Danish far-right party calling for Muslim deportation to stand in election

you should still learn about those usages and adapt to them.
I don't need that guy for that.
Just going "this guy isn't genuine when framing just the right"
That's... not my point. In fact i'm not even sure he's doing that.
This is not a left vs. right thing.
This is a that guy is vapid, kind of dishonest and not as smart as he thinks he is... thing.

Anyway, i'm making a mental note on the Eboshi thing.
So maybe, to the guy's credit, you all may have to suffer through one of my obtuse rants as a result of all this. :p
Basically that point of education is to fund education for workers or unemployed say 30+ years. It's to counteract having people outcompeted by concurrent market demands and/or to improve the competences of them and as such try to counteract the competition from younger applicants that have similar credentials. Maybe even allow some to change careers to keep them working and happy. (Happy workers are more productive and have less issues of commitment) The SD want to fund that, while the right tries to cut down and/or privatize it.
Wait, so you have an adult education institution in direct control and ownership e.g. owning buildings, paying teachers directly etc?
That's cool. I'm impressed. :)
We have that semi-privatised version. Not good.
Would you classify yourself as an Anti-SJW, Metatron?
Since i suspect that your question is a polite proxy, i invite you to ask for what - presumably - you actually want to get at with that question. :)
Because between three cultures, two languages and personal perspectives answering that question with a high degree of precision would be laborious.
 
Liberals love aiding the fundamentalist cause of representing Islam as a monolith whenever it serves their narratives.

That's an exclusively "Liberal" tactic of strategically referring to Islam as a monolith to serve their own narrative, is it? I had no idea that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were actually Liberals. They could have fooled me...
 
Liberals love aiding the fundamentalist cause of representing Islam as a monolith whenever it serves their narratives.
That's an exclusively "Liberal" tactic of strategically referring to Islam as a monolith to serve their own narrative, is it? I had no idea that Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter were actually Liberals. They could have fooled me...
I remind you that this is the actual line:
That's a game played by both sides though. Liberals love aiding the fundamentalist cause of representing Islam as a monolith whenever it serves their narratives.
I can get you YCJ's preceding comment too.
Which might have been intended to refer to the data points you mentioned.

Point being:
Bad faith? Or missing glasses?
 
I remind you that this is the actual line:

I can get you YCJ's preceding comment too.
Which might have been intended to refer to the data points you mentioned.

Point being:
Bad faith? Or missing glasses?

It looked like you were saying both sides were "Liberals" and Islamists" bloc-referencing each other, and you were leaving out Western Conservatives deliberately. I admit, I didn't read YCJ's post (I was in a rush, and there were 20+ new posts since I last checked), and I assume you can see thus how such a mistake could be made.
 
race does not exist period. taxonomies do not exist. feelings do not exist. words do not exists. age does not exist. they don't exist in the same vein that physical things, like rocks, do. there are people whose skin color we identify as brown. yet there is no brown, or black, race. they are all mental constructs and only exist as part of our minds. no offense, but I've been debating this topic with you for ages and clearly you have a few mental barriers that stop you from accepting any kind of viewpoint you're not comfortable with. you desperately want to believe in race as a reality and have shown that through every debate yet.

but because I like you, again.

race is a pseudoscientific taxonomic term that found its way into the scientific discourse post-enlightenment. it is currently not being used in any serious area of research, aside from many criminology, just because criminology deals very much in phenotypes. it has been almost entirely abandoned as a coherent scientific concept, see the declaration of the APA which I must have posted like 5 times on this board already.

there are more legitimate systems of classification: ethnicity, ancestry, DNA haplogroups, nationality, self-reported ethnicity and so on. people who are not racists (read: people who do not believe race is a reality, aka everyone with a functioning brain) prefer to use these systems of classification.

Meh, I could care less if race exists. I agree there are better ways to identify and classify people but I dont have a problem with identifying Watusi and Pygmies as different races. The problem I do have is calling that racism. Cant several/many ethnicities constitute a race? I'm ethnically Irish but I still belong to a larger subset of humanity.

this is a bad post and you should feel bad. if you genuinely think that the colonial racist regime was not the direct cause of the genocide then you're massively ignorant. for some reasons those herders and farmers lived together for centuries without much of a problem. then, suddenly, racist science defines the everyday minutae of their lives and they go on a racist murder spree.

