Not a Troll: Tell me why the rich should have higher taxes.

[JaronK]

"for all my convictions that if there is a master race and I am not arguing that there is that the Germanic peopls would be it."

...Screw off Nazi.  I didn't realize you were that kind of Socialist.  If there is one, it's the Germans?  Your little "not saying there is" doesn't change what you just said.  You want to back that one up without sounding like a closet Nazi?

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Jaron, your reading comprehension skills are somewhere between abysmal and nonexistant.

IF I DID think there WAS/IS a master race (which I noted that I -don't-), I'd pick the Germanic peoples. Not "German". "Germanic".

Who rose from an insignificant island to conquering a quarter of the globe?

Hint, it wasn't Japan.

I'm reasonably sure that sheer luck played a role. I'm also fairly sure that there's a reason why England conquered other than sheer luck.

I'm reasonably sure that Germany going from a group of princedoms to a power capable of threatening to take over the majority of Europe...twice...in the 1870s is a feat not to be taken lightly.

I'm reasonably sure that the kingdoms which rose as Rome fell were "Germanic".

You want to actually read the "if" instead of skimming over it? If I thought that the Germans (or simply Germanic barbarian descendants) were a Superior Race without question or doubt, I'd say so. I don't. I do think that they managed to do a great deal more than oh, the native tribes of the Americas and Africa.

Plenty of perfectly capable individuals of all races, but given that we all started at the same point, the fact that in 1850 Englishmen are using rifles and Zulus are using spears indicates that someone figured out how to advance technology and thusly power more effectively.

I despise the idea that there is an inherent superiority of any group over any other. I do think that some groups have managed to do better than others for reasons other than wild, unpredictable luck.

I'm positive that there are/were as many Africans who could be Nelsons as there are/were Englishmen. For some reason, they didn't appear.

In an alternate world, where Europe collapses into barbarism and stays there, and China doesn't stagnate, then I would be saying that Europe appears to be "cursed" (quotes intentional).

In -this- world, the descendants of the Franks, Goths, Lombards, Saxons, and so on who carved kingdoms out of the Roman Empire are the ones who dominated the planet.


In brief, for those who don't feel like reading a full explaination:

I'd put Shaka Zulu against Charlemagne with a pretty high level of confidence in Shaka, if it was a contest of tactics and strategy and so on.

I'm rather less than impressed that the Zulus are using spears in the era in which Europe is using repeating rifles and machine guns.

[JaronK]

Yeah, that's racism, hidden behind "not that I think these people are better than those, but if anyone's better, these people are." 

And since China was so far ahead in the past, and gaining ground rapidly now, why aren't they the "if there's any, then it's them" master race?  Sure, they stagnated eventually, but so what?  And hey, why not the Romans?  How about the Greeks?  Aztecs?  Your arguement could apply to any culture that was at any time the dominant culture, you just happened to pick the ones that are doing well right now.  And who, by the way, are starting to slip already.  You sure it's not the Indians?  They're coming up mighty fast.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

No, that's an observation that some groups have done better, and being discinlined to think "sheer luck" explains it.

As for China: If China hadn't ground to a halt and then slid backwards, I'd have no trouble at all arguing that they were/are superior. Stagnation is one thing. Backsliding is another.

I picked the ones who dominate(d) the planet. If and when China/India/Greece/the Aztecs/the Jews dominate the planet, we can compare how quickly it happened (and how successful) and see if it was just "well, at the time, X dominated, but Y has done the same and better."

As of AD 2008, the peoples I named seem to have a claim to having gone further and done more. As of 2058, assuming we're not extinct, I would not be surprised if China has an equivalant if not superior claim to that.

So, stop assuming that because I think one group has accomplished more that I think that said group is superior and that's all there is to it.

[JaronK]

You said if any group is the master race, it's the germanics.

The assumption from there is REALLY FREAKING OBVIOUS. 

JaronK

[Elennsar]

And of course, the "and if I believed there was such a thing" and noting that I don't is completely irrelevant because I used the words "master race" and "Germanics' in the same sentence.

The assumption from there is really freaking wrong if you don't read the whole sentence.

