Synchronized flushing won't change the fact that Zimbabwe is a fucking shithole. This kind of "let's cross our fingers and hope for the best" measure was never necessary when the place was called Rhodesia, because when Whites were in control, they knew how to engineer around droughts. If Mugabe's government would simply stop killing Whites, there might be enough left to help out with such situations, even if they are in the minority.
This is a beautiful statement in regards to how ignorant and racist it is. Zimbabwe, despite It's history of turmoil and colonial exploitation, is on the verge to economic security and prosperity. I recently met some government ministers from Zimbabwe at a network security conference in Malaysia where they had been instructed by their government to not come back until they understood how to develope respectable and effective network infrastructure that would support the local people.
Sure Zimbabwe and many other African countries have issues, but so does every country around the world. The constant perpetual negative cloud that people associate Africa with really denegrates the vast growth and improvements the continent has recently gone through.
What's on my website doesn't change the facts on the ground in the former Rhodesia. Unlike most people with specific belief systems, I feel that I can be objective about anything.
I'm a race realist, and the racial reality in sub-Saharan Africa is that blacks have very low IQs. No amount of foreign aid and wishful thinking will change this fact. You say that it is "on the verge of economic security and prosperity" with the government wanting to "develop respectable and effective network infrastructure that would support the local people", yet you conveniently leave out the fact that Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia, already had all of these things. Whites created economic security, prosperity, and an overall infrastructure which supported everyone, including blacks. It wasn't perfect, just like in South Africa, but it worked, and it did so due to Whites applying their knowledge and creativity to solve hard problems. The current majority, over the last few decades, has been slowly dismantling the civilization which Whites created, while simultaneously drastically increasing the amount of foreign aid the country now needs.
"the racial reality in sub-Saharan Africa is that blacks have very low IQs."
I've had the pleasure of meeting enough sub-Saharan Africans that I can not only personally call bullshit on this, the statement is so nonsensical it reads to me like a claim that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
I'm not a coward. If I was, I would have resisted making my original post, because a coward would care about losing HN points. I make the distinction between "racism" and "racial realism" merely because I care about using terms properly. The latter is more precise, whereas the former is tainted with negativity. Also: Why should I refer to myself using a term which I know others see as negative? I would gladly call myself a "racist" if its meaning were taken to be "someone who sees the differences between races and acts appropriately on that knowledge", or something to that effect.
Let me be very clear: I am saying you are a racist independent of whether or not you recognize differences between races, real or imagined.
Of course it has negative connotations. Most people don't like racists. You can't seem to deal with that, and your weasel words make you a coward. Whose respect are you trying to earn (or keep) anyway? I'll tell you something, owning up to it won't lose you any more respect. But at least you'd be less insufferable.
Okay then, I'm a racist, and I'm only saying that because I don't want to seem as insufferable as you make me out to be. See? I can be accommodating. However, your first sentence is not at all clear, because you contradict yourself. You are saying that I am a racist independent of whether I recognize differences between people based on the concept of "race". Well, no, calling me a "racist" is absolutely dependent on whether I see race as a real thing, not a concept, and on whether I use it to gauge people based on their differences, which are most obviously indicated by skin color.
"Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others."
The symbology on your website is typically seen as negative as well. Perhaps you should consider an alternative there if you are concerned with what others see as negative.
That's a good point, but what you see there is my personal symbol, which is the banner of the Third Reich with the swastika's tips chiseled. The symbolism is therefore unique to me, because, as far as I know, no one else uses it. Also, I give a detailed explanation of whether I am a Nazi. It just takes a few clicks to get to it. I've let that website wither, and really should get it into shape some day.
What's on my website doesn't change the facts on the ground in the former Rhodesia. Unlike most people with specific belief systems, I feel that I can be objective about anything.
I'm a hacker and a scientist, like most HNers. There is no cause to delete my account, especially as you can see that the vast majority of my comments have nothing to do with race, but rather with hacking and science. Also, deleting my account would be like admitting that your points system doesn't work as intended. If certain of my comments go below a certain amount of points, they won't be seen to most HNers, which is how it's supposed to work. Deleting my account would be superfluous and overkill. Lastly, I'm pretty sure that wishing a beating upon me is not a statement which PG would condone, especially given that you work for him.
