NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: This thread, among other things, is a way for me to assess first-hand to what degree there really is some sort of growing racist/Nazi population on NS.

If I can tell (and I can tell a whole lot, it's the knowing aspect that I'm not too good at) from some of the recent threads, it seems that people have finally gotten around to talking about the decreasing trend in birth rates in most of the modern world... and some seem to have a problem with that.

Now let's think this over a bit. The more advanced* nations (advanced meaning more developed socially, politically, and economically) are having less children. There are two ways to think about it:
1. Oh no! not enough white people! let's force people to have as many children as they can like Mussolini did! (Never mind the fact that other racial groups are members of the advanced nations of the world)
2. If the smarter*, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

I'd have to side with the latter group. How 'bout you?

*Once again, to clarify, since many people seem to be confused by my language. The seemingly arbitrary terms I use to describe nations are in conjunction with the UN Human Development Index definition:
"1. A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
2. Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).
3. A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD."
I also consider a general consensus of open-mindedness to be a more "advanced" quality of regions of people.

Nazi symps are the most lead-footed of trollkind. Man, I hate them nazi symps - especially when they try dressing up their insecurities as forum threads.

poll? open?

AAHH!! Minorities!!! :eek:

Run away to the suburbs!

Nazi symps are the most lead-footed of trollkind. Man, I hate them nazi symps - especially when they try dressing up their insecurities as forum threads.

Then I suggest you pick last poll choice, because I assure you I'm no Nazi.

Then I suggest you pick last poll choice, because I assure you I'm no Nazi.
I wasn't talking about you. Sheesh.

*edit: maybe you shoulda checked before writing that poll option.

Where's the option for apathy?

P.S. Wait a minute, it's multiple choice. That means if you don't care, pick everything!

2. If the smarter, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

2b. If the smarter, more advanced nations are engaged in the pursuits of dogging, hentai and happy slapping, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

Where's the option for apathy?

Who cares?

Saipea's always promoting his 'master race'.

Your sarcasm instruction does not have an opening tag; therefore, you are not really sarcastic, making you a RASCIST, therefore I can check the last poll option. (YES!)

2b. If the smarter, more advanced nations are engaged in the pursuits of dogging, hentai and happy slapping, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

Look, do you really want me to go into all of the reasons why overpopulation is bad?

What I meant by the second option was that if the natural trend is for the more advanced nations is to have less children, then perhaps we should go with what is natural.

And by the way, 2b. isn't a bad option either. :P

Nazi symps are the most lead-footed of trollkind.

Not so much the iron fist in the velvet glove, as the lead foot in the sexy jackboot?

You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
-Bodies Without Organs


I am not, nor have I ever been, Dorothy Parker. Amend your accreditation forthwith.

There are two ways to think about it:
1. Oh no! not enough white people! let's force people to have as many children as they can like Mussolini did! (Never mind the fact that other racial groups are members of the advanced nations of the world)
2. If the smarter, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

I'd have to side with the latter group. How 'bout you?
Oh noes!!!111ONE!!

You need all the white people you can get! After all, they're an endangered species! [/EXTREME SARCASM]

Saipea's always promoting his 'master race'.

Alright, I deleted the post before, but my need for clarification is too great:

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, right?

2. If the smarter, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

I'd have to side with the latter group. How 'bout you?

So, option 2 goes from the assumption that advanced technology is a good thing, and thus we are more intelligent than less technologically advanced nations, and thus because we have decided to start reproducing more slowly, that population decline is also a good thing...

...whereas it is equally valid to work from the assumption that population decline is a bad thing, and then back up to the conclusion that technological advancement is a bad thing.

I see no growing racism and I certainly don't see any growing Nazi grip on NS (especially in the anything right wing department)

Also this thread is horribly biased towards just letting Europe depopulate and seeing it as natural

Also this thread is horribly biased towards just letting Europe depopulate and seeing it as natural

Let us note that there is one European country which has had a 0% birth rate for years and years and years, and that doesn't seem to have threatened the state's integrity or traditions one iota.

I am not, nor have I ever been, Dorothy Parker. Amend your accreditation forthwith.
My apologies, I had not heard it before.

So, option 2 goes from the assumption that advanced technology is a good thing, and thus we are more intelligent than less technologically advanced nations, and thus because we have decided to start reproducing more slowly, that population decline is also a good thing...

