a historically and currently economically privileged group to a historically disadvantaged group. It's the same reason why taxation is progressive.
    So instead of the country going "oh good, i have X wealthy citizens" it goes "Oh no! I have X wealthy whites! This must be amended!"

    She can certainly be described as alt-right and it is a meme. It's literally a publicity stunt meant to troll the LGBT movement. I don't live in Canada.
    Please provide evidence that point to Lauren being alt-right. I have this rising suspicion that you don't know what alt-right even is. Hint: It's not everyone who isn't a socialist.

  17. #177
    HannibalExMachina's Avatar Just a sausage
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11,244

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    This is why I gave the killing someone example. Killing in self defence is still killing, just as "justified discrimination" is still discrimination, surely you must accept this much?
    Oh BS. It is illegal not to hire people because of their skin colour, and that is not what affirmative action does. What AA does is things like the Asian quota in universities, and generally results in less skilled people getting job and less educated people getting into universities.


    Here, in the country I live in.
    A social benefits system based solely on race is inherently racist.

    The scale is irrelevant. When you take away someone's private property, you are seizing private property, simple as that.
    Except that the law recently passed and that spawned the controversy this thread is about talks about seizing ALL farmlands from whites, without compensation.


    Then why did you bring it up?


    Germany was still a democracy when Hitler was elected.
    You seem oblivious to the law recently passed, which is what is being discussed. Not a decade old policy. The law is not just about the compensation part, it's also for an immediate confiscation of private property from individuals who committed the crime of being born white.


    Irrelevant and doesn't answer my question.
    By giving him property?

    This is just asinine. Even if there are 2 poor white guys in all of South Africa, they're still being excluded based solely on their skin colour. Saying "they're not" is objectively and undeniably false.
    There were hardly any Jews in Nazi Germany, so I guess they weren't being discriminated against.


    The solution to racial discrimination is NOT more racial discrimination.


    And that law is the civil rights act, not affirmative action. Or, in the case of South Africa, section 9 of the constitution. Pretty simple.


    So instead of the country going "oh good, i have X wealthy citizens" it goes "Oh no! I have X wealthy whites! This must be amended!"


    Please provide evidence that point to Lauren being alt-right. I have this rising suspicion that you don't know what alt-right even is. Hint: It's not everyone who isn't a socialist.
    you are right oc, "discrimination" is a perfectly neutral term until you put it in context.

    making it illegal to hire people based on skin colour is exactly what affirmative action does.

    i dont know about asian quotas, but i thought asians have an higher average IQ and someone here told me that is important. quotas counteract the exclusion of certain people based on race, gender, etc. this exclusion doesnt happen for any rational reasons, and i dont see why counteracting irrationality should be bad.

    so, your country has a social benefit system based on race? i find that hard to believe.

    white genocide reference, only two farmers equal 6 million or so european jews? i wont waste any more time on this, but its easy to answer your question about being alt-right: it is what they say, write and do. your own opinions make you fit in perfectly with southern and her alt-right friends, does the term crypto mean anything to you?
    Last edited by HannibalExMachina; March 30, 2018 at 12:19 PM.

  18. #178

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalExMachina View Post
    you are right oc, "discrimination" is a perfectly neutral term until you put it in context.

    making it illegal to hire people based on skin colour is exactly what affirmative action does.

    i dont know about asian quotas, but i thought asians have an higher average IQ and someone here told me that is important. quotas counteract the exclusion of certain people based on race, gender, etc. this exclusion doesnt happen for any rational reasons, and i dont see why counteracting irrationality should be bad.

    so, your country has a social benefit system based on race? i find that hard to believe.

    white genocide reference, only two farmers equal 6 million or so european jews? i wont waste any more time on this, but its easy to answer your question about being alt-right: it is what they say, write and do. your own opinions make you fit in perfectly with southern and her alt-right friends, does the term crypto mean anything to you?
    Um, duh, people should be hired based on merit within the context of position, nothing else. Also if you justify affirmative action, then you are implying that certain races are inferior. Funny, how people who criticize alt-right turned out to be actually much more racist then the "alt-right".
    But at least we made some progress here and now you finally admit that your views are irrational and based on emotion.

  19. #179

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    This is why I gave the killing someone example. Killing in self defence is still killing, just as "justified discrimination" is still discrimination, surely you must accept this much?
    Oh BS. It is illegal not to hire people because of their skin colour, and that is not what affirmative action does. What AA does is things like the Asian quota in universities, and generally results in less skilled people getting job and less educated people getting into universities.
    Look up the definition of discrimination and then apply it to the context of your argument. There would not be "justified discrimination" in the way you are using the term. BS? Do you even understand how laws and due process works? It is extremely hard to prove you're being fired or not hired because of your skin color, gender, etc. This is to protect both the employer and potential employees.