I didn't take offense, but I haven't wished a beating on anyone here, not even on the people whose skin color is not the same as mine, and not even to prove a point, as you tried to do. A few downvotes does not a majority make. I agree that my IQ is very likely lower than the HN average, but that is not the same as being a low-IQ human, which is generally at the level of actual retardation. Race is not only about skin color.
> The example you give was a harsh yet necessary action due to the fact that low-IQ humans require brutality to understand when they've done wrong, because nice words and the rule of law just don't cut it with them.
You thought that HN was somehow racist-free? It's not going to be, mostly it's just hard to spot them since it's relatively rare for non-white people to even be mentioned on here in the first place.
That's probably because you've never lived, side by side, day to day, with low-IQ humans. They are not the same as us, and therefore require different treatment. To believe otherwise would imply that the Whites of Rhodesia and South Africa were either heartless monsters, or people who couldn't learn from their environment. Neither of those is possible.
I'm by no means eager to dismiss an argument made seriously, but if you're going for apologetics for something as appalling as torture, you're going to have to work your way up to it gradually. That's been way beyond western civilization's Overton window for a couple of generations now. It may just be Something You Can't Say.
And capitalizing white as if that accident of birth should be an honorific like an accomplishment? That sounds kind of unhinged.
If you actually believe that there is "Something You Can't Say" then you most certainly are a person who can "dismiss an argument made seriously".
"At any given moment, the [Overton] "window" includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office."
The US government has generally admitted to torture, in its "fight against terrorism". Given that the US government wasn't replaced, even partially, or its policies changed in any significant way, through the massive outrage of its citizenry, I am guessing that most people agree with "something as appalling as torture", today, in Western Civilization, as long as it's done for "all the right reasons".
EDIT: I didn't notice this the first time around.
"And capitalizing white as if that accident of birth should be an honorific like an accomplishment? That sounds kind of unhinged."
Why don't you use that line on jews, who insist on "J" simply and entirely due to the mother's religion? They get very upset when you don't capitalize the "j", no matter where the word appears. Even the spellchecker in my Google Chrome browser underlines "jews" in red when I write it in all lowercase. If the power which jews possess is significant enough that it reaches deep down into the bowels of my web browser, then I think that I can get away with referring to the originators and guardians of Western Civilization as White.
You might find it even more unhinged that I usually refer to non-Whites as "unWhite", and I try not to use it at the beginning of a sentence, so as to avoid having to write it with a "U'. Likewise, I avoid using "jews" at the beginning of a sentence. Also, I refer to neo-nazis as "nazis", who are most of the ones you see today, mere pretenders, and I save "Nazis" for those, such as myself, who I think deserve the capitalization. Therefore, "White" doesn't mean every person with pale skin, so, really, it's not about honoring someone because of an accident of birth.
That was a reference to http://paulgraham.com/say.html which explored his fear of arbitrary fashion being mistaken for morality. As for torture, I regard that as something we're guilty of through having effectively lost democratic control of the country, and I've seen very little disagreement and none I find convincing.
As a sub-saharan African(Zambia ).I think your views are terribly short sighted, whether or not the Zimbabwe economy was better during white rule gives you no right to refer to a whole race or group of people across multiple countries as less than.
My country just got a bond at the same interest rate as Spain, according to you, the Spaniards are just as "dumb" as the Africans for being in debt and having a bad economy at the moment .Should we throw in the Greeks?,speaking of economies,maybe most of the E.U
Let us continue with the illogical statements:Zimbabwe's economy is bad so all sub-saharans are "dull"....Hitler and the NAZI regime caused millions of deaths sooooo all Germans are murders? is that your line of thought?
Thinking of any human as being less than yourself and only fit to be treated as such has been the root of most evil.
It is people who think like you that have committed some of the worst atrocities.