...whereas it is equally valid to work from the assumption that population decline is a bad thing, and then back up to the conclusion that technological advancement is a bad thing.

For one, more advanced technologies (from light bulbs to nanotechnology to brain surgery), economic theories (free market capitalism with varied amount of socialist government intervention), social theories (acceptance of women, racial minorities, religious diversity, etc.), etc. are good because they improve the overall quality of life (if that isn't good I don't know what is.) Please don't even bother to play devil's advocate over that point. Although it's cliché, in this case I think it's fair to say "If you don't like the modern world, why not move to ____."

And secondly, it's not statistical manipulation, it's valid if-P-then-Q fact to say that living in a better environment with higher health, educational, economic, etc. standards leads to people having fewer children.

Let us note that there is one European country which has had a 0% birth rate for years and years and years, and that doesn't seem to have threatened the state's integrity or traditions one iota.

until product demand starts going down and the economy collapses as a result but hey maybe its a cycle which I wont go into any further because this isn't the place to debate the issue

until product demand starts going down and the economy collapses as a result but hey maybe its a cycle which I wont go into any further because this isn't the place to debate the issue

I'd like to hear the reasoning.

It is natural. That's the thing that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around. Increase in quality of life = decrease in number of children. That's the nature of improved circumstances. It's not statistical coincidence.

And by the way, Europe did fine when it had only a couple million people.

Then why does UAE and Saudi Arabia, which are rich, have got very high birth rates?

until product demand starts going down and the economy collapses as a result but hey maybe its a cycle which I wont go into any further because this isn't the place to debate the issue

Possibly, but such a turn down in consumption of the product would be the cause of the decline, not the 0% birth rate.

For one, more advanced technologies (from light bulbs to nanotechnology to brain surgery), economic theories (free market capitalism with varied amount of socialist government intervention), social theories (acceptance of women, racial minorities, religious diversity, etc.), etc. are good because they improve the overall quality of life (if that isn't good I don't know what is.) Please don't even bother to play devil's advocate over that point. Although it's cliché, in this case I think it's fair to say "If you don't like the modern world, why not move to ____.".

Possibly happiness is a more direct way to measure the overall quality of life (if that isn't good I don't know what is): any guesses as to who comes out on top there in the global rankings? Nigeria - perhaps a certain amount of technological advancement, but only so much is for the best.

Then why does UAE and Saudi Arabia, which are rich, have got very high birth rates?

HAHAHAHAHA.

First off, who is rich? Certainly not the people -- the rich/poor divides in those countries make U.S.'s discrepancies look normal.

Second, those countries are hardly "advanced" in terms of social issues. And their technology certainly isn't much either.

Then why does UAE and Saudi Arabia, which are rich, have got very high birth rates?

Due to the concentration of massive amounts of wealth in the possession of a small percentage of the population, thus leaving crumbs for the rest?

Possibly happiness is a more direct way to measure the overall quality of life (if that isn't good I don't know what is): any guesses as to who comes out on top there in the global rankings? Nigeria - perhaps a certain amount of technological advancement, but only so much is for the best.

According to who? Their HDI is 158th.
Certainly the country is improving with better leadership, but there's no way in hell that the quality of life is "best" in Nigeria out of the entire world.

Due to the concentration of massive amounts of wealth in the possession of a small percentage of the population, thus leaving crumbs for the rest?

Especially in UAE wealth has been spread...

According to who?

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

That's whom.

Certainly the country is improving with better leadership, but there's no way in hell that the quality of life is "best" in Nigeria out of the entire world.

So, even if you were to reject the WVS's findings, would you still class happiness as a good guide of quality of life?

Especially in UAE wealth has been spread...
Ever been?

The actual citizens of the place are all very rich people. None of them pay income taxes, and many of them are Sheiks with perhaps several wives.

However, most people who live in the UAE are not citizens but guest workers. And they get paid shit all.

Before you make assertions about the birth rates in the UAE you need to make sure whose kids they're counting.

Alright, I deleted the post before, but my need for clarification is too great:

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, right?

