NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to admit to getting really annoyed with the whole, 'hey we're on the same side' thing. Like, hey, I'm left wing, you're left wing, and as part of the left wing hive mind, it would be totally insane for us to disagree!

The truth is, I tend to get along with many right wingers MORE than I do with left wingers. Why? Because you KNOW you don't agree, and either you don't speak further, or you ditch the politics, and just get along on other levels. Left wingers expect you to share beliefs and opinions, which to a certain extent is fine...but they tend to get all shocked when you really oppose them on something.

In my case, this comes up most often when it comes to aboriginal issues. Most of you know that this is a...passion of mine. Right wingers, well, I expect a certain attitude. What REALLY pisses me off is left wingers who, all well-meaning, say stupid shit about aboriginal people and then expect me to nod and pat them on the back for being so enlightened.

We might share similar broad political beliefs, but if you say something idiotic about something I happen to know a lot about, I am going to call you on it. Running and crying about 'being attacked by people on the same side' as you is ridiculous. I hold you to a higher standard than I hold right wingers because the world at large KNOWS that I am in opposition to those right wingers. The world at large, being mostly stupid, does not necessarily know that you and I are in opposition and when you go around making idiotic statements on a matter that directly touches me, you tend to make me look bad along with you.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?

See, this is why I don't label people as left-wing or right-wing.
First of all, I find that nobody but the most severe nutcases are entirely left-wing or entirely right-wing.
And secondly, you don't get your hopes up to much.

I try and sort people by "thinkers" and "non-thinkers", it's much more fun this way.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?

Solidarity is all very well but you should have your own beliefs.

Colonialism is good. It allows the spread of Civilisation and allows progress and governance to be near-guaranteed.

Sexism and Racism are wrong.

I get annyoyed when people who are Right-wing are shocked (I'm Right Wing) when I say we must help the Poor and Money should be taken from the richest to ensure basic standards for the poorest.

It's the inevitable short coming of a binary system to describe a broad range of issues. In our country it results in accusations of 'RINOs and DINOs' since we're absolutely married to the binary. It's ridiculous to assume that there are only two unified opinions about issues and if you click 'left' or 'right' in your preference that you'll line up that way.

And absolutely you should be harder on those close to you than those further away in opinion. Like you said, they could be mistaken as representing you if you didn't say something, and because they're already half way there, why wouldn't you want to try and get them across the finish line?

When I was much more highly politically active (in the active sense, not the political sense if you get the difference), I found that the worst arguments happened between those of us on the left. Squabbles between the trots and the MLs, the anarchists, the 'liberals' and so on. It was horrendous and unbearable. So it sort of shocks me when I come across people who are genuinely suprised when someone 'on the left' tears them a new arsehole. We eat our young you know.

Solidarity is all very well but you should have your own beliefs.

Colonialism is good. It allows the spread of Civilisation and allows progress and governance to be near-guaranteed. Colonialism is just blanket 'good'? In what alternate universe? At what point do you get to ignore all the evils that colonialism has perpetrated in order to paint such a rosy picture of it? Hell, if you're capable of that, then surely you can modify the following statement:

Sexism and Racism are wrong.
I'm sure there are enough equally redeeming features of sexism and racism that you can compare them to colonialism and shift them all into the 'good' list. Considering how tightly entwined these three concepts are, after all.

I get annyoyed when people who are Right-wing are shocked (I'm Right Wing) when I say we must help the Poor and Money should be taken from the richest to ensure basic standards for the poorest.
I like your random use of capitals. It's very 19th century.

Yes, dissension in the ranks is good. It prevents stagnation.

Solidarity is all very well but you should have your own beliefs.

Colonialism is good. It allows the spread of Civilisation and allows progress and governance to be near-guaranteed.

Sexism and Racism are wrong.

I get annyoyed when people who are Right-wing are shocked (I'm Right Wing) when I say we must help the Poor and Money should be taken from the richest to ensure basic standards for the poorest.

Dukeburyshire, that last statement is left-wing through and through.

And absolutely you should be harder on those close to you than those further away in opinion. Like you said, they could be mistaken as representing you if you didn't say something, and because they're already half way there, why wouldn't you want to try and get them across the finish line?
Exactamundo. You are much less likely to convince someone on the right wing. Not that it can't be done, mind you...I've had it happen enough that I don't stop talking to right wingers. However, if you know that you have a certain base of beliefs in common with someone else, you know that when you get to certain sticky questions, they aren't simply going to go "well, I don't actually believe in that particular human right" the way a right winger might. Because when someone does that, you are essentially at an impasse. If you can't agree that human right 'x', for example, is essential, then you do not share the axiom that informs your argument, and you're hooped. Agree to disagree and all that (after you take them out at the knees).

Yeah, pretty disturbing...

Example of dialogue:


"Hi, I think the state must control everything, and the military should run the country, that is the way to be. This country needs a man of power with an iron hand"

"WHAT?, you are nuts, power to the people, man. The military should be disbanded and the law should be upheld by the comunal councils, the defense by the popular militias!"

"You anarchist pig!, for people like you we are still an under developed country under the rule of the US empire"

"You fascist pig!, for people like you we have been oppressed by the rule of the US empire for centuries"

"Wait, why are you wearing a Chávez T-shirt?"

"I am a supporter of the comrade Hugo, he gives power to the people, but...you have one too!"

"Yes I do, of course, I love the Commander Chávez, he is the strong man we need"

"Then nevermind, we agree"

"Yes, my countryman, together we are invincible"

"Sorry friend, couldn't imagine we were on the same side"

(CHORUS) "Patria, socialismo, o muerte" (ironically, the first person gives more emphasis to the first word, and the second more emphasis to the second word. Both of them, however, scream the last part of the sentence)

Colorful, don't you think?

Colonialism is just blanket 'good'? In what alternate universe? At what point do you get to ignore all the evils that colonialism has perpetrated in order to paint such a rosy picture of it?

My Forebears were From Colonies and Liked It, my Relations now live in Former Colonies and Bemoan the loss of Good Governance.

Dukeburyshire, that last statement is left-wing through and through.

Not if 'help the poor' means sterilising them so that more poor children aren't born and not if 'take money from the rich' means giving them more tax credits for charitable donations.

Colorful, don't you think?

Fabulous, and exactly illustrative of my point, muchisimas gracias:)

My Forebears were From Colonies and Liked It, my Relations now live in Former Colonies and Bemoan the loss of Good Governance.

My Forebears had Colonies Thrust upon them and Hated it, managing somehow to survive Murder Most Foul, the Kidnapping of their Children, and attempted Cultural Genocide. Only now are we regaining our Good Governance that served us well for Tens of Thousands of Years. Why is it that Your Forebears are valued above mine when it comes to determining Whose Opinion Matters Most?

Dukeburyshire, that last statement is left-wing through and through.

But I'm Also Very Nationalistic.

E.G.:

Any Person Who Leaves An Impoverished Nation/Colony/Dominion To Pursue Money Is A Traitor to Their Nation And Should Be Punished (My Forebears Left in Pursuit of Peace and Family, not Capital.)

Or:

The Prisons Should Be Privatised and Then Their Inmates Subjected To Inhuman Conditions as They Produce Goods Cheaply.

Neesika
Not if 'help the poor' means sterilising them so that more poor children aren't born and not if 'take money from the rich' means giving them more tax credits for charitable donations.

Help the Poor Means Provide A Basic Standard Of Nutrition and Housing And Take Money From The Rich Means An Income Cap For All Householders.

Not if 'help the poor' means sterilising them so that more poor children aren't born and not if 'take money from the rich' means giving them more tax credits for charitable donations.

lol I see your point. Still, I thought he meant that the government should be robinhood.

But I'm Also Very Nationalistic.

E.G.:

Any Person Who Leaves An Impoverished Nation/Colony/Dominion To Pursue Money Is A Traitor to Their Nation And Should Be Punished (My Forebears Left in Pursuit of Peace and Family, not Capital.)

Or:

The Prisons Should Be Privatised and Then Their Inmates Subjected To Inhuman Conditions as They Produce Goods Cheaply.

Neesika


Help the Poor Means Provide A Basic Standard Of Nutrition and Housing And Take Money From The Rich Means An Income Cap For All Householders.