This is, by the way, objectively wrong. Consult any historical sources on the topic and you would've found out that both identities were in fact highly flexible, and that you could become either of the ethnicities through marriage, wealth, or simply by taking up herding or farming. those identities were cultural, ethnic and economic of nature and very fluent until the Europeans dropped in.

I thought they were getting pay back because the colonial power liked the Tutsis. That was the basis for my comparison to Cain and Abel, God preferred the herder's offering so the farmer killed him. I dont believe the Hutu suddenly took a dislike to the Tutsi because Europeans told them about racial superiority.

The Tutsi were a ruling minority before and after the arrival of Europeans and Hutu independence was the driving factor, not racism. At least, not racism introduced from Europe. The Tutsi mistreated the Hutu, that'll promote racism and it did. A small minority of the population ruled the majority. That 'division' ended up as an independence movement with both sides slaughtering each other after Belgium introduced democratic reforms favoring the Hutu.

the implication is not just that Ham saw Noah passed out in the tent, but rather that he kind of.. raped him.

Or castrated him like in the myths of the gods. Whatever happened, Ham denied Noah more sons limiting him to just 3, so Noah cursed Ham's 4th son Canaan.
 
I thought they were getting pay back because the colonial power liked the Tutsis. That was the basis for my comparison to Cain and Abel, God preferred the herder's offering so the farmer killed him. I dont believe the Hutu suddenly took a dislike to the Tutsi because Europeans told them about racial superiority.

The Tutsi were a ruling minority before and after the arrival of Europeans and Hutu independence was the driving factor, not racism. At least, not racism introduced from Europe. The Tutsi mistreated the Hutu, that'll promote racism and it did. A small minority of the population ruled the majority..

Actually, truth be told, the Belgians played both sides against each other before granting independence, inflaming and inciting each other about stereotypes of the other, and making false promises (different, mutually-exclusive, promises, to both) as part of a typical European program of divide and conquer.

That 'division' ended up as an independence movement with both sides slaughtering each other after Belgium introduced democratic reforms favoring the Hutu.

What democratic reform do you really believe the Belgians introduced. The Hutu Republic had two governing parties, one succeeding the other by bloody and brutal coup d'etat, and both running one-party states in their tenures, with all other political parties and associations outlawed, even other Hutu Nationalist ones. The Belgians neither introduced nor encouraged any other system, meaningfully, before granting independence.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rwanda

"In 1960, the Belgian government agreed to hold democratic municipal elections in Ruanda-Urundi. The Hutu majority elected Hutu representatives. Such changes ended the Tutsi monarchy, which had existed for centuries."

The Tutsi didn't take kindly to majority rule

I happen to know a naturalized Rwandan-Canadian citizen who told me the story quite a bit differently, from on the ground, and his own experience. But, hey, I guess Wikipedia always beats every other source, including knowing first-hand witnesses, nowadays.
 
I dont know your source so wiki will have to do

You'll have to forgive me if I defer to a man who grew up there and didn't immigrate here until his '30's as my preferred source over collegiate-age computer academics copying news and history sources, likely written or sourced from Belgians and French at some point.
 
What you guys are saying aren't mutually exclusive with each other.

Colonial authorities on the verge of exiting deciding to "agree to hold elections" isn't the same thing as caring what happens, being benevolent, being devoted to inter-ethnic unity or equality, or being invested in any outcome at all other than leaving.

Agreeing on elections as an exit strategy also does not negate the social and cultural damage already done by said coloniser's prior policies in creating the conditions that helped cause social/class/ethnic divisions to harden and solidify.
 
Last edited:
I don't need that guy for that.

That's... not my point. In fact i'm not even sure he's doing that.
This is not a left vs. right thing.
This is a that guy is vapid, kind of dishonest and not as smart as he thinks he is... thing.

Anyway, i'm making a mental note on the Eboshi thing.
So maybe, to the guy's credit, you all may have to suffer through one of my obtuse rants as a result of all this. :p

Good for you.