I can find no humor when dealing with genocidal ideologues bent on promoting their own arbitrary sense of superiority.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

A decreasing population is the result of urbanisation. In the farmland, a child is a plus. An extra hand on the field, etc. Now that most people live in cities, a child becomes a burden...responsibilities, money lost to education, caretaking, food, etc.
I think that if the population decreased just enough, the birth rate will pick up again because the cities will diminish and more people will rely on agriculture, instead of store-bought goods, so the child will not have such a negative impact on a family. (Less money to pay for food; it's grown by the family, etc.)

I can find no humor when dealing with genocidal ideologues bent on promoting their own arbitrary sense of superiority.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Genocidal? Ideologue? Arbitrary sense of superiority? What the fuck are you talking about?

I can only assume that you must have seen one of my posts when I was in a bad mood where I said that 1) there are too many "stupid" people and that it would be better if there were less, 2) I claimed to not be stupid.
So yes, I have half-seriously joked that warning labels should be taken off of medicines so that nature takes its course, and I can be narcissistic at times, but I've never promoted systematically killing anyone, nor have I ever endorsed one group as arbitrarily being superior to another.

I picked them all - teach you to have multiple choices.

Note: This thread, among other things, is a way for me to assess first-hand to what degree there really is some sort of growing racist/Nazi population on NS.

If I can tell (and I can tell a whole lot, it's the knowing aspect that I'm not too good at) from some of the recent threads, it seems that people have finally gotten around to talking about the decreasing trend in birth rates in most of the modern world... and some seem to have a problem with that.

Now let's think this over a bit. The more advanced nations (advanced meaning more developed socially, politically, and economically) are having less children. There are two ways to think about it:
1. Oh no! not enough white people! let's force people to have as many children as they can like Mussolini did! (Never mind the fact that other racial groups are members of the advanced nations of the world)
2. If the smarter, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.

I'd have to side with the latter group. How 'bout you?

First, before I start my blathering, I'd just like to say this decreasing birth trend is pointless. No one's going to die out. People have been scared of it before - we'll survive.

1. The sarcasm in that is no longer sarcasm when it's that obvious.
2. Smarter? Or perhaps well better off because they have the technology to gain such advancements?

It's a matter of untapped or tapped potential. They're seen smarter because they have a larger yield for their potential. For example, you'll probably find people just as smart politically in China, but you don't because of the government. You'll most likely find guys in Afghanistan just as crafty as here yet you don't. It's a matter that their potential aren't met. Therefore, how can you measure the intelligence when they're not on equal terms?

It's like saying this guy is smarter than another guy at English because he got a better mark on his essay - yet a closer look shows that one guy has Word and the other has Notepad.

They're more advanced technologically doesn't mean they're smarter.

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

That's whom.



So, even if you were to reject the WVS's findings, would you still class happiness as a good guide of quality of life?

Happiness is subjective, as I'm sure that survey was (i.e. it probably asked the citizens whether they felt they were happy, which of course, a citizen of an optimistic nation in the process of tremendous improvements will be whereas a citizen of an already established first world nation will be more pessimistic and jaded.)

I go with what the HDI claims is important in life:
"1. A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
2. Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).
3. A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.

Genocidal? Ideologue? Arbitrary sense of superiority? What the fuck are you talking about?

I can only assume that you must have seen one of my posts when I was in a bad mood where I said that 1) there are too many "stupid" people and that it would be better if there were less, 2) I claimed to not be stupid.
So yes, I have half-seriously joked that warning labels should be taken off of medicines so that nature takes its course, and I can be narcissistic at times, but I've never promoted systematically killing anyone, nor have I ever endorsed one group as arbitrarily being superior to another.

Read the white in the post you quoted.

I thought you'd see it when you quoted.

Read the white in the post you quoted.

I thought you'd see it when you quoted.

Ah. My apologies. I'm a bit touchy about the possibility of being called a Nazi/racist because, as I've said, some of my ideas can be construed to be of that nature. (e.g. I don't think crazy, retarded, or homeless people should be allowed to have children because they'd be bad parents and simply make more crazy, retarded, and homeless people = possibly supportive of eugenics = Nazi)

Ah. My apologies. I'm a bit touchy about the possibility of being called a Nazi/racist because, as I've said, some of my ideas can be construed to be of that nature. (e.g. I don't think crazy, retarded, or homeless people should be allowed to have children because they'd be bad parents and simply make more crazy, retarded, and homeless people = possibly supportive of eugenics = Nazi)

Well, society's view of Nazis, you mean.

Happiness is subjective ...