I see...but if you give them money they won't work, they'll just live off the money. Damn, you think a lot like I used to think.

My Forebears had Colonies Thrust upon them and Hated it, managing somehow to survive Murder Most Foul, the Kidnapping of their Children, and attempted Cultural Genocide. Only now are we regaining our Good Governance that served us well for Tens of Thousands of Years. Why is it that Your Forebears are valued above mine when it comes to determining Whose Opinion Matters Most?

And Which Country Ruled Your Land? I'd Guess Spanish.

And Which Country Ruled Your Land? I'd Guess Spanish.

The French and English squabbled over it. I live in Canada, in Nehiyaw Askiy, Cree territory.

Yay, a fellow Canadian. NDP supporter I presume?

I get annyoyed when people who are Right-wing are shocked (I'm Right Wing) when I say we must help the Poor and Money should be taken from the richest to ensure basic standards for the poorest.

Of course there is also the issue of left v right wing in different countries. I know there is a sizable proportion of the Conservatives who do support the Welfare State (in fact prior to Thatcher, I think most did).

You can't classify people based on a simple binary choice, hell even the political compass (left v right economically, authoritarian v liberal socially on orthogonal dimensions) doesn't really capture to division on seperate issues.

Yay, a fellow Canadian. NDP supporter I presume?

Edit: I apologise for getting you mixed up with Dukeburyshire, hasty reading on my part.

And don't presume. That's sort of the point of this thread. No, I don't support the NDP. I mean, if you were looking at 'lesser evils' then perhaps, but no. There is no major Canadian political party I support because no major Canadian political party supports us.

The French and English squabbled over it. I live in Canada, in Nehiyaw Askiy, Cree territory.

And You Despise Colonialism? Despite the Fact It Meant Canada Avoided Bloodshed on it's Soil From 1812-Present and Allowed It To Have A Proper Democracy (Where Is Cree territory? Is that in Quebec?). Also The Canadians Were A Successful Colonialisation. It Ended With Dominion Status, Which means A Colony has Become Able To Look After Domestic Affairs.

What pretentious capitalization? You mean the random capitalization? That was another guy.

I see. You're aboriginal then? Must be kind of hard having guys with english or french names (Steven Harper, Jack Layton and Stephen Dion) leading the majour political parties. I'm conservative although Steven Harper could be a little bit more open.

But I'm Also Very Nationalistic.

E.G.:

Any Person Who Leaves An Impoverished Nation/Colony/Dominion To Pursue Money Is A Traitor to Their Nation And Should Be Punished (My Forebears Left in Pursuit of Peace and Family, not Capital.)

Or:

The Prisons Should Be Privatised and Then Their Inmates Subjected To Inhuman Conditions as They Produce Goods Cheaply.

Neesika


Help the Poor Means Provide A Basic Standard Of Nutrition and Housing And Take Money From The Rich Means An Income Cap For All Householders.

But if you give the poor money then they have no reason to work if they can just live off the money the government gives them. Then they complain they don't get enough money and the government ends up suppotying a bunch of leeches for no reason other then they are poor and unwilling to look for work as long as the government pays them for doing nothing.

And You Despise Colonialism? Despite the Fact It Meant Canada Avoided Bloodshed on it's Soil From 1812-Present and Allowed It To Have A Proper Democracy (Where Is Cree territory? Is that in Quebec?). Also The Canadians Were A Successful Colonialisation. It Ended With Dominion Status, Which means A Colony has Become Able To Look After Domestic Affairs.

Ugh, seriously. Cut it out. This is the 21st century, and we're using standard English on this forum. Much in the same way I don't natter on in French, Cree or Spanish just to annoy you, I would expect that you would have the common courtesy to drop the capitalisation, no matter how much it might impress you. It's hell to read, and causes me to consider simply ignoring you altogether. If that's your intent though, by all means, carry on.

Nehiyaw Askiy stretches from eastern British Columbia all the way to Quebec. We're a widespread people.

French and English colonisation has meant many things to us, most of them negative. Until only very recently, we have been treated as subhuman, savages only fit for assimilation (but never true acceptance). We were slaughtered, our economic foundation shattered, our culture outlawed. That this all meant good things for settlers does not change the fact that for us, it was horrific.

You see, I can be aware of everything Canada as a nation has accomplished over the years, and still see that for my people, colonialisation has overwhelmingly been a negative experience.

But if you give the poor money then they have no reason to work if they can just live off the money the government gives them. Then they complain they don't get enough money and the government ends up suppotying a bunch of leeches for no reason other then they are poor and unwilling to look for work as long as the government pays them for doing nothing.

The Poor Would Have No Luxuries, Just Enough To Survive Without Starvation. That way They'd work for things Like TV and Books, and Be more likely to do less Paid jobs as They'd Want For less.

I see. You're aboriginal then? Must be kind of hard having guys with english or french names (Steven Harper, Jack Layton and Stephen Dion) leading the majour political parties. I'm conservative although Steven Harper could be a little bit more open. I don't care about last names, I care about politics.

Ugh, seriously. Cut it out. This is the 21st century, and we're using standard English on this forum. Much in the same way I don't natter on in French, Cree or Spanish just to annoy you, I would expect that you would have the common courtesy to drop the capitalisation, no matter how much it might impress you. It's hell to read, and causes me to consider simply ignoring you altogether. If that's your intent though, by all means, carry on.

Nehiyaw Askiy stretches from eastern British Columbia all the way to Quebec. We're a widespread people.

French and English colonisation has meant many things to us, most of them negative. Until only very recently, we have been treated as subhuman, savages only fit for assimilation (but never true acceptance). We were slaughtered, our economic foundation shattered, our culture outlawed. That this all meant good things for settlers does not change the fact that for us, it was horrific.

You see, I can be aware of everything Canada as a nation has accomplished over the years, and still see that for my people, colonialisation has overwhelmingly been a negative experience.

Sorry about the capitals. It comes because I type like I talk and so I emphasise words.

Ah I see you're a native (I hope you're not offended, that's the term I use, as you were there first.)

Wasn't Canadian policy towards natives decided by Ottawa, not London?

The Poor Would Have No Luxuries, Just Enough To Survive Without Starvation. That way They'd work for things Like TV and Books, and Be more likely to do less Paid jobs as They'd Want For less.

that's enough to allow them live to without working.

I don't care about last names, I care about politics.

yeah I see your point. What I mean is that there are no majour aboriginal politicians that I am aware of.

But if you give the poor money then they have no reason to work if they can just live off the money the government gives them. Then they complain they don't get enough money and the government ends up suppotying a bunch of leeches for no reason other then they are poor and unwilling to look for work as long as the government pays them for doing nothing.

What a depressing view you have of humanity. Most people want to work, there is nothing more soul-destroying for the vast majority people, most of whom want nothing more than to get back into work. In fact those permanantly on benefits or job seekers are a distinct minority of those who claim. Most people who end up claiming benefits do so for short periods of time in-between jobs and are happy to get off benefits as quickly as possible.

It may be nice to think that all poor people are obviously lazy, but realistically that's not the case.

that's enough to allow them live to without working.

Trust me. Give them Food and Shelter and they'll start wanting TV, Makeup, fancy clothes (instead of Oxfam rejects) etc.

Remember that Canada hung onto the skirt-strings of London for entirely too long...she had to finally shoo us off before we'd totter around on our own two legs. The first 'policy' towards aboriginal people here was based on the need for allies and survival. The original traders would have been dead within weeks had it not been for the know-how of First Nations guides and allies. The French understood our 'usefulness' to a better extent than the English, and tended to treat with us on more even terms. Considering the small numbers coming over to make their fortune in what is now Canada, pissing off the natives would have been suicidal. London was very adamant that we be treated well, because all Canada was to London was a goldmine at that point.

In order to hang onto the money maker that the Canadian wilds were, London needed allies against the French. Both nations made pacts with various First Nations to provide defence for one another's business ventures. Intermarriage between French trappers and First Nations women was already widespread at that time, and highly encouraged in order to further diplomatic relations. The English were a bit more stodgy...didn't take to its fine English men spawning half-breeds, more's the pity.