    Uhh no, that's a poor example if you're looking to prove a point. For one, this doesn't prove that affirmative action is always flawed. Asian people and college quotas isn't government sanctioned quota legislation. That's a college employing their own biases and prejudices to select who is admitted. There's a difference, and the issue here isn't that I'm always supporting affirmative action. The issue is one of disadvantaged groups being unequal in opportunity thus necessitating action. Like discrimination against Blacks in work and school post Civil Rights Act.

    Here, in the country I live in.
    A social benefits system based solely on race is inherently racist.
    I don't live in the country you live in, here in United States there is a fairly equal society with the Fed. Gov. being careful about affirmative action and there is a good balance between freedom and social welfare. Not the kind of balance I'd like, but ultimately an acceptable compromise.

    The scale is irrelevant. When you take away someone's private property, you are seizing private property, simple as that.
    Actually the scale is really important. Majority of the developed world has the right to seize someone's private property, and they employ that power rather regularly, are we all Nazis now? It's also important why you are taking away someone's property.

    Except that the law recently passed and that spawned the controversy this thread is about talks about seizing ALL farmlands from whites, without compensation.
    Citation needed.

    Then why did you bring it up?
    Because this thread covers racism, as I've already stated.

    Germany was still a democracy when Hitler was elected.
    You seem oblivious to the law recently passed, which is what is being discussed. Not a decade old policy. The law is not just about the compensation part, it's also for an immediate confiscation of private property from individuals who committed the crime of being born white.
    And he quickly started rounding up opposition. Tell me when they start rounding up and assassinating White community leaders en masse. The law which is being discussed, is an expansion on a decade old policy. I don't know how you've missed this considering your fervent replies in this thread.

    Irrelevant and doesn't answer my question.
    By giving him property?
    Actually it is relevant because giving a poor person's property to a rich person would be morally wrong. Giving a small part of a rich person's property to a poor person would be morally fine with me, but questionable if you believe strongly in property rights.

    This is just asinine. Even if there are 2 poor white guys in all of South Africa, they're still being excluded based solely on their skin colour. Saying "they're not" is objectively and undeniably false.
    There were hardly any Jews in Nazi Germany, so I guess they weren't being discriminated against.
    Ah yes, I suppose the legislation should vote on how to compensate 2 poor white guys in Africa. Nobody is rounding up South African Whites, stop bringing up Nazis. It's irritating at this point.

    The solution to racial discrimination is NOT more racial discrimination.
    You haven't proven the government is preparing a wide-range of racial discrimination.

    And that law is the civil rights act, not affirmative action. Or, in the case of South Africa, section 9 of the constitution. Pretty simple.
    Ignorant.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.da5c025360f1

    "Racial disparities persisted after the law was passed because discriminatory policies persisted under a patina of colorblindness. The legacy of the Civil Rights Act’s failures abound: America is still hemorrhaging from the racism of police bullets, health disparities and environmental catastrophes. The black unemployment rate has been twice the white unemployment rate for 60 years, segregation is on the rise in public schools across America, and an unprecedented number of black and brown bodies have been mass incarcerated as a result of the war on drugs."

    Civil Rights Act did not undo decades of racial discrimination, in fact, we still see the effects of Slavery today.

    So instead of the country going "oh good, i have X wealthy citizens" it goes "Oh no! I have X wealthy whites! This must be amended!"
    Actually the argument is a lot more sophisticated than that. Minorities that are disproportionately represented in the top socioeconomic brackets often lack social mobility due to historic factors and societal preferences. Hence why they are given help to try to achieve the same status that Whites do. Helping one race doesn't necessarily mean you're putting the other at a disadvantage. It depends on individual context and the way a policy is written. Seems like a hard concept for you to grasp.

    Please provide evidence that point to Lauren being alt-right. I have this rising suspicion that you don't know what alt-right even is. Hint: It's not everyone who isn't a socialist.
    Alt-Right is anti feminist, white nationalist, nativist, Islamophobic, right-wing populist.


    Lauren Southern on why she's anti-feminism.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Islamaphobia, White Nationalism, and Nativism
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Lauren Southern sympathizing and agreeing with alt-right rhetoric on a number of issues.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    I don't even get what your aversion is to admitting Lauren Southern is an alt-right political activist. It's not a slur word. It's simply a description of political positions I find abhorrent. I have military friends who are alt-right, best friends in fact that I've held dear since elementary school. You realize that despite all the angry and targeted rhetoric both sides spew including myself, I don't actually have any antagonism towards just going out and eating lunch with people like Richard Spencer right?
    Last edited by Love Mountain; March 30, 2018 at 04:55 PM.