I go with what the HDI claims is important in life:
"1. A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
2. Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).
3. A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.

So you consider it more important to have a long life, be literate and have coin in your pocket than to be happy?

So you consider it more important to have a long life, be literate and have coin in your pocket than to be happy?

Get off it and quit trolling. You want me to snap, fine:
People in Nigeria are too ignorant and underprivileged to be able to properly qualify what happiness is.

We both know the psychological reasons behind results of a subjective "Are you happy?"-question poll indicating that people in Nigeria are more happy than people in nations with clean water, so just drop it.

I gt mye ten guns an shute the nigars at my twn the sherif help mi. I got gaslin for the cros on the lawnn.

Get off it and quit trolling. You want me to snap, fine:
People in Nigeria are too ignorant and underprivileged to be able to properly qualify what happiness is.

No, you have misconstrued my intentions completely. The only thing I am trying to provoke here is debate.

We both know the psychological reasons behind results of a subjective "Are you happy?"-question poll indicating that people in Nigeria are more happy than people in nations with clean water, so just drop it.

The fact remains that they may actually be happier than those people in nations with clean water though.

No, you have misconstrued my intentions completely. The only thing I am trying to provoke here is debate.

The fact remains that they may actually be happier than those people in nations with clean water though.

They probably are. "Ignorance is bliss": they're so busy trying to survive day to day life, they have no time to stop and think about all of their personal problems. So while all they might need is a clean floor to sleep on (over exaggeration), we need a couple milligrams of ______.

While I can understand the importance of this philosophical debate, when I accused you of trolling, I thought you were attempting to claim that Nigeria is more advanced than... say, Sweden... simply because of the arguably ambiguous terms on which I defined "advanced." I'm sorry about the mix-up.

While I can understand the importance of this philosophical debate, when I accused you of trolling, I thought you were attempting to claim that Nigeria is more advanced than... say, Sweden... simply because of the arguably ambiguous terms on which I defined "advanced." I'm sorry about the mix-up.

If anything I'm just exploring whether it is more suitable to happy and satisfying human existence than Sweden, despite or possibly because of Sweden's greater technological society. The people of Nigeria may not live as long as the people of Sweden, but they might live 'better'.


EDIT: of course it should be noted that Nigeria is one of the nations of Africa which has had a fairly high rate of technological uptake, and so I am hardly arguing for some primitivist 'back to the trees' approach here.

EDIT 2: nor am I claiming that there is an inverse relation between technological penetration of a society/individual technological uptake and happiness, but it appears that happiness and widely adopted advanced technology within a society do not always go hand in hand.

Ah. My apologies. I'm a bit touchy about the possibility of being called a Nazi/racist because, as I've said, some of my ideas can be construed to be of that nature. (e.g. I don't think crazy, retarded, or homeless people should be allowed to have children because they'd be bad parents and simply make more crazy, retarded, and homeless people = possibly supportive of eugenics = Nazi)

Its fine, I actually find 'nazis' to be more humorous than most posters, and anytime I appear to be seriously attacking someone I am usually being sarcastic.

Its fine, I actually find 'nazis' to be more humorous than most posters, and anytime I appear to be seriously attacking someone I am usually being sarcastic.
Vittos! You scalliwag, you! How's it hangin'? :D

The color of someone's skin doesn't matter much to me, and it is starting to matter much less because I am very slowly losing my eyesight. I really need to make an appointment with the doctor about it.

{snip}
2. If the smarter*, more advanced nations are having fewer children, maybe that's what mankind in general should be doing and such behavior should be encouraged.
{snip}


If smarter, more advanced nations/peoples are having fewer children, it is implied that dumber, less advanced people are having more. If this is true, then it proves something I've believed for a long time: Humanity is breeding for stupidity. In time, the stupid will out breed us, and inherit the earth.

http://uncyclopedia.org/images/e/ea/American1.jpg

I like white people. Some of my best friends are white people. I believe everyone should own one.

The only thing that seems to be a mainstay here is ethnocentrism between citizens. Seems like there's been an American Euro war for the last 3 years here.

Ah. My apologies. I'm a bit touchy about the possibility of being called a Nazi/racist because, as I've said, some of my ideas can be construed to be of that nature. (e.g. I don't think crazy, retarded, or homeless people should be allowed to have children because they'd be bad parents and simply make more crazy, retarded, and homeless people = possibly supportive of eugenics = Nazi)
Well, maybe you aren't a bona fide Nazi, but one thing's for sure:

You're an asshole.

I like white people. Some of my best friends are white people. I believe everyone should own one.

White people will not be owned by anyone, we are not slaves.


Prick :upyours:

White people will not be owned by anyone, we are not slaves.


Prick :upyours:

Why not? Our ancestors owned black people, why shouldn't we trade places for a while? Might give the chavs and white supremacists a nice Point Of View.

Don't worry, you're owned by a corporation anyway :)

And on another note:
http://www.badtree.com/Saturday_Night_Live/mov/Word_Association_(Richard_Pryor).htm

WE"RE OVERPOPULATED WE NEED TO NUKE EVERYTHING!!!!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :mp5:

Why not? Our ancestors owned black people, why shouldn't we trade places for a while? Might give the chavs and white supremacists a nice Point Of View.


Your are completely ignorrent of history.

Whites WERE slaves. The first slaves in Europe were WHITE MEN and they were enslaved for a far longer period of time then the blacks were enslaved in the United States.

Also the first slaveowners in Africa were blacks themselves! Stronger African tribes conquered weaker ones and enslaved their young men and women.

Thats the problem with you liberal self haters, your either on drugs or your completely ignorrent.

Products of America's "great" public school system.

Your are completely ignorrent of history.

Whites WERE slaves. The first slaves in Europe were WHITE MEN and they were enslaved for a far longer period of time then the blacks were enslaved in the United States.

Also the first slaveowners in Africa were blacks themselves! Stronger African tribes conquered weaker ones and enslaved their young men and women.

Thats the problem with you liberal self haters, your either on drugs or your completely ignorrent.

Products of America's "great" public school system.

...

My point was actually to give people like you some perspective, but apparently that whizzed right past you. Also, so what if the first slaveowners were black? The first concentration camps were created by uis Brits, but that doesn't make what the Nazis did any better/excusable.

Also, I love the flaming and belief I'm a liberal. I am in fact a Tory voter here in the UK, I study history at an undergraduate level, so I do know my history, and I don't do drugs. Here's a tip; not all liberals do drugs, buddy.

:rolleyes: Thats the problem with you liberal self haters, your either on drugs or your completely ignorrent.

Products of America's "great" public school system.

Are you familiar with the term "Irony"? :p

Let us note that there is one European country which has had a 0% birth rate for years and years and years, and that doesn't seem to have threatened the state's integrity or traditions one iota.
Which country was that?

Which country was that?

Click me. (http://www.vatican.va/)

Click me. (http://www.vatican.va/)


:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
I'm with you.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Click me. (http://www.vatican.va/)

Heh...

Why not? Our ancestors owned black people, why shouldn't we trade places for a while? Might give the chavs and white supremacists a nice Point Of View.

You are either non-white or got S&M fetishes...

You are either non-white or got S&M fetishes...

Or, you know, I was trying to make a racist see a point?

Or, you know, I was trying to make a racist see a point?

Which is how opressive slavery is? "Racism" doesnt necessarily mean enslaving others...

:rolleyes:

Are you familiar with the term "Irony"? :p

I'm not sure what irony your talking about, but I am sure that no one claims America's schools are great.:p

Which is how opressive slavery is? "Racism" doesnt necessarily mean enslaving others...

Yes, how oppressive slavery is. Then he might not harp on about race superiority quite so much...

Yes, how oppressive slavery is. Then he might not harp on about race superiority quite so much...

I dont think he mentioned race superiority...I think he mentioned race survivalism.

Yes, how oppressive slavery is. Then he might not harp on about race superiority quite so much...

"Racism" also doesnt necessarily mean beliving in racial superiority. "Racism" also doesnt equate Nazism, like thread starter claimed.

If things get really bad we can go for the 'Michael Jackson Treatment'. Invest in bleach people.

If things get really bad we can go for the 'Michael Jackson Treatment'. Invest in bleach people.

He looks like a freak...

He IS a freak...

Corrected

Corrected

"She's a super freak, super freak
She's super-freaky, yow"~Rick James

"She's a super freak, super freak
She's super-freaky, yow"~Rick James

lol...Rick James is just loco.

I managed to construe Saipea's comments to be racist. This is probably because I'm a white guy. ;)