When settlement began in earnest, official policy was still very much dictated by London. The Proclamation of 1763 was party in response to the goings on of various English colonies in the Americas, as settlers attempted to buy out Indian lands, usurping the right of the Crown to do so. This caused a lot of animosity between settlers and First Nations, and the Crown needed to put a stop to it. Good relations were still vital to settlement at this time.

Once settlers got enough of a foothold in the 'New World', things changed slightly. Treaties were still preferable to massacres (at least in the Canadian context) because even in large amounts, settlers were vulnerable to attack. The buffalo of course had to go, to make way for the railway and for the push west, and also to stop the free-roaming of the aboriginal people.

Canada itself did not really start to dictate its own policy until well into the 20th century. Up until that point, London was still pretty much making the decisions.

Wow. Even I wouldn't say that opening!!!!! I applaud thee.

Wasn't the Canadian Parliament set up in the 19th Century?

Wasn't Canadian policy towards natives decided by Ottawa, not London?
Remember that Canada hung onto the skirt-strings of London for entirely too long...she had to finally shoo us off before we'd totter around on our own two legs. The first 'policy' towards aboriginal people here was based on the need for allies and survival. The original traders would have been dead within weeks had it not been for the know-how of First Nations guides and allies. The French understood our 'usefulness' to a better extent than the English, and tended to treat with us on more even terms. Considering the small numbers coming over to make their fortune in what is now Canada, pissing off the natives would have been suicidal. London was very adamant that we be treated well, because all Canada was to London was a goldmine at that point.

In order to hang onto the money maker that the Canadian wilds were, London needed allies against the French. Both nations made pacts with various First Nations to provide defence for one another's business ventures. Intermarriage between French trappers and First Nations women was already widespread at that time, and highly encouraged in order to further diplomatic relations. The English were a bit more stodgy...didn't take to its fine English men spawning half-breeds, more's the pity.

When settlement began in earnest, official policy was still very much dictated by London. The Proclamation of 1763 was party in response to the goings on of various English colonies in the Americas, as settlers attempted to buy out Indian lands, usurping the right of the Crown to do so. This caused a lot of animosity between settlers and First Nations, and the Crown needed to put a stop to it. Good relations were still vital to settlement at this time.

Once settlers got enough of a foothold in the 'New World', things changed slightly. Treaties were still preferable to massacres (at least in the Canadian context) because even in large amounts, settlers were vulnerable to attack. The buffalo of course had to go, to make way for the railway and for the push west, and also to stop the free-roaming of the aboriginal people.

Canada itself did not really start to dictate its own policy until well into the 20th century. Up until that point, London was still pretty much making the decisions.

What a depressing view you have of humanity. Most people want to work, there is nothing more soul-destroying for the vast majority people, most of whom want nothing more than to get back into work. In fact those permanantly on benefits or job seekers are a distinct minority of those who claim. Most people who end up claiming benefits do so for short periods of time in-between jobs and are happy to get off benefits as quickly as possible.

It may be nice to think that all poor people are obviously lazy, but realistically that's not the case.

I realize that obviously a lot of the people are job seekers and it would benefit them but the point is that unless you can prove that everyone who gets welfare looks for work I still don't think welfare is good.

Trust me. Give them Food and Shelter and they'll start wanting TV, Makeup, fancy clothes (instead of Oxfam rejects) etc.

Why not ask the government for more money then? The politicians are paid a lot of money (in the eyes of the one who receieves welfare) so why not that person?

Remember that Canada hung onto the skirt-strings of London for entirely too long...she had to finally shoo us off before we'd totter around on our own two legs. The first 'policy' towards aboriginal people here was based on the need for allies and survival. The original traders would have been dead within weeks had it not been for the know-how of First Nations guides and allies. The French understood our 'usefulness' to a better extent than the English, and tended to treat with us on more even terms. Considering the small numbers coming over to make their fortune in what is now Canada, pissing off the natives would have been suicidal. London was very adamant that we be treated well, because all Canada was to London was a goldmine at that point.

In order to hang onto the money maker that the Canadian wilds were, London needed allies against the French. Both nations made pacts with various First Nations to provide defence for one another's business ventures. Intermarriage between French trappers and First Nations women was already widespread at that time, and highly encouraged in order to further diplomatic relations. The English were a bit more stodgy...didn't take to its fine English men spawning half-breeds, more's the pity.

When settlement began in earnest, official policy was still very much dictated by London. The Proclamation of 1763 was party in response to the goings on of various English colonies in the Americas, as settlers attempted to buy out Indian lands, usurping the right of the Crown to do so. This caused a lot of animosity between settlers and First Nations, and the Crown needed to put a stop to it. Good relations were still vital to settlement at this time.

Once settlers got enough of a foothold in the 'New World', things changed slightly. Treaties were still preferable to massacres (at least in the Canadian context) because even in large amounts, settlers were vulnerable to attack. The buffalo of course had to go, to make way for the railway and for the push west, and also to stop the free-roaming of the aboriginal people.

Canada itself did not really start to dictate its own policy until well into the 20th century. Up until that point, London was still pretty much making the decisions.

Just to add to Neesika, World War I was the first war 'Canada' fought. Before that it was Britain not 'Canada'.

Indeed it was. But official policy was still coming down from on high to a great extent. Many domestic affairs were dealt with here at home, but we had to run to London for permission on a distressingly regular basis. Not necessarily distressing to our politicians at the time mind you, as running home to mommy was a familiar and comfortable pasttime. One could argue we began to assert our independence during the Boer War, though it's more plausible to suggest that came during the first World War....I don't really think we asserted anything until Trudeau repatriated the Constitution and brought home a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that's just me.

Without Canada's help in the wars the Empire might have lost. That's a reason we should all be greatful that their Parliament was as it was. That said, Had Canada stayed a Dominion Would it have been Better?

I hold you to a higher standard than I hold right wingers because the world at large KNOWS that I am in opposition to those right wingers. The world at large, being mostly stupid, does not necessarily know that you and I are in opposition and when you go around making idiotic statements on a matter that directly touches me, you tend to make me look bad along with you.here is your problem. just because someone agrees in general with you, it doesn't mean they agree in the details. or even are as knowledgable as you are in certain subjects.

You can correct someone without being confrontational, you can instruct without insulting and you can agree to disagree.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?
as Dilbert once said, everyone can agree that there is a problem, but everyone would then disagree on the solution. :p

I think it's ridiculous to expect anyone to share the same views as you on everything. And even if you share a common goal, it's ridiculous to expect that you'll agree on how to get there.

I realize that obviously a lot of the people are job seekers and it would benefit them but the point is that unless you can prove that everyone who gets welfare looks for work I still don't think welfare is good.


You see, I take the opposing view, that until you can prove that all or the vast majority of people on benefits do not want to work, then we should continue to provide that safety net. Why? Well firstly I firmly believe that society has a duty of care to all it's members not just those who have enough money. This may be to ensure they have the basics to survive, treat them when they're sick, to help them find work, and training if they lack to necessary skills to get work.

Secondly, on a more practical note, because it would be counter-productive to getting people back to work for them to end up homeless and starving. You can't get a job if you don't have any good clothes for an interview or you don't have a fixed abode, you won't do well in an interview that your so hungry you can't think straight. It may be nice to think people should be able to walk from one job into another, but that doesn't happen. Occasionally they need help in between jobs (which in a round-about way they provide themselves through the taxes when they do work) to survive and to get training to get a new job. If that means you have a few people who are leeching, then I still prefer to offer benefit to the vast majority who will use it for what it is meant to be, a safety net in between jobs.

Wow. Even I wouldn't say that opening!!!!! I applaud thee.

Wasn't the Canadian Parliament set up in the 19th Century?

Indeed it was. But official policy was still coming down from on high to a great extent. Many domestic affairs were dealt with here at home, but we had to run to London for permission on a distressingly regular basis. Not necessarily distressing to our politicians at the time mind you, as running home to mommy was a familiar and comfortable pasttime. One could argue we began to assert our independence during the Boer War, though it's more plausible to suggest that came during the first World War....I don't really think we asserted anything until Trudeau repatriated the Constitution and brought home a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that's just me.

here is your problem. I only wish it could be summed up so succinctly :P


just because someone agrees in general with you, it doesn't mean they agree in the details. Hmmm, that seems like the assumption I'm disagreeing with here, (as in, I agree with you, not with the assumption), rather than the opinion I myself hold.


or even are as knowledgable as you are in certain subjects.Fair enough. Generally I expect that people who don't know shit about a subject would want to refrain from setting themselves up as experts in the area, but this is rarely the case. Instead, people believe that admitting to a lack of knowledge makes them look stupid, instead of realising that the looking stupid part is due to pretending more knowledge than they have.



You can correct someone without being confrontational, you can instruct without insulting and you can agree to disagree. Sure, I can. But it isn't always warranted. What pisses me off is left wingers who think I should be nicer to them 'cuz we're on the same siiiiiiide waaaaaaaaa'. No. When you make unfounded assumptions or are just plain wrong, I will correct you, and I will address you in the same manner I'd address anyone else. No free rides, no slack cuz you're Left Like Me (TM). And if you fucking get snippy with me, when I HAVE instructed without insulting, I WILL tear you a new one.

I think it's ridiculous to expect anyone to share the same views as you on everything. And even if you share a common goal, it's ridiculous to expect that you'll agree on how to get there.

See, you were never all THAT surprised when I went for your throat. I mean, not too suprised :P And we all know how I feel about Jocabia who is, fundamentally, very aligned with me politically.

ew, I know some people on other forums who are just so rude and bad at arguing that even when I agree with them I disagree with their arguements.

ew, I know some people on other forums who are just so rude and bad at arguing that even when I agree with them I disagree with their arguements.

Probably a good idea.

I suppose the idea that two people on the same side should agree comes from the idea that two people on the same side of a war should both shoot in the same direction. The problem is in the fine points - the devil is in the details.

And You Despise Colonialism? Despite the Fact It Meant Canada Avoided Bloodshed on it's Soil From 1812-Present and Allowed It To Have A Proper Democracy (Where Is Cree territory? Is that in Quebec?). Also The Canadians Were A Successful Colonialisation. It Ended With Dominion Status, Which means A Colony has Become Able To Look After Domestic Affairs.Er...the aboriginals were already able to look after domestic affairs.

Without Canada's help in the wars the Empire might have lost. That's a reason we should all be greatful that their Parliament was as it was. That said, Had Canada stayed a Dominion Would it have been Better?So? The two sides during WWI were essentially interchangeable.

ew, I know some people on other forums who are just so rude and bad at arguing that even when I agree with them I disagree with their arguements.

that is teh lulz. I'm debating whether that is siggable or not.

Er...the aboriginals were already able to look after domestic affairs.

So? The two sides during WWI were essentially interchangeable.

But they would be benefitting from Civilisation (e.g. vaccinations).

In WWI the two sides were Antagonistic Germany Versus the Defensive French and British Empires.

But they would be benefitting from Civilisation (e.g. vaccinations). Riiiight. Like against smallpox? A disease we never had until the Europeans came along?

We have our own medicine that serves us quite well, and always has. Western doctors are only now starting to understand how it works, and are attempting to appropriate it. Pretty good for savages totally lacking in civilisation. You know, except for our complex legal and political systems etc...

Of course if you simply draw up a pro/con list, colonialism and your precious 'civilisation' will still lose out. Population decimation, cultural loss, racism, economic devastation...in exchange for the technology of the time? Pardon my lack of gratefulness.

In WWI the two sides were Antagonistic Germany Versus the Defensive French and British Empires.The French and British were fairly antagonistic in their own right. In the latter case, WWI wasn't that long after the Boer War.

Very true, even though I'm supposedly left wing I probably spend a lot more time on here arguing against left wingers than right wingers.

The conversations with right wingers tend to be less interesting and more formulaic.

All I can say is that I'd rather have an honest and forthright opponent, than a backstabbing weasel as an ally.

Very true, even though I'm supposedly left wing I probably spend a lot more time on here arguing against left wingers than right wingers.

well, i only expect complete and utter agreement because i am always right and all must defer to my dictates. so it is written, so it is done!

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?
Intellectual masturbation is rubbish. There we go.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?

I gave up on solidarity decades ago. If the "ism" you support is embattled, it supports defense, and even offense, to make a show of solidarity. But everyone knows that it's only a show and when the war is over, the infighting begins.

But they would be benefitting from Civilisation (e.g. vaccinations).


My own studies over the last year have focused on the history of Canadian Inuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut). While it is true that the Canadian state has provided access to health care and other social services (although it waited until aboriginal peoples were literally dropping dead from starvation and disease before deciding to do something), it is also true that the general introduction of European "civilization" since the 16th century has created all kinds of problems. Really, it all begins with the introduction of firearms, which greatly eased hunting. Of course, firearms also made Inuit hunters dependent on the external European economy. Ultimately, the result was the relocation of an entire people away from the land with which they had an intimate cultural relationship and into centralized population centers which centered around trade with the European economy. Centralized and increasingly large populations overstressed traditional food and trade sources (whale and animal fur, respectively). A vicious circle was created whereby Inuit could not afford the equipment they needed in order to travel far enough to escape areas of overuse, increase the hunt, and increase their incomes. Then, in the 20th century, European regulations concerning whaling and animal furs killed whatever tiny shred of economic viability the Inuit had left.

The result is a population that now struggles with all kinds of benefits of "civilization" including unemployment, poverty, alcoholism and other drug abuse, domestic violence, crime, suicide, extremely high cost of living and a life expectancy well below that of the rest of Canada. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (http://www.itk.ca/) provides a statistical profile (PDF) (http://www.itk.ca/publications/StatisticalProfile_Inuit2007.pdf) describing these problems.

The situation that the Loyal Opposition has described out is quite similar to the situation faced by First Nations people throughout Canada. I'd like to add that the Inuit were 'blessed' by living in areas settlers did not covet. Having lived among the Inuvaliuit and northern Dene (the Gwich'in) for a number of years, I really believe that their physical isolation has allowed them to still retain strong cultural ties to the land and to one another despite all the horrible social strains they face. The new 'gold rush' or discovery of fabulous wealth in the north has come long enough after the initial devestation of colonialisation that northern aboriginals at least have a fighting chance this time around. I hope.

Hey LO, while I was up there, I met a number of elders who still had their 'dog tags'...the cardboard disk with their Inuit 'number' on it.

Also, I thank you for knowing your head from your arse, as in, actually having a decent background in the subject. I mean that btw.

I have to admit to getting really annoyed with the whole, 'hey we're on the same side' thing. Like, hey, I'm left wing, you're left wing, and as part of the left wing hive mind, it would be totally insane for us to disagree!

Spawn more overloards!

RhynoDD;13498276']Spawn more overloards!

I spat out two. I've done my part. Your turn.

I disagree with everyone, there is no pudding the butler did it i am done here.

Northerns definitely have a better chance, but the situation, as far as I can tell, is not good. I've been following Nunavut news as well, and it seems that disagreeing with the Premier or any of his Ministers on the topic of mining (specifically reducing the regulation there of) is a quick way to get unemployed, blacklisted, publicly insulted (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/test/archives/2007/707/70706/news/nunavut/70706_272.html), or otherwise made a victim of reprisal.

No amount of aboriginal interest period is going to stop resource extraction anywhere in Canada. That's the bottom line. At this point the ONLY possibility is getting a cut of the wealth. It's sick, it's sad, but it's true.

I'd like to add that the Inuit were 'blessed' by living in areas settlers did not covet. Having lived among the Inuvaliuit and northern Dene (the Gwich'in) for a number of years, I really believe that their physical isolation has allowed them to still retain strong cultural ties to the land and to one another despite all the horrible social strains they face. The new 'gold rush' or discovery of fabulous wealth in the north has come long enough after the initial devestation of colonialisation that northern aboriginals at least have a fighting chance this time around. I hope.


Northerns definitely have a better chance, but the situation, as far as I can tell, is not good. I've been following Nunavut news as well, and it seems that disagreeing with the Premier or any of his Ministers on the topic of mining (specifically reducing the regulation there of) is a quick way to get unemployed, blacklisted, publicly insulted (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/test/archives/2007/707/70706/news/nunavut/70706_272.html), or otherwise made a victim of reprisal. The territorial government and land claims corporation essentially want to throw the doors open (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/test/archives/2007/704/70420/news/nunavut/70420_43.html) to gold, diamond, and uranium (!) mining in order to increase economic development and royalty payments to the territory; municipalities and private citizens seem far more skeptical (although not entirely opposed; the promise of jobs is powerful), but command far less political power.

Now that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (http://www.tunngavik.com/english/) apparently owns shares in a uranium mining venture ("Nunavut's Newest Mining Company -- NTI" Feb 8, 2007) (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/opinionEditorial/editorial.html), and thus has a direct profit interest contrary to its environmental and other regulatory responsibilities under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement...

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?

We should be nice to each other when correcting basic errors of ignorance, even if it's ignorance that's likely a product of social prejudice.

We should be rigorously and inflexibly intolerant of outright bigotry, at least in the context of discussion... when it comes, on the other hand, to the practical achievement of social change, sometimes you have to make alliances you don't like.

I spat out two. I've done my part. Your turn.

Not enough minerals!

We should be nice to each other when correcting basic errors of ignorance, even if it's ignorance that's likely a product of social prejudice. Bah, says who? One can get mighty tired of politely correcting basic errors of ignorance that are a product of social prejudice. It starts to look like certain people actually cling to ignorance.

There are people who honestly don't know something and are able to admit it. With these people, I will bend over backwards to discuss the issues with if they show an interest. Then there are people who make certain statements as fact, absolutely refuse to back down from their position of ignorance, and become patronising pretty much in the first response to a 'correction'. With this type, I'm not going to play nice. If someone is too fucking arrogant to accept that he (or she) doesn't know it all, then I really don't care if he's on the left or on the right. That person is an idiot, and deserves to be treated without kid gloves.

We should be rigorously and inflexibly intolerant of outright bigotry, at least in the context of discussion... when it comes, on the other hand, to the practical achievement of social change, sometimes you have to make alliances you don't like.
True, but we don't have to fellate them.

Riiiight. Like against smallpox? A disease we never had until the Europeans came along?

We have our own medicine that serves us quite well, and always has. Western doctors are only now starting to understand how it works, and are attempting to appropriate it. Pretty good for savages totally lacking in civilisation. You know, except for our complex legal and political systems etc...

Of course if you simply draw up a pro/con list, colonialism and your precious 'civilisation' will still lose out. Population decimation, cultural loss, racism, economic devastation...in exchange for the technology of the time? Pardon my lack of gratefulness.

Before the Arrival of colonials there were no settlements, just encampments, no knowledge of the outside world, no technology to allow advancement, no exploitation of resources for benefit.

Yes they did bring diseases, but diseases also came to Europe from the Americas. (See Recent Economist Article on research into the Origins of the syphilis.)

Legal and political systems? Links?

There were morals and consequences thereof but thats all I've heard of.

Had the Cultures been more robust they might have survived better (Maori, Zulus etc).

Pardoned due to the current fashion of Empire Bashing.

*mutters about ingrates*

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?
Since you mention your personal "pet issue," I suppose I should speak in terms of my "pet issues." Those would probably revolve around religious issues and heterosexism.

From that perspective, I can tell you that I'm far more annoyed when Supposedly Liberal Dudes (and it's almost always dudes) say or do sexist/homophobic things. And I'm far more annoyed when I see liberal politicians and writers whining about how nobody thinks of the poor theists any more.

I expect sexist, homophobic, superstitious blather from conservatives. (Let's face it, those are the folks who have so thoroughly hijacked what might otherwise have been a semi-legit conservative party at one point in history.) As much as I find their behavior contemptible, it's kind of like seeing your new puppy piss on the rug. Yeah, it's gross and annoying and lame, but you don't really expect more from a new puppy.

When I see supposedly-progressive people acting like sexist, homophobic, superstitious nutters, that's more like having one of your human dinner party guests decide to pee on the rug.

Before the Arrival of colonials there were no settlements, just encampments, no knowledge of the outside world, no technology to allow advancement, no exploitation of resources for benefit. Allow me to politely correct your gross, gross ignorance on the subject.

On the very west coast we have the Salish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish), who, shockingly enough, not being Plains Indians, did not live in tipis or roam about following the buffalo. They established permanent settlements (confirmed) around 9000 BCE. They lived in long houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_long_house) not totally unlike the long houses built by the Iroquois all the way over in the Eastern parts of Canada. The Salish had no need to roam about as their food source came mostly from the ocean, and they also cultivated vegetables in addition to further hunting and gathering around the settlements. The Iroquois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois), already mentioned, were also farmers, as were the Abenaki, living in permanent settlements. There are many more 'settled' aboriginal people. Those of us who remained nomadic nonetheless had specific territories within which only we were allowed to access the resources, and we had specific summer and winter camps that were always returned to. We absolutely exploited resources for our benefit...we just didn't go digging around for gold or diamonds, because those things meant nothing to us. You are applying the precepts of your market economy on a people who were never organised or interested in being organised into a market economy. The height of colonial arrogance.

The aboriginal peoples of Canada and the US formed complex alliances with one another, and against one another, and in short, were as organised socially and politically as any European culture. There was no interest in sailing forth to conquer other lands...ours were expansive enough, and we were not suffering from internecine warfare to the extent the Europeans were, the pressures of which caused Europeans to seek advantage over one another by creating empires abroad.

Yes they did bring diseases, but diseases also came to Europe from the Americas. (See Recent Economist Article on research into the Origins of the syphilis.) Perhaps you shouldn't have been raping our women then, hmmm?

Legal and political systems? Links?

Iroquois Grand Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Government)
Great Law of Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace)
Social organisation of the west coast Salish (including governance) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish#Social_organization)
Ojibwe people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwe_people#Culture)
To actually find out more about our legal orders, and our systems of governance, you're going to have to do a bit more work than troll for links on the internet. And because you probably haven't figured it out, governance and social organisation are inextricably linked. We had and in many cases continue to have our own forms of governance that are incompatible with colonially-imposed systems, and our legal orders remain. Laws govern societies, and it would be utterly ridiculous of you to assert that we had neither. I mean...really....do you believe all that crap about us just wandering out in the wild, like clean slates, no systems, no organisation, no laws, no nothing? Just sweet, innocent savages ripe for conversion?

It is to laugh.



There were morals and consequences thereof but thats all I've heard of.

Had the Cultures been more robust they might have survived better (Maori, Zulus etc).

Pardoned due to the current fashion of Empire Bashing.

*mutters about ingrates*
My people, the Cree, are the largest, and one of the strongest culturally in Canada...our language is being taught in schools, and our people retain strong ties to our traditions, governance and legal systems. The Inuit living in Nunavut province have an 85% rate of fluency, and in fact have an official system of blended Inuit legal traditions with Anglo common law traditions. The Iroquois maintain their Confederacy and their traditional system of governance. Canada and the US contains an extreme diversity of aboriginal people...some have managed to do well, other smaller groups are struggling.

What you have utterly failed to take into account is the tenacity is has taken to survive in the face of mass slaughter, disease, and cultural assimilation. The fact that we remain, and have not in fact assimilated, is a tribute to our strength...not some sort of example of cultural weakness. The Maori are 600,000 in a nation of about 4 million, and the ONLY aboriginal culture on that island. We are hundreds of different nations comprising 1 million, spread out people in a country of 33 million. Yet we survive, and every day grow stronger.

I think your perception of 'weakness' is a little forced my friend.

The aboriginal peoples of Canada and the US formed complex alliances with one another, and against one another, and in short, were as organised socially and politically as any European culture. There was no interest in sailing forth to conquer other lands...ours were expansive enough, and we were not suffering from internecine warfare to the extent the Europeans were, the pressures of which caused Europeans to seek advantage over one another by creating empires abroad.

Perhaps you shouldn't have been raping our women then, hmmm?

My people, the Cree, are the largest, and one of the strongest culturally in Canada...our language is being taught in schools, and our people retain strong ties to our traditions, governance and legal systems. The Inuit living in Nunavut province have an 85% rate of fluency, and in fact have an official system of blended Inuit legal traditions with Anglo common law traditions. The Iroquois maintain their Confederacy and their traditional system of governance. Canada and the US contains an extreme diversity of aboriginal people...some have managed to do well, other smaller groups are struggling.

What you have utterly failed to take into account is the tenacity is has taken to survive in the face of mass slaughter, disease, and cultural assimilation. The fact that we remain, and have not in fact assimilated, is a tribute to our strength...not some sort of example of cultural weakness. The Maori are 600,000 in a nation of about 4 million, and the ONLY aboriginal culture on that island. We are hundreds of different nations comprising 1 million, spread out people in a country of 33 million. Yet we survive, and every day grow stronger.



Given time I daresay such cultures would have developed Colonialism. It's human nature to want to be better than someone else, and colonialism is a representation of this beneficial to all concerned.

Oddly enough Europeans did not have to rape in order to have sex in the Americas. Sorry to shatter your illusion.

That your culture survives is commendable, but you forget that the attutide of Colonial Governments was to allow such cultures to survive, whilst allowing the modern age to affect them. When did your people invent schools, or is that something you will ignore as it was brought over by colonials.

When did the British/Canadians send out hunting packs to kill the Cree?

If your culture was being crushed, how come George VI and the Late Queen Mother met Native North Americans when they visited in the 1930s?

New Zealand is An Archipelago.

And What about the Zulus and other African nation-tribes?

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?
I get around it by being completely tangential and refusing to identify with any particular group or movement while at the same time identifying with all of them, including those that are supposedly "mutually exclusive".

It's called Doublegroup. And it's very handy.

When I see supposedly-progressive people acting like sexist, homophobic, superstitious nutters, that's more like having one of your human dinner party guests decide to pee on the rug.

You've summed it up quite nicely.

I get around it by being completely tangential and refusing to identify with any particular group or movement while at the same time identifying with all of them, including those that are supposedly "mutually exclusive".

It's called Doublegroup. And it's very handy.

I have never felt comfortable identifying with any group, because no group had everything I wanted and I wasn't about to compromise just to get a membership card. I'm left, that's about as general as I can get. The specifics are available upon request. I don't trust people who fit into one party line. I like people who colour outside those lines.

Before the Arrival of colonials there were no settlements, just encampments, no knowledge of the outside world, no technology to allow advancement, no exploitation of resources for benefit.
Bernal Díaz del Castillo, author of The Conquest of New Spain, heartily disagrees:
And when we saw all those towns and villages built in the water, and other great towns on dry land, and that straight and level causeway leading to Mexico, we were astounded. These great towns . . . and buildings rising from the water, all made of stone, seemed like an enchanted vision. . . . Indeed some of our soldiers asked whether it was not all a dream . . . It was all so wonderful that I do not know how to describe this first glimpse of things never heard of, seen, or dreamed of before.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo, author of The Conquest of New Spain, heartily disagrees:

I've heard of the Central & Southern American Civilisations but not of advanced societies in North America (Bar the Inuit).

I've heard of the Central & Southern American Civilisations but not of advanced societies in North America (Bar the Inuit)."Advanced" is such a silly word. Let's define it first before we toss it into the ring.

I have never felt comfortable identifying with any group, because no group had everything I wanted and I wasn't about to compromise just to get a membership card. I'm left, that's about as general as I can get. The specifics are available upon request. I don't trust people who fit into one party line. I like people who colour outside those lines.

"color"

True, but we don't have to fellate them.

I haven't read the thread yet, but suddenly I'm saddened by this statement. :(

"Advanced" is such a silly word. Let's define it first before we toss it into the ring.
Agreed. I also think it's interesting he chose the 'Inuit' to label advanced. Usually people hellbent on asserting European superiority go for the societies that best superficially resemble their own...namely, settled, agricultural societies like the Iroquois.

All aboriginal societies had complex legal, social and political structures. How they went about feeding themselves varied according to the environment they inhabited, and their particular values. It's ridiculous to say that the absence or presence of permanent structures can inform one of the relative level of 'advancement'.

I've heard of the Central & Southern American Civilisations but not of advanced societies in North America (Bar the Inuit).

Mexico. It's in the paragraph quoted.

Agreed. I also think it's interesting he chose the 'Inuit' to label advanced. Usually people hellbent on asserting European superiority go for the societies that best superficially resemble their own...namely, settled, agricultural societies like the Iroquois.

All aboriginal societies had complex legal, social and political structures. How they went about feeding themselves varied according to the environment they inhabited, and their particular values. It's ridiculous to say that the absence or presence of permanent structures can inform one of the relative level of 'advancement'.

By advanced I mean adapted to their environment optimally.

I shall admit though I am not an Expert on Native cultures.

Therefore there may be such cultures I haven't heard of.

By advanced I mean adapted to their environment optimally.

I shall admit though I am not an Expert on Native cultures.

Therefore there may be such cultures I haven't heard of.Dude, by that definition the Native Americans (save perhaps the Maya) were far more advanced than the Europeans.

I am profoundly ignorant when it comes to aboriginal societies. Hence, I choose not to spout off about aboriginal societies.

I believe that this is the bare fucking minimum of behavior that should be expected from a human being of normal adult function. If you don't know what you're talking about, kindly refrain from spouting off. Feel free to participate in the conversation if you like, so long as you keep in mind that you don't really know much about the subject and hence should probably not be telling other people what to think/feel about the topic.

If somebody chooses not to show these basic good manners then they are being rude. Rudeness should be pointed out, so the rude can learn to knock it off and quit being rude.

What is particularly pathetic (to me) is when somebody behaves in a rude manner, but then tries to weasel out of it by pointing to their Good Liberal Credentials. For instance, they say something ignorant and racist, but when called on it they insist that they're a Good Liberal and they're On Your Side and therefore you shouldn't be so mean as to point out their mistake.

What's even worse is when there's a subtle threatening undertone to it. I personally see this most often when progressive men are called out for sexist behavior. There's always some twit who helpfully points out that conservatives are really much worse, and therefore women should shut up and quit complaining about sexism from progressive men. After all, if we're all mean and point out sexism from progressive men, then we'll hurt the feelings of the progressive men and they won't like us any more. And then nobody will support Roe v. Wade and it will be all the fault of the mean women who complained about sexism.

By advanced I mean adapted to their environment optimally. Um...and by what do you judge 'optimal adaptation'? Because frankly, if you didn't adapt optimally to your environment, you died. All aboriginal nations had integral ties to their territories, just like the Inuit. Would you please care to point out a North American aboriginal culture that WASN'T 'optimally adapted' to their environment?

I shall admit though I am not an Expert on Native cultures. I'm glad that you're able to admit to the obvious at last.

Therefore there may be such cultures I haven't heard of. Like all of them, bar the Inuit which apparently you've heard something about?

I am profoundly ignorant when it comes to aboriginal societies. Hence, I choose not to spout off about aboriginal societies.

I believe that this is the bare fucking minimum of behavior that should be expected from a human being of normal adult function. If you don't know what you're talking about, kindly refrain from spouting off. Feel free to participate in the conversation if you like, so long as you keep in mind that you don't really know much about the subject and hence should probably not be telling other people what to think/feel about the topic.
And really, is that too much to ask of people? I know absolutely squat about religion. Like, seriously next to nothing. Hence, aside from generally supporting freedom of religion, and perhaps making a few comments on religious influence historically, I don't pretend to know more than I do. I am also not interested, so I stay out of the discussions altogether.


If somebody chooses not to show these basic good manners then they are being rude. Rudeness should be pointed out, so the rude can learn to knock it off and quit being rude.

What is particularly pathetic (to me) is when somebody behaves in a rude manner, but then tries to weasel out of it by pointing to their Good Liberal Credentials. For instance, they say something ignorant and racist, but when called on it they insist that they're a Good Liberal and they're On Your Side and therefore you shouldn't be so mean as to point out their mistake. Right, yet the glaringly obvious fact is...if you're carrying around stereotypical views of race, religion, sexuality, culture or what have you, then we are most certainly NOT on the same side. Oh, we might agree that Starbucks coffee is shite, but we are not 'cool', ya dig?

What's even worse is when there's a subtle threatening undertone to it. I personally see this most often when progressive men are called out for sexist behavior. There's always some twit who helpfully points out that conservatives are really much worse, and therefore women should shut up and quit complaining about sexism from progressive men. After all, if we're all mean and point out sexism from progressive men, then we'll hurt the feelings of the progressive men and they won't like us any more. And then nobody will support Roe v. Wade and it will be all the fault of the mean women who complained about sexism.THANK YOU for pointing this out. Absolutely there is an underlying threat of 'withdrawl of support if you're mean to us'. It's fucking beyond annoying, it's enough to make me hate some leftwingers more than rightwingers, who at least are honest in their assholery.

You see this shit ALL THE TIME when it comes to aboriginal issues. Like...don't get too uppity or else...after all, western civilization really was the best thing for you and we all know it.

When that is the underlying premise, all pretense of 'politely pointing out mistakes' goes out the window.

I get really annoyed when people Start Criticising any View point that isn't their own without any semblance of a balanced argument.

I also get very annoyed when people criticise pureley to make themselves look better.

And whenever the R.S. Teacher's daughter opens her v. pretty mouth.

And when you get soundly defeated in an argument...

I get really annoyed when people Start Criticising any View point that isn't their own without any semblance of a balanced argument.

I also get very annoyed when people criticise pureley to make themselves look better.

And whenever the R.S. Teacher's daughter opens her v. pretty mouth.

I get really annoyed when people Start Criticising any View point that isn't their own without any semblance of a balanced argument.

I also get very annoyed when people criticise pureley to make themselves look better.

And whenever the R.S. Teacher's daughter opens her v. pretty mouth.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg

You could try and refute our "unbalanced arguments", if it's not too much effort for you.

And when you get soundly defeated in an argument...

I'm never defeated, just fatigued.

Shut up, you're not with me, you're under me!Yeah well, geographically speaking, you're probably both under me! =D

In my case, this comes up most often when it comes to aboriginal issues.

I thought you were an American Indian, I didn't know you were black.

And this folks is how you really get under Neesika's skin!


*evil cackles* :p

I get really annoyed when people Start Criticising any View point that isn't their own without any semblance of a balanced argument.

I also get very annoyed when people criticise pureley to make themselves look better.

And whenever the R.S. Teacher's daughter opens her v. pretty mouth.
What kind of balanced argument is possible with someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject, but insists on stating his opinion on the matter without backing himself in the slightest with things like facts? I mean, how seriously do you think we should take you when you've only managed to demonstrate that you are completely lacking in background on the topic? Do you really want a pat on the head and a 'good boy, at least you tried'? Are you so lacking in a belief in merit that you feel you should be afforded some sort of acclaim for your ignorance, purely on the grounds that you are at least posting in this thread?

However, as I've just been reminded, the People on the other side to you are way more annoying.

Neesika, I shall not dignify your tirade with judgement.

Real subtle retreat there ;)

And this folks is how you really get under Neesika's skin!


*evil cackles* :p

Shut up, you're not with me, you're under me!

However, as I've just been reminded, the People on the other side to you are way more annoying.

Neesika, I shall not dignify your tirade with judgement.
Let's see, her pointing out that:I shall admit though I am not an Expert on Native cultures.is somehow a tirade? Because calling you on how you're engaging in a debate demanding your opinion receive equal hearing, even though, as you yourself admitted, aren't knowledgeable on the topic, is wrong? How so?

Let's reiterate:What kind of balanced argument is possible with someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject, but insists on stating his opinion on the matter without backing himself in the slightest with things like facts? I mean, how seriously do you think we should take you when you've only managed to demonstrate that you are completely lacking in background on the topic?

However, as I've just been reminded, the People on the other side to you are way more annoying.

Neesika, I shall not dignify your tirade with judgement.

Shut up, you're not with me, you're under me!


as you hate me with your sex

However, as I've just been reminded, the People on the other side to you are way more annoying.

Neesika, I shall not dignify your tirade with judgement.

Good, as I shall not dignify your ramblings with the description 'an argument'.

I thought you were an American Indian, I didn't know you were black.

Huh?

Oh, you must be unfamiliar with the difference between the terms 'aboriginal' and 'aborginee'. The term aboriginal has gained political popularity in North America, though it tends to have perjorative meaning in Australia and in other countries.

Yeah well, geographically speaking, you're probably both under me! =D

I'd prefer literal to geographical please thanks.

I'd prefer literal to geographical please thanks.
Geographical is literal...

This thread needs to construct additional pylons.

Geographical is literal...

Oh shut up, don't point out my stupidity.

I have to admit to getting really annoyed with the whole, 'hey we're on the same side' thing. Like, hey, I'm left wing, you're left wing, and as part of the left wing hive mind, it would be totally insane for us to disagree!

The truth is, I tend to get along with many right wingers MORE than I do with left wingers. Why? Because you KNOW you don't agree, and either you don't speak further, or you ditch the politics, and just get along on other levels. Left wingers expect you to share beliefs and opinions, which to a certain extent is fine...but they tend to get all shocked when you really oppose them on something.

In my case, this comes up most often when it comes to aboriginal issues. Most of you know that this is a...passion of mine. Right wingers, well, I expect a certain attitude. What REALLY pisses me off is left wingers who, all well-meaning, say stupid shit about aboriginal people and then expect me to nod and pat them on the back for being so enlightened.

We might share similar broad political beliefs, but if you say something idiotic about something I happen to know a lot about, I am going to call you on it. Running and crying about 'being attacked by people on the same side' as you is ridiculous. I hold you to a higher standard than I hold right wingers because the world at large KNOWS that I am in opposition to those right wingers. The world at large, being mostly stupid, does not necessarily know that you and I are in opposition and when you go around making idiotic statements on a matter that directly touches me, you tend to make me look bad along with you.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?

I believe the argument is:

"It's not a hive mind as long as you're on my side, and you agree with me."

which leads to the obvious,

"It's not tyranny when we do it"

or

"It's not fascism when we do it"

or

"It's ok to kill people as long as we do it"

or

"It's ok to expropriate property and money as long as it goes to our side"

Geographical is literal...

i like my geography metaphorical

Kinda funny that though this thread started about "fellow travellers" of the left who are less than committed to leading an ethical life, it has turned into an argument between an imperialist and an anti-imperialist.

Kinda funny that though this thread started about "fellow travellers" of the left who are less than committed to leading an ethical life, it has turned into an argument between an imperialist and an anti-imperialist.

Actually this thread started out as a public service anouncement to people who declare themselves to be on the same side, informing them that they sometime err in this belief.

Actually this thread started out as a public service anouncement to people who declare themselves to be on the same side, informing them that they sometime err in this belief.

That's basically what I said. :/

frankly I have found many of these arguments can be gotten rid of very easily when people simply do what I tell them to.

Yeah well, geographically speaking, you're probably both under me! =D


sex between a man and a woman can be one of the most beautiful things ever provided you are between the right man and woman.

Bite me.

only if you say "please"

Ah but you brought ethics into it, as though there was some sort of simple and knowable duality in place.

Nine times out of ten, political philosophies are also ethical philosophies. I wasn't aware that talking about ethics in this case totally warped the meaning of your thread...

Oh shut up, don't point out my stupidity.:D

i like my geography metaphoricalJust like your Sexiest NSer victories, huh? :p

sex between a man and a woman can be one of the most beautiful things ever provided you are between the right man and woman.Not if you dislike sex with men =/

That's basically what I said. :/

Ah but you brought ethics into it, as though there was some sort of simple and knowable duality in place.

frankly I have found many of these arguments can be gotten rid of very easily when people simply do what I tell them to.

Bite me.

RhynoDD;13503117']This thread needs to construct additional pylons.

Zerg rush! kekekekekekekekekekeke!

But they would be benefitting from Civilisation (e.g. vaccinations).

In WWI the two sides were Antagonistic Germany Versus the Defensive French and British Empires.

You might wanna read up on what started WWI and how come France and Britain joined in.

Austria-Hungary defended their interests in Serbia, IIRC, and Russia saw it as their duty to defend the Serbians. After that, Germany joined in defending Austria-Hungary, after which Britain and France joined in to defend Russia.

In WWI the two sides were Antagonistic Germany Versus the Defensive French and British Empires.What a silly and misguided view.

Zerg rush! kekekekekekekekekekeke!

Shyte! I need more firebats!

Kinda funny that though this thread started about "fellow travellers" of the left who are less than committed to leading an ethical life, it has turned into an argument between an imperialist and an anti-imperialist.

:rolleyes:
"Less than committed to leading an ethical life".

This was not my focus, as it limits itself entirely judgment of who is committed thusly and who is not. My point was that we should be fine with agreeing to disagree even when purportedly on the same side. That duality is false, and not particularily useful outside of situations where alliance is necessary. I'm not here ONLY to say 'these lefties are less ethical than I'.

You might wanna read up on what started WWI and how come France and Britain joined in.

Austria-Hungary defended their interests in Serbia, IIRC, and Russia saw it as their duty to defend the Serbians. After that, Germany joined in defending Austria-Hungary, after which Britain and France joined in to defend Russia.

Nooooooooo.

A Serbian capped the Austrian archduke, because Serbia wanted to be Bosnia and not Austria, and Austria got pissed. Serbia whined at Russia, their ally. Germany jumped in to defend Austria. France jumped in to save Russia as France is right next to the big bad Germans and didn't want them running around their country (*snort*), and the British wanted everything to do with it but weren't sufficiently allied with anyone involved until the Germans marched through Gelgium, which Britain only cared about since it stood between Britain and everyone else. The US got involved because we generally cared about the British seeing as how we used to be them, and we kind of owed the French for helping us out during the Revolution, and anyways it would be hilarious to save them so we could laugh at them later.

RhynoDD;13503406']and we kind of owed the French for helping us out during the Revolution, and anyways it would be hilarious to save them so we could laugh at them later.

and again it WWII. must suck to be French, help America once, they save your ass twice, and they laugh at you forever...along with everyone else! oh, and how's that whole maginot line working for you these days?

Bite me.

Don't bite her man! Drunk commies taste terrible!

RhynoDD;13503406']Nooooooooo.

A Serbian capped the Austrian archduke, because Serbia wanted to be Serbia and not Austria, and Austria got pissed. Serbia whined at Russia, their ally. Germany jumped in to defend Austria. France jumped in to save Russia as France is right next to the big bad Germans and didn't want them running around their country (*snort*), and the British wanted everything to do with it but weren't sufficiently allied with anyone involved until the Germans marched through the Netherlands, which Britain only cared about since it stood between Britain and everyone else. The US got involved because we generally cared about the British seeing as how we used to be them, and we kind of owed the French for helping us out during the Revolution, and anyways it would be hilarious to save them so we could laugh at them later.
You almost got it. "A Serbian capped the Austrian archduke, because Serbia wanted Bosnia to be Serbia and not Austria"; the British stayed out "until the Germans marched through Belgium" (the Netherlands, somehow, managed never to get involved at all).

You almost got it. "A Serbian capped the Austrian archduke, because Serbia wanted Bosnia to be Serbia and not Austria"; the British stayed out "until the Germans marched through Belgium" (the Netherlands, somehow, managed never to get involved at all).

*cough* I have no idea what you're talking about. That's exactly what I said! :D

But yeah, that's what I mean. Belgium just would not come to mind for some reason. I blame the dutch person sitting next to me when I was typing that.

Yeah, I left out some details.

Point was, however, to point out the flaw in the original statement putting Germany as the aggressor. Austria and Russia were most certainly the aggressors in that war and the whole war was ludicrous.

Fair enough. I hate it when rappers cause large-scale international conflicts.

RhynoDD;13503406']Nooooooooo.

A Serbian capped the Austrian archduke, because Serbia wanted to be Bosnia and not Austria, and Austria got pissed. Serbia whined at Russia, their ally. Germany jumped in to defend Austria. France jumped in to save Russia as France is right next to the big bad Germans and didn't want them running around their country (*snort*), and the British wanted everything to do with it but weren't sufficiently allied with anyone involved until the Germans marched through Gelgium, which Britain only cared about since it stood between Britain and everyone else. The US got involved because we generally cared about the British seeing as how we used to be them, and we kind of owed the French for helping us out during the Revolution, and anyways it would be hilarious to save them so we could laugh at them later.

Yeah, I left out some details.

Point was, however, to point out the flaw in the original statement putting Germany as the aggressor. Austria and Russia were most certainly the aggressors in that war and the whole war was ludicrous.

Then there are people who make certain statements as fact, absolutely refuse to back down from their position of ignorance, and become patronising pretty much in the first response to a 'correction'. With this type, I'm not going to play nice. If someone is too fucking arrogant to accept that he (or she) doesn't know it all, then I really don't care if he's on the left or on the right.

I see nothing wrong with that. If the other person's being egregiously unreasonable, people are entitled to be as mean as they like.

You lost me.

And the game too, which I won.

God dammit, I lost the game. Fuck you.

Ludicrous.

RhynoDD;13503559']Fair enough. I hate it when rappers cause large-scale international conflicts.

You lost me.

And the game too, which I won.

RhynoDD;13503530']Belgium just would not come to mind for some reason.That's because Belgium does not exist (http://zapatopi.net/belgium/)

That's because Belgium does not exist (http://zapatopi.net/belgium/)

Except it's the most obscene word in the universe! :eek:

http://xkcd.com/391/

Be free :) And win!

On a more serious note, for some reason, that Did actually work for me.

XKCD is a hilarious, hilarious comic. But the forum users there are assholes.

RhynoDD;13503642']God dammit, I lost the game. Fuck you.

Ludicrous.

http://xkcd.com/391/

Be free :) And win!

On a more serious note, for some reason, that Did actually work for me.

What do you folks think about the illusion of solidarity? To what extent is it necessary, and to what extent does it actual further sexism/colonialism/racism/other isms?
All solidarity is an illusion. Illusions are never necessary.

I only look at the comic.

I posted a thread that got locked by the 5th response. A thread that I will post here shortly.

RhynoDD;13503968']XKCD is a hilarious, hilarious comic. But the forum users there are assholes.

I only look at the comic.

Just like your Sexiest NSer victories, huh? :p

unlike the first contest, this second one was a total half-assed abortion of a sexy-off. my sexiest status remains undefeated. for that matter, it's barely been challenged.

and besides, everyone knows that my sexiest NSer title is propped up by similes rather than metaphors.

my sexiest status remains undefeated. for that matter, it's barely been challenged.

and besides, everyone knows that my sexiest NSer title is propped up by similes rather than metaphors.

I challenge you to a duel good-sir! *slaps with glove*


also...mine is held up with logical fallacies.

unlike the first contest, this second one was a total half-assed abortion of a sexy-off. my sexiest status remains undefeated. for that matter, it's barely been challenged.

and besides, everyone knows that my sexiest NSer title is propped up by similes rather than metaphors.
The little lies you tell yourself when you cry yourself to sleep ;) :p

RhynoDD;13505457']"I am the sexiest NSer. I must be, or else I wouldn't have the title."Really? How many votes did you get? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550023&highlight=sexiest+NSer)

I challenge you to a duel good-sir! *slaps with glove*


also...mine is held up with logical fallacies.

"I am the sexiest NSer. I must be, or else I wouldn't have the title."

See, you were never all THAT surprised when I went for your throat. I mean, not too suprised :P And we all know how I feel about Jocabia who is, fundamentally, very aligned with me politically.

Yes, we all know you wish to bear my love child. For those who don't know, Neesika used to be a very patient poster with careful diatribes full of flowers, but unrequited love leaves you bitter.

As to the topic, I sometimes feel exactly the opposite, I don't want certain people arguing alongside me because I know that people choose the weakest wordings of an argument to pick apart, oftentimes. It's hard enough to hold up your own argument without have to shore up that of others as well. It's kind of funny when you've got someone running alongside who's argument tends to be mostly centered around saying anyone who supports opinion X is a loon and acts like all the reasoned posts showing the problems with opinion X supports that assertion.

I'm always amazed that people are so surprised that you'd turn to someone, say, supporting Obama and attacking Hillary and correcting them for misconceptions or for calling Hillary names rather than pointing to specific problems. Er, something like that.

I agree with Jocabia... brown-skinned people are really annoying.