  20. #180
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,398

    Default Re: South Africa Boer Farm Murders and Land Theft: Australia offers Fast-Track Visa for Afrikaners, ANC Demands Retraction

    Quote Originally Posted by HannibalExMachina View Post
    you are right oc, "discrimination" is a perfectly neutral term until you put it in context.
    Nothing neutral about it. It's a negative term, for a negative thing.
    making it illegal to hire people based on skin colour is exactly what affirmative action does.
    No, actually, it's exactly what it does. Companies at a certain point will not be allowed to hire someone because they are white because they already have too many whites, because they are male because they already have too many males, someone who is black because the other guy applying is Asian and they don't have any Asians yet, etc.
    Affirmative action results in the very thing it's meant to protect against, and that's the irony of it.
    i dont know about asian quotas, but i thought asians have an higher average IQ and someone here told me that is important. quotas counteract the exclusion of certain people based on race, gender, etc. this exclusion doesnt happen for any rational reasons, and i dont see why counteracting irrationality should be bad.
    You must have misunderstood then because your statement makes no sense. The Asian quota is when too many Asians apply, and because they have on average the highest grades they would all be accepted. However, instead, after a certain point Asians are refused because they have to leave room for other minorities. In other words, affirmative action causes them to be discriminated against because of race.
    so, your country has a social benefit system based on race? i find that hard to believe.
    No, other way around. It doesn't have one. We do have affirmative action though, for example my friend couldn't get into uni when he wanted to because his spot was reserved for an Arab.
    white genocide reference, only two farmers equal 6 million or so european jews? i wont waste any more time on this, but its easy to answer your question about being alt-right: it is what they say, write and do. your own opinions make you fit in perfectly with southern and her alt-right friends, does the term crypto mean anything to you?
    [/quote]
    500 thousand Jews lived within Germany when Hitler rose to power out of a total population higher than that of modern south Africa, or about 0.75%.
    Do you happen to know the number of white south africans that are in poverty? I'm going to assume not. The answer is 350 thousand.
    Proportionally speaking, Jews in Germany were a smaller percentage of the population than poor whites in South Africa.
    So yes, I think that the statement "there is no discrimination against poor whites because there are hardly any poor whites" is very much comparable to the statement "there was no discrimination against Jews because there were hardly any Jews in Germany".

    On what grounds do you call me alt-right? What have I said that qualifies as alt-right? The alt-right are by and large antisemetic, I have no reason to be part of that movement.
    Here's the definition of alt-right from wikipedia: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, and other far-right[2][3][4] fringe hate groups."
    So please, do tell me which of those I fit into. Inform me please, if you will, how I am a white-supremacist (even though they would kill me), a neo-nazi (even though they would kill me), a neo-fascist (even though they would kill me) or some kind of other far-right fringe group member/supporter. While you're at it show me evidence that Southern is part of any of those. Because if you can't tell me which of these groups it is I belong to then I'd appreciate if you could stop name calling me, because frankly that's something an a-hole would do.

    Crypto what? Crypto currency? Crypto-Jews? I need you to be more specific here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Look up the definition of discrimination and then apply it to the context of your argument. There would not be "justified discrimination" in the way you are using the term. BS? Do you even understand how laws and due process works? It is extremely hard to prove you're being fired or not hired because of your skin color, gender, etc. This is to protect both the employer and potential employees.

    Uhh no, that's a poor example if you're looking to prove a point. For one, this doesn't prove that affirmative action is always flawed. Asian people and college quotas isn't government sanctioned quota legislation. That's a college employing their own biases and prejudices to select who is admitted. There's a difference, and the issue here isn't that I'm always supporting affirmative action. The issue is one of disadvantaged groups being unequal in opportunity thus necessitating action. Like discrimination against Blacks in work and school post Civil Rights Act.
    Except affirmative action leads to people not being hired solely because of their race.
    It's a direct result of the government policy of affirmative action, because a university with only Asians in it is not diverse. It will thus block Asians after a certain point so as to have members of other races.
    I don't live in the country you live in, here in United States there is a fairly equal society with the Fed. Gov. being careful about affirmative action and there is a good balance between freedom and social welfare. Not the kind of balance I'd like, but ultimately an acceptable compromise.
    I only brought up how it is here because you said a government couldn't give those benefits on a case by case basis due to it necessitating a bunch of stuff which you thought sounds absurd, but to me is completely normal.