But you'd notice that people need it in the public discourse that aren't able to approach these things properly. You're not really being clear at all in regards to your reservations, but on the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in them (no offense! <3). The series has been a really useful component in regards to how the alt right handles speech. There are a lot of people that don't understand it (and don't realize when they appropriate the speech themselves unwillingly, which is a bad, bad thing). They kind of need this video, and well, it's usually received much more positively than you, and by people much, much smarter than me.

What's your education, or like, job?

Wait, so you have an adult education institution in direct control and ownership e.g. owning buildings, paying teachers directly etc?
That's cool. I'm impressed. :)
We have that semi-privatised version. Not good.

It's complicated. Some of it is privatized. But a lot of it can't really exist without subsidies. The division between public and private in Denmark can be a little blurry sometimes.
 
Meh, I could care less if race exists. I agree there are better ways to identify and classify people but I dont have a problem with identifying Watusi and Pygmies as different races. The problem I do have is calling that racism. Cant several/many ethnicities constitute a race? I'm ethnically Irish but I still belong to a larger subset of humanity.

I thought they were getting pay back because the colonial power liked the Tutsis. That was the basis for my comparison to Cain and Abel, God preferred the herder's offering so the farmer killed him. I dont believe the Hutu suddenly took a dislike to the Tutsi because Europeans told them about racial superiority.

The Tutsi were a ruling minority before and after the arrival of Europeans and Hutu independence was the driving factor, not racism. At least, not racism introduced from Europe. The Tutsi mistreated the Hutu, that'll promote racism and it did. A small minority of the population ruled the majority. That 'division' ended up as an independence movement with both sides slaughtering each other after Belgium introduced democratic reforms favoring the Hutu.

Or castrated him like in the myths of the gods. Whatever happened, Ham denied Noah more sons limiting him to just 3, so Noah cursed Ham's 4th son Canaan.

1) I don't have a problem with identifying Watusi and Pygmies as different races

well, you should. they are not races. you can identify them as marsupials or as cybermen and it would be just as wrong.

2) can't several ethnicities constitute a race?

no, because ethnicity as a concept has a completely different identifiers. race is all about skin color and facial structure while ethnicity is about national or cultural tradition, they're completely different fields.

3) the problem I have is calling that racism

if you want to group people exclusively based around their skin color and facial structure you are without a doubt a racist and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that

4) I thought they were getting pay back because the colonial power liked the Tutsis

they were getting "pay back", as disgusting as that sounds, because the colonialists introduced a caste system where one minority party had the status of the ruler, the civilizer, and the other the status of the worker, lowly savage. if it isn't immedeatly obvious how that creates tensions then I don't know what to say.

I love how you project the identity of god onto the European colonialists though, that made me giggle

5) I dont believe the Hutu suddenly took a dislike to the Tutsi because Europeans told them about racial superiority.

it didn't happen suddenly, but rather over the period of literal decades of oppression of the majority of the population via a powerful minority. if you're being told that you are a literal lowlife and less of a human being than your neighbor (who also happens to be richer than you, and work less for it), and you don't get angry about that, then there is probably something significantly wrong with you.

6) The Tutsi were a ruling minority before and after the arrival of Europeans

This is a false claim that I would like for you to source.

7) Hutu independence was the driving factor, not racism.

Instead of just saying "no, you!!" I'll link you just about the best read on the Rwandan genocide that exists, so you can check for yourself:

Mahmood Mamdani: When Victims become Killers. Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7027.html

Hutu independence spurned ethnic cleansings and some violence, not the genocide. Your own BBC link says as much. Genocides in general can only happen when a group thinks of another group as lesser human beings. It's a fundamental tenet. Even for the worst, most abonimable of actions, humans feel like they can justify themselves. And the Belgians gave them a great justification to slaughter each other.

8) Or castrated him

You know, I won't disagree with you there. Castration is in my mind equally as possible as rape, and just as much of a taboo to legitimize the curse. I think what we both agree on is that when he "lay his eyes on noah", clearly something else happened that is not being told word-by-word, rather by subtext. while looking at your parents butt naked was a taboo, it wouldn't merit a generational curse I don't believe :lol:
 
Last edited:
1) I don't have a problem with identifying Watusi and Pygmies as different races

well, you should. they are not races.

Well I dont and I'd like to see you try and tell them. They may not use the word race, ethnicity, or tribe to make the distinction but I'm sure they recognize being different peoples.

2) can't several ethnicities constitute a race?

no, because ethnicity as a concept has a completely different identifiers. race is all about skin color and facial structure while ethnicity is about national or cultural tradition, they're completely different fields.

Do related ethnicities have similar features like facial structure and skin color? Ethnicity can involve national or cultural tradition but Rachel Dolezal eg shows both can be adopted. What would you consider the next group up from ethnicity as subsets of humanity?

3) the problem I have is calling that racism

if you want to group people exclusively based around their skin color and facial structure you are without a doubt a racist and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that

Who said exclusively around skin color and facial structure? Here's the definition of racism:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

"Those people look different" /= "Therefore we're better and should mistreat them"

4) I thought they were getting pay back because the colonial power liked the Tutsis

they were getting "pay back", as disgusting as that sounds, because the colonialists introduced a caste system where one minority party had the status of the ruler, the civilizer, and the other the status of the worker, lowly savage. if it isn't immedeatly obvious how that creates tensions then I don't know what to say.

So in other words, pay back. The genocide happened over 30 years after the Hutu majority became the rulers when Belgium introduced democracy. The Tutsi didn't like losing power in much the same way Sunnis reacted to democracy in Iraq. What actually triggered the genocide? The Hutu president was allegedly assassinated by Tutsi rebels.

I love how you project the identity of god onto the European colonialists though, that made me giggle

Both were the powers that be fomenting resentment with favoritism.

5) I dont believe the Hutu suddenly took a dislike to the Tutsi because Europeans told them about racial superiority.

it didn't happen suddenly, but rather over the period of literal decades of oppression of the majority of the population via a powerful minority. if you're being told that you are a literal lowlife and less of a human being than your neighbor (who also happens to be richer than you, and work less for it), and you don't get angry about that, then there is probably something significantly wrong with you.

The Tutsi had run the country a long time before Europeans showed up. I know colonialism made it worse, but tension was there to begin with. Europeans arrived and saw the minority Tutsi domination and maintained the status quo.

6) The Tutsi were a ruling minority before and after the arrival of Europeans

This is a false claim that I would like for you to source.

I already posted 2 links

7) Hutu independence was the driving factor, not racism.

Instead of just saying "no, you!!" I'll link you just about the best read on the Rwandan genocide that exists, so you can check for yourself:

I read the blurb, and?
 
So in other words, pay back. The genocide happened over 30 years after the Hutu majority became the rulers when Belgium introduced democracy. The Tutsi didn't like losing power in much the same way Sunnis reacted to democracy in Iraq. What actually triggered the genocide? The Hutu president was allegedly assassinated by Tutsi rebels.

Why do you insist on believing the Belgians introduced "democracy." They had an election of dubious quality and monitoring held right before they. Then, two Hutu one-party dictatorships, one succeeding the other by bloody and brutal coup, and each outlawing all other political parties, including Hutu Nationalist parties, during their tenure ensued. Then, the Tutsi-dominated RPF, which organized in refugee camps in Uganda, crossed into Rwanda, triggering a civil war, and then genocide, and the RPF taking over. The RPF have since held three Presidential and four Parliamentary elections against anemic opponents, suspiciously winning better than Putin, Museveni, or Mugabe margins on paper. No party government has ever peacefully succeeded another at the ballot box, despite three parties holding power since independence, nor have any of those three parties ever been meaningfully challenged or threatened (on paper) at the ballot. Please, show me the democracy!

Second, the two-men who fired the shoulder-mounted SAM missile from a hill overlooking the old Kigali International Airport that downed former President Juvenal Habyaramana's plane in the wee hours of the morning as he returned from discussing a peace treaty and power sharing in Arusha with the RPF were NEVER caught or identified. TWO likely theories have been posited - but neither has been proven or disproven. The RPF may have done it, but it also could likely have been Habyaramana's Presidential Guard - who more observed as nearer to the hill the day before, and who may have felt betrayed by Habyaramana's agreements at Arusha - which certainly had definite evidence by their very active leadership and incitement participation in stirring up the Genocide, right from the beginning hours. You term things as if the correct verdict between the two has already been determined, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which I assure you, it hasn't.
 
(no offense! <3)
None taken.
It's complicated. Some of it is privatized. But a lot of it can't really exist without subsidies. The division between public and private in Denmark can be a little blurry sometimes.
Ok, now it sounds less impressive and more like our derpy thing.

I am still not sure if i understand why the "red block" (right?) is winning the election?
What is the big selling point? It can't be that, can it?
Or is it just that the government is unpopular due to political or economic or moral failings?
 
Well I dont and I'd like to see you try and tell them. They may not use the word race, ethnicity, or tribe to make the distinction but I'm sure they recognize being different peoples.

Do related ethnicities have similar features like facial structure and skin color? Ethnicity can involve national or cultural tradition but Rachel Dolezal eg shows both can be adopted. What would you consider the next group up from ethnicity as subsets of humanity?

Who said exclusively around skin color and facial structure? Here's the definition of racism:

"Those people look different" /= "Therefore we're better and should mistreat them"

So in other words, pay back. The genocide happened over 30 years after the Hutu majority became the rulers when Belgium introduced democracy. The Tutsi didn't like losing power in much the same way Sunnis reacted to democracy in Iraq. What actually triggered the genocide? The Hutu president was allegedly assassinated by Tutsi rebels.

Both were the powers that be fomenting resentment with favoritism.

The Tutsi had run the country a long time before Europeans showed up. I know colonialism made it worse, but tension was there to begin with. Europeans arrived and saw the minority Tutsi domination and maintained the status quo.

I already posted 2 links

I read the blurb, and?

1) human differences exist and everyone is in agreement about that. how you choose to call them is up to you.

2) ethnicities definitely have similiar looks, but it's not the metric of classification for ethnicities, which I've already said.

3) races are based around skin color and facial structure, if you dispute that I don't think there's any reason to continue talking.

4) you are conflating two terms. racist, as in someone treating a person poorly because of their skin color (what you are talking about). it's that colloquial definition. or, racist, as in someone who believes in race science (what lexicus mentioned). also sometimes called race-realist.

5) you are conflating the trigger for the genocide with the underlying cause. not to go into too much detail, but:

the dehumanization of the opposing faction was the reason why the genocide happened the way it happened. the plane going down was the trigger. had the situation been different it might've been a civil war, or whatever have you, but it ended up being a complete bloodbath. those unimagineable atrocities did not happen because of political disagreement. the hutu fundamentally wanted to wipe the tutsi out. it's not revenge, it's total annihilation. there were actual priests, school teachers, children and even human rights activists taking part in the murder. of course it's a multifaceted issue, and of course there's thousands of reasons why the hutu resented the tutsi, but the underlying racial narrative is what gave the legitimation for both the exploitation by the tutsi and the murders done by the hutu. much like how the europeans justified their exploitation of the slaves through the hamitic hypothesis.
 
Such a bizarre position that racism is uniquely Anglo... so, what, were the other colonial powers just color blind religious bigots? Even American (continent) racism was originated in the Latin colonial world.

Beyond that, I mean as a German... like, you know that Germany, France, Italy, and Russia all conducted colonial campaigns, right? Have you ever heard of a little giant historical process called the scramble for Africa? More contemporary, the vast exploitation of Muslim and especially Turkish immigrant workers during the postwar rebuilding period? Especially in Germany itself? I might argue that islamophobic racism is even a German invention, seeing as it has its roots in the crusades. Truly a bizarre belief.
 
Such a bizarre position that racism is uniquely Anglo... so, what, were the other colonial powers just color blind religious bigots? Even American (continent) racism was originated in the Latin colonial world.

Beyond that, I mean as a German... like, you know that Germany, France, Italy, and Russia all conducted colonial campaigns, right? Have you ever heard of a little giant historical process called the scramble for Africa? More contemporary, the vast exploitation of Muslim and especially Turkish immigrant workers during the postwar rebuilding period? Especially in Germany itself? I might argue that islamophobic racism is even a German invention, seeing as it has its roots in the crusades. Truly a bizarre belief.
Erm... it would be helpful if you were to find the person you are arguing with.
And their actual position to argue against.
Right now you look like that man at the bus stop ranting at some empty patch of air.
 
Top Bottom