Reading what I said as "I believe the German(ic)s are the master race!" is like reading this: "I believe that if there are aliens they probably don't like humanity, though I'm not sure there are any out there." as this: "I believe that all aliens hate humanity!"

Only worse.

[JaronK]

No, you said if there's a master race, it's the germanics.  You hid it behind "not that there is one" but that doesn't change it.

As a non racist, I can say pretty straight forward "no race is better than the others."  And that's final.  You're the one that added the if in there.

It's like saying "not that I'm a racist, and I don't think any race is worse than the others, but if one race was worse, it would be the hispanics (or blacks, or jews, or whatever)."  As soon as you add that last bit in, the first little waffling doesn't matter.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

I stated "not that there is one" because I don't think there is one. If there IS a superior race, then that is my conclusion on who has a good claim to that title.

As soon as you refuse to read the whole sentence, no explaination will possibly penetrate your determination to yell "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!" no matter how little sense it makes.

Like saying "If there was one perfect weapon, I would pick the longsword." as saying "ALL OTHER WEAPONS SUCK!"

Actually read the goddamn post and not just the parts that when taken out of context allow you to launch attacks.

[Sunic_Flames]

*tosses a grenade into the thread* Shut the fuck up.

[Elennsar]

Yeah, I think this thread has wound up with a Godwin, in effect if not intent.

[Callix]

I stated "not that there is one" because I don't think there is one. If there IS a superior race, then that is my conclusion on who has a good claim to that title.

As soon as you refuse to read the whole sentence, no explaination will possibly penetrate your determination to yell "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!" no matter how little sense it makes.

Like saying "If there was one perfect weapon, I would pick the longsword." as saying "ALL OTHER WEAPONS SUCK!"

Actually read the goddamn post and not just the parts that when taken out of context allow you to launch attacks.

That might be the literal meaning of the sentence, but there's no point to taking all those linguistic detours unless you actually thought Germanics were better than someone else. So, while your sentence is not in itself racist, there is no reason for you to say it in these sorts of circumstances if you were not racist. You inserted an elaborate counterfactual apropos of nothing simply to add your views that the Germanics are the first among equals. If you had simply said "I don't think Denmark is inhabited by superior people (because there is no superior race of people)" then we wouldn't have had all those unfortunate implications that you have given us.

Your sentence is not textually racist, but has a strong, almost blatant, racist subtext and implications. It seems that a few of us are good at reading subtext.

[Elennsar]

As stated, the point was something like this:

If there is such a thing as a superior weapon, I would say the longsword is it.

Reading that as "I think the longsword is the best weapon! Period!"  "really good at reading subtext". That's "really good at reading what you want to see".

The point is simply that if there was a "first", I think they would be it. And stating at the same time that I don't think there is.

For some reason, the Zulus did not develop gunpowder and did not develop rifles. I don't think it's a fundemental superiority/inferiority issue, but I don't think it means "all races accomplished equally great things."

As stated: Read the entire sentence. If you're only reading part of it, you're going to miss my point entirely.

Does saying "I think Japanese cars are better than American cars" translate as "I think Japan is GREAT AND AMERICA SUCKS!" too, now?

[AndyJames]

AndyJames: The incentive for most countries to keep up their public education system is to make sure the nation in question will be competitive with other countries. The public schooling in Scandinavia is excellent and Finland's students win the international competition that measures the quality of schooling pretty damn often. After the year 2000 or so only Hong Kong has been able to defeat Finland.

If the Scandinavian countries are considered "good", I'd hate to see what is considered "bad". This is my view judging from the number of bloodthirsty, genocidal, vengeance-driven Scandinavians I have seen on the Internet.

And yes, this thread has been effectively Godwin'd by Elennsar.

[Elennsar]

I'm reasonably sure that Godwining a thread here was done by the people who think "if we read half a sentence we know exactly what the entire sentence meant".

As for bloodthirsty/genocidal/vengeance-driven Scandinavians...

Where?

If you're looking at me (Anglo-Saxon/Irish/Italian/Swiss, mostly the first two), I'm going to laugh.

[Bauglir]

I'm not gonna touch this one.