    Actually the scale is really important. Majority of the developed world has the right to seize someone's private property, and they employ that power rather regularly, are we all Nazis now? It's also important why you are taking away someone's property.
    You mean taxes?

    Citation needed.
    here you go.

    Because this thread covers racism, as I've already stated.
    And yet you admit that the Israeli-palestinian case is not one of racism. So why did you bring it up?

    And he quickly started rounding up opposition. Tell me when they start rounding up and assassinating White community leaders en masse. The law which is being discussed, is an expansion on a decade old policy. I don't know how you've missed this considering your fervent replies in this thread.
    No killing en masse? here are some statistics: "There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa[citation needed]. Since 1994 close to three thousand farmers have been murdered in thousands of farm attacks,[18] with many being brutally tortured and/or raped. Some victims have been burned with smoothing irons or had boiling water poured down their throats.[19]"
    That is an insanely high percentage of farmers killed.
    Hitler ran for elections several times, actually: 1930, 1932 (twice), 1933 (twice again). He didn't just come out of nowhere, win, and then start rounding up opposition. This takes time.

    Actually it is relevant because giving a poor person's property to a rich person would be morally wrong. Giving a small part of a rich person's property to a poor person would be morally fine with me, but questionable if you believe strongly in property rights.
    Did you know that 70% of lottery winners end up bankrupt? This is what happens when you give someone money without them having worked for it, nor knowing how to use it. Taking away the farms from the white farmers will make them either poor or move to Australia, meanwhile those who will receive the farms will end up just like 70% of lottery winners. This already happened in Zimbabwe.

    Ah yes, I suppose the legislation should vote on how to compensate 2 poor white guys in Africa. Nobody is rounding up South African Whites, stop bringing up Nazis. It's irritating at this point.
    According to statistics 12% of white south africans are in poverty, with some sources putting the number of whites "struggling to survive" at 150,000.
    Yeah, no one's rounding them up... yet.
    You haven't proven the government is preparing a wide-range of racial discrimination.
    I thought that we already established that affirmative action exists in south africa?

    Ignorant.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.da5c025360f1

    "Racial disparities persisted after the law was passed because discriminatory policies persisted under a patina of colorblindness. The legacy of the Civil Rights Act’s failures abound: America is still hemorrhaging from the racism of police bullets, health disparities and environmental catastrophes. The black unemployment rate has been twice the white unemployment rate for 60 years, segregation is on the rise in public schools across America, and an unprecedented number of black and brown bodies have been mass incarcerated as a result of the war on drugs."

    Civil Rights Act did not undo decades of racial discrimination, in fact, we still see the effects of Slavery today.
    Do you know what else in the black community is double, if not triple, the rates within the white community? single motherhood, which causes blacks to drop out of school early to be able to pay for their families, resulting in them being under educated and more likely to be involved in crime. Infact the single motherhood rate amongst the blacks is the highest in the US.


    Actually the argument is a lot more sophisticated than that. Minorities that are disproportionately represented in the top socioeconomic brackets often lack social mobility due to historic factors and societal preferences. Hence why they are given help to try to achieve the same status that Whites do. Helping one race doesn't necessarily mean you're putting the other at a disadvantage. It depends on individual context and the way a policy is written. Seems like a hard concept for you to grasp.
    They're not being helped to achieve the same status as whites have, they're being given the white's status in their place.

    Alt-Right is anti feminist, white nationalist, nativist, Islamophobic, right-wing populist.

    Lauren Southern on why she's anti-feminism.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Islamaphobia, White Nationalism, and Nativism
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Lauren Southern sympathizing and agreeing with alt-right rhetoric on a number of issues.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    None of those links work.
    Being against modern femenism is not alt-right.
    Hitler liked animals, I guess whoever likes animals is a Nazi? Just because the person supporting something is a bad person, does not mean that everything that they support is bad.
    EDIT: I see you got it working. I've watched the second one, which as you stated shows Islamophobia, white nationalism and nativism. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch it, now did you?
    I don't even get what your aversion is to admitting Lauren Southern is an alt-right political activist. It's not a slur word. It's simply a description of political positions I find abhorrent. I have military friends who are alt-right, best friends in fact that I've held dear since elementary school. You realize that despite all the angry and targeted rhetoric both sides spew including myself, I don't actually have any antagonism towards just going out and eating lunch with people like Richard Spencer right?
    I have an aversion to calling someone by something that is not true.
    I'm sure you'd enjoy the meal with Spencer, he's a socialist aswell.
    Last edited by nhytgbvfeco2; March 30, 2018 at 05:37 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •