Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carlson goes full retard

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    And you would be assuming wrong.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Ivan le Fou View Post
      And you would be assuming wrong.
      I think they're stupid too. Sadly it's not against forum rules and also, nobody complained years ago when shit like Hitlery was the norm.

      Comment


      • #48
        Speaking of name calling, this cheeky fucker:




        Originally posted by gaz View Post
        I feel the horse has bolted on this one, assuming Hitlery, Obummer or Dubya never bothered you.
        Killary... Rottencrotch... I've been playing nice since 2003, so I think, I'm entitled to lowering my standards a little bit. Or a lot... just to level the playing field.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by budgie View Post

          Fixed for you.

          This thread has gotten way too silly.
          It was silly to begin with, as are all the histrionics of you people on the ideological left.

          By the way, one of the more frustrating aspects of the left's inflationary use of political accusations is that it's desensitizing people. If you insist on calling everyone you don't like the next Hitler or some such nonsense, it's going to be difficult to recognize the real Hitler should he ever return.

          Comment


          • #50
            This thread is worse than the garbage that ends up in the East River. Budgie, you don't know what you're talking about.

            Comment


            • #51
              Is a diverse population really a strength if you are a democratic society?


              - SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew

              Comment


              • #52
                I think Lee, for all his successes (and faults) was making a case against democracy not multiculturalism. I've been to Singapore a dozen times, dated a girl from there once (Pakistani/Malay mix, air hostess, mmm) and Singapore does fine on the diversity and more or less the equality front. People get along fine.

                Now as to who they'd vote for in a democratic election how does Lee know when they've never really tried?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
                  This thread is worse than the garbage that ends up in the East River. Budgie, you don't know what you're talking about.

                  Ah the old, "You know nothing Jon Snow". So easy to make hard facts gfo away isn't it? Y'know if you blocked me you wouldn't have to deal with them at all.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by budgie View Post
                    Now as to who they'd vote for in a democratic election how does Lee know when they've never really tried?
                    Why of course, like Lee didn't have a million examples to draw on.

                    Like the clashes between India's religions aren't due to the fact that the Muslim minority there is never going to have a say on the future of that country.
                    Like IS's existence isn't largely owed to the fact that Shiites don't vote for Sunnites and vice versa.
                    Like it doesn't take elaborate and undemocratic safety nets in societies like Lebanon's to prevent rivalling fractions of society from voting to kill each other.
                    Like not even flawless democracies have to draw on positive discrimination in order to ensure the voice of recognized minorities is heard.
                    Like women who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, or African-Americans that didn't vote for Barack Obama, were not lambasted by their peers.

                    Again, what is diversity? Is it the observation that societies are heterogenous to a varying degree and if so, what's so inherently good about this? It's just a fact, for better or for worse.

                    Earlier in this thread, even a conservative like Jonathan praised diversity, citing the US as a positive example. Well, were America's formative years – when immigrants usually retained their native language and retreated into bubbles much akin to national colonies – really that much of a success story? Didn't America's rise to global hegemony come only after a sense of unity had emerged, a lowest common denominator everyone agreed to abide by?

                    A guiding culture, a national leitmotif is imperative to a diverse society. Without it, "diversity" is merely the fact that you can't ask for directions in some national capitals since none you meet knows the national language anymore.

                    What right-wingers like Carlson have been railing against is the left's growing desire to abandon this common denominator, painting it as a form of oppression. Screw that. We've seen that side of diversity, and we don't like it: religious and political extremism, a cave-mannish image of women, honor killings, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, the breakdown of traditional norms and values, a society caught in tribal wars…

                    As long as the left refuses to engage in an open-ended discussion about so grave an issue I'm not going to bother about the narrow-minded approach of some on the right. Put your own house in order first.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      You're not Jon Snow either.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by muck View Post

                        Why of course, like Lee didn't have a million examples to draw on.

                        Like the clashes between India's religions aren't due to the fact that the Muslim minority there is never going to have a say on the future of that country.
                        Like IS's existence isn't largely owed to the fact that Shiites don't vote for Sunnites and vice versa.
                        Like it doesn't take elaborate and undemocratic safety nets in societies like Lebanon's to prevent rivalling fractions of society from voting to kill each other.
                        Like not even flawless democracies have to draw on positive discrimination in order to ensure the voice of recognized minorities is heard.
                        Like women who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, or African-Americans that didn't vote for Barack Obama, were not lambasted by their peers.
                        These are not great examples. Singapore was not the hotbed of religious differences that India was and diversity alone was never India's problem. In fact the separation came from the very fact that people refused to live together, so its problem was not diversity but a lack thereof: distinct communities wanted to keep to their own and refused to integrate.

                        As for the others: Lebanon's civil war came after Singapore's peaceful independence and was caused by deep divides much like India; IS and Iraq's problems much later, and as for women or African Americans being lambasted for not voting for Hillary, so what? That has nothing to do with diversity: it's simply people in a democracy disagreeing over a candidate. Lee Kwan yew did not have these in mind when he forged Singapore's political future back in the 60s.

                        None of these retroactively demonstrate the 'point' that Lee Kwan Yew makes a great case for anti-diversity. In fact I still think the opposite: Singapore is a model of diversity, despite not being much of a democracy. It is the very opposite of Lebanon where "undemocratic safety nets in failed to prevent rivalling fractions of society from voting to kill each other". If the people get along just fine the safety nets - democratic or otherwise - hold up just fine.

                        Originally posted by muck View Post
                        Earlier in this thread, even a conservative like Jonathan praised diversity, citing the US as a positive example. Well, were America's formative years – when immigrants usually retained their native language and retreated into bubbles much akin to national colonies – really that much of a success story? Didn't America's rise to global hegemony come only after a sense of unity had emerged, a lowest common denominator everyone agreed to abide by?
                        .
                        Yes, unity with diversity - again they are not mutually exclusive and the playbook is not set in stone.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by budgie View Post
                          I think Lee, for all his successes (and faults) was making a case against democracy not multiculturalism.
                          He was making a case against democracy with multiculturalism.

                          Originally posted by budgie View Post
                          Now as to who they'd vote for in a democratic election how does Lee know when they've never really tried?
                          He saw what was going on in Malaysia, rule by ethno-centric parties and did not want the same in Singapore.
                          One of the main reasons for Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia was opposition to "Malaysia for the Malay".
                          Originally posted by Lee Kuan Yew
                          They (the Malay extremists) have triggered off something basic and fundamental. Malaysia — to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian. This is the doubt that hangs over many minds, and the next contest, if this goes on, will be on very different lines."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mitleser1987 View Post

                            He was making a case against democracy with multiculturalism.



                            He saw what was going on in Malaysia, rule by ethno-centric parties and did not want the same in Singapore.
                            One of the main reasons for Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia was opposition to "Malaysia for the Malay".

                            Well Lee is wrong on that too. For the most part the Malaysians coexist just fine. And in Fact Lee's own country, Singapore is a model of peaceful diversity. It belies his very complaint. As a 'benign dictator' he might just as well have been saying 'They all get along because of me.' Sounds like someone less diplomatic we all know.

                            I simply do not accept that absent some underlying disagreement (Say the Israelis and Palestinians and their fights over the land) that people of different stripes cannot live together just because they're of different stripes. That is the essence of Carlson's argument and he's dead wrong. Most of us live in societies like that every day.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X