On topic, anyone wanna answer the metaphor I put up so many pages ago? The one with stacks of money? If somebody did, I think I missed it, for which I apologize.

[JaronK]

As stated, the point was something like this:

If there is such a thing as a superior weapon, I would say the longsword is it.

Translation:  I believe that longswords are the superior weapon, but I don't want to come right out and say it.  Luckily, no one cares what you think about that.  There's never been holocausts or ethnic clensing of longswords.  Longswords aren't people.  Liking or disliking a kind of sword isn't racism.

Does saying "I think Japanese cars are better than American cars" translate as "I think Japan is GREAT AND AMERICA SUCKS!" too, now?

No, but saying "for all my convictions that if there is a master race and I am not arguing that there is that the Japanese peopls would be it" is racist.

There's no reason to say what you said unless you're a German supremacist.  None whatsoever.  Those of us who aren't say things like "for all my convictions there is no master race, and no race is better than another."

Let's try your quote in other ways, just replacing a word or two (but not the overall meaning):

"for all my convictions that if there is a inferior race and I am not arguing that there is that the Jewish peoples would be it."
"for all my convictions that if there is a less intelligent race and I am not arguing that there is that the Black peoples would be it."
"for all my convictions that if there is a lazy race and I am not arguing that there is that the Hispanic peoples would be it."
"for all my convictions that if there is a smarter race and I am not arguing that there is that the Japanese peoples would be it."
"for all my convictions that if there is a master race and I am not arguing that there is that the Germanic peoples would be it."

All of those statements have a very strong racist subtext, and could only be stated by a racist (if talking about himself).  Just a racist who's trying to be subtle about it (but failing).

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Bad translation. If I thought "longswords are a superior weapon", I would just say it. I think that they're about even with the katana (if anything, if "more of the "does this well" points indicate its better", the katana seems to win there.)

Jaron. "I don't believe the Danes are fundementally superior" is being completely ignored in your "translation" and "interpetation". Totally. Utterly. Flat out.

So, if you're determined only to read part of the sentence and pretend it is the whole of the sentence, then you can kiss my pasty Saxon butt.

You don't care what I meant, what the whole sentence, or anything that might possibly explain why I stated what I stated, worded as it is.

Keep chanting "Elennsar is racist, Elennsar is racist!" until you spam the thread into deletion. It won't make it true and it won't change that you're mutilating the sentence.

Is there some reason why "I don't believe this is true" is irrelevant as well? Do you really think that someone who was a diehard racist would put "I don't think this group is fundementally superior" in the sentence?

Seriously...perfect example of why calling someone a Nazi makes them lose the arguement.

[Tshern]

*tosses a grenade into the thread* Shut the fuck up.

Would you mind contributing something or just not posting?

If the Scandinavian countries are considered "good", I'd hate to see what is considered "bad". This is my view judging from the number of bloodthirsty, genocidal, vengeance-driven Scandinavians I have seen on the Internet.

Heck, I'd really like to know how you do it. Really, how do you evaluate our way of handling government business by talking to people on the internet? If that was the way to judge people I'd say all Polish people are criminals and New Zealanders are annoying fuckers who judge other nations based on a few irrelevant details on the internet. Get a grip.

[AndyJames]

Heck, I'd really like to know how you do it. Really, how do you evaluate our way of handling government business by talking to people on the internet? If that was the way to judge people I'd say all Polish people are criminals and New Zealanders are annoying fuckers who judge other nations based on a few irrelevant details on the internet. Get a grip.

Precisely. Not so fun when the boot is on the other foot, is it?

Think about that the next time you start raving about how bad everyone else is compared to Scandinavians.

[Tshern]

I am not being patriotic. Telling me Finland is a piece of shit doesn't matter, because on so many levels it is true. Your evaluation just had nothing to do with government business that was (not the original topic, but most of the thread seems to be dealing with it now) the topic.

And not all countries are bad compared to Scandinavia. I'd rather live in Switzerland. Even within Scandinavia Finland would be by far and wide the last country to live in if one could choose freely. Jugding entire populations regarding a few rare examples on the internet doesn't exactly work.