Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Activision says that...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 11:51 PM
28 Replies, 1,707 Views
Strategy Shooter Void...
Last post by brandonjclark
Today 10:07 PM
2 Replies, 137 Views
Microsoft Acquires...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 09:21 PM
6 Replies, 225 Views
Game & Movie Releases...
Last post by Major Dan
Today 09:10 PM
1 Replies, 121 Views
Marvel's Stan Lee Series...
Last post by Terran
Today 08:47 PM
11 Replies, 412 Views
Shadow of the Tomb...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:42 PM
1 Replies, 123 Views
Forza Horizon 4 DLC...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:41 PM
0 Replies, 111 Views
Pokemon Detective...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:11 PM
1 Replies, 209 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-11-2018, 05:25 AM   #1921
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Arguably, the opposite is just as true...
Well they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Are there financial benefits to dropping all regulation? Yes. But we already see that there are also big financial benefits to maintaining it. You don't even have to be hoodwinking people. You can totally believe in climate change and still make a boatload of cash off of the concept. These people have a vested interest in keeping the idea of climate change going but it's not an either or scenario. Both sides of this coin can thrive at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
I'm not about to hop on board the conspiracy train with globalist plots to control the population, but I do think allowing things to swing too far in either direction is a bad idea. It's evident that humanity causes plenty of damage to the environment, so having some form of regulation is necessary...because we've seen what happens when people are allowed unrestricted access to natural resources.
I don't think it's a conspiracy to acknowledge that some people believe in strong central control and that at least some of them view climate change as a means to what amounts to a good end in their eyes. And some have been quite open that they believe that population needs to be controlled to attain this good. It's not the mainstream view regarding climate change (yet) but it's considered a valid one in some mainstream circles. And when it comes down to it, smaller populations are easier to control so those that desire power will jump on board.
The problem people on the right have with the idea that central control is needed here is not that they can't go an pollute to their heat's content like Captain Planet villains. It's that we view this type of central control as inherently ineffective and corrupt. The cure is viewed as worse than the disease.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 06:56 AM   #1922
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
Well they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Are there financial benefits to dropping all regulation? Yes. But we already see that there are also big financial benefits to maintaining it. You don't even have to be hoodwinking people. You can totally believe in climate change and still make a boatload of cash off of the concept. These people have a vested interest in keeping the idea of climate change going but it's not an either or scenario. Both sides of this coin can thrive at the same time.
I didn't say it was a mutually exclusive situation and both sides can certainly thrive at the same time.

I just think it's amusing that everything you said can be applied to climate change deniers who would stand to profit from removing those regulations...and everything is still just as accurate. You can totally believe that humans have not - and will not - have a negative impact on the environment and still make a boatload of cash. Depending upon their personal believes, they may feel that it is impossible for humanity to destroy the Earth. Either way, these people have a vested interest in keeping the idea that humans don't negatively impact the environment going.


Quote:
I don't think it's a conspiracy to acknowledge that some people believe in strong central control and that at least some of them view climate change as a means to what amounts to a good end in their eyes. And some have been quite open that they believe that population needs to be controlled to attain this good. It's not the mainstream view regarding climate change (yet) but it's considered a valid one in some mainstream circles. And when it comes down to it, smaller populations are easier to control so those that desire power will jump on board.
The problem people on the right have with the idea that central control is needed here is not that they can't go an pollute to their heat's content like Captain Planet villains. It's that we view this type of central control as inherently ineffective and corrupt. The cure is viewed as worse than the disease.
It's not the "strong central control" part that I think would be the conspiracy. You don't need to look any further than the changes made to our own government over the past 18 years; members of both parties have made moves to strengthen the power of the Federal government and centralize power in Washington.

It's the grand schemes to control the population that I find to be a tad conspiracy theory-ish in nature.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front

Last edited by Chimpbot; 07-11-2018 at 08:01 AM..
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 11:23 AM   #1923
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It's the grand schemes to control the population that I find to be a tad conspiracy theory-ish in nature.
What cracks me up is they talk about this stuff in the open, yet liberals seem to never hear the shit they say.

SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 11:51 AM   #1924
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
What cracks me up is they talk about this stuff in the open, yet liberals seem to never hear the shit they say.
Sure, he could be talking about stuff like sterilization, eugenics, or just straight up killing people. He could also be talking about promotion education and contraception in third-world countries and areas where things of that nature aren't readily available or a priority.

If we look to Bill Gates, who has also been one of the folks linked to population control speech, his thought is that improving overall health and reducing childhood mortality rates - primarily through vaccines - will help curb population growth.

"In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. 'It goes against common sense,' Gates says. 'Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die'.

'If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size,' says Melinda."

"A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children."

Instead of mass murder, mass sterilization, or other nefarious methods of curbing population growth...folks like Gates and Rockefeller might be looking toward other means to find a solution. Or maybe they just want to slaughter a few billion people. Who knows? Maybe it's all just one giant lie and they're planning on butchering as many people as possible.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:59 PM   #1925
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
And by god, there is no better friend in the world to have than Americans.
This really doesn't apply to south america, central america, Mexico, most of the middle east, or most of the Caribbean.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 01:03 PM   #1926
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
What cracks me up is they talk about this stuff in the open, yet liberals seem to never hear the shit they say.

Yeah, because shit like forced population control is crazy, just like white power rallies.

It doesn't even make sense in western countries where the birth rate is just barely hanging on anyway. This is like being concerned about a tsunami in Idaho.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 02:08 PM   #1927
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 96
This is how the Left behaves: whenever there is something bad in the world, it can only be because of US foreign policy and capitalism.
That is a forgone conclusion. You see a starving child? you see poverty? You see conflict and strife? You already know the answer to why. It's so simple.
What other possible reason could there be? Could the people themselves be possibly at fault for a given problem? Their incompetent governments maybe? Or their backwards cultural values?
No way, it can only be because of the influence of someone thousands of miles away. That must be the most important reason for it.
And also an ever so convenient excuse for their corrupt leaders to distract from their own failures.

How is it that Abu Dhabi in the Middle East became prosperous from dealing oil with the West, while Venezuela is a starving hell hole?
Because we love the Arabs so much more than dirty South Americans? Why has Iran so many problems, but not the Emirates? Both have oil. Both are Arabs.
Do we love the Chinese unconditionally? Is that the reason they improved their economy? They still have problems, but for the most part you know why.
The Left loves the narrative of the resource stealing West. But the prosperity of the West is based on producing useful products from resources that have no intrinsic value on their own.
Oil is just useless dirt in the earth, if you don't know what to do with it. You can't drink it. You are not simply rich because you have oil.
You are rich because either you know what to do with it, or you sell it to someone who knows what to do with it.

If you want benefit from capitalism, of course you need to be competent at it. No one owes you, and free people have a variety of character.
When stranded in the wilderness, you need to learn practical survival skills. What else makes sense to do? Blame the forest for not accommodating you?
Will complaining about the harsh life in it do you any good? Will burning it down in anger help you? You just die quicker. Better start learning how it works, how to avoid its dangers and reap its benefits.
What kind of animals there are, how they behave, what fruit can you eat or not, how to make fire, how to build shelter, how to handle sickness, how to prepare yourself for different seasons, etc pp.
You don't spend your time philosophizing why the forest is unfair to you. If this is how you spend your time, you don't need to wonder why the forest treats you badly. You treat yourself badly.

The fastest way to learn skills is by learning from someone already successful, who has figured out most of the problems. You only learn if you overcome your resentments to the successful for being successful.
How do you set up governments properly, how structure public life, how deal with crime, how set up family culture, how to concentrate on scientific endeavor and foster Entrepreneurship.
How to deal with corruption, how to make proper trade deals on the market without getting shafted, how conduct negotiation, how to handle hostility.
This is all about learning skills. Anyone can do it, but first you need to properly orient yourself.

It took the West quite some bloody time to figure all this shit out, and it learned a lot from others. And countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, The Emirates, all kinds of countries all over the world,
that didn't consider themselves enemies of the West, managed to become prosperous like the West, from absolute poverty, in just 50 years.
You know what kind of countries blame US foreign policies for its problems? North Korea and Iran.

You can make a list of what wrong others did to you. You also can make a list of what much good they did.
But neither of it is the actual reason for why you end up good or bad. Most of all it's you, what you make of it.

You need to change your life, and orient yourself towards the light and heaven, like a tree would.


Last edited by RAV; 07-11-2018 at 03:28 PM..
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 04:08 PM   #1928
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Sure, he could be talking about stuff like sterilization, eugenics, or just straight up killing people. He could also be talking about promotion education and contraception in third-world countries and areas where things of that nature aren't readily available or a priority.

If we look to Bill Gates, who has also been one of the folks linked to population control speech, his thought is that improving overall health and reducing childhood mortality rates - primarily through vaccines - will help curb population growth.

"In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. 'It goes against common sense,' Gates says. 'Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die'.

'If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size,' says Melinda."

"A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children."

Instead of mass murder, mass sterilization, or other nefarious methods of curbing population growth...folks like Gates and Rockefeller might be looking toward other means to find a solution. Or maybe they just want to slaughter a few billion people. Who knows? Maybe it's all just one giant lie and they're planning on butchering as many people as possible.
I've never bought the depopulation meme, if they wanted us all dead, we would be. Africa will never get to its projected 4 billion people. There will be mass starvation well before then.

Africa is going to have to be cut loose at some point and left to fend for themselves. Bill Gates thinking he can instill European values onto Africans was silly, if they are fed and given shelter they will fuck and fuck and have more kids than Terran did. Difference is, Terran feeds his kids and africans will not in many cases. They just do not think this way. The more we enable them, the more they will suffer at the end of the day.
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 04:29 PM   #1929
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 96
blackzc, this is pretty much what the Romans thought about the German tribes: ridiculously stupid and backwards. And it was very much demonstrable by their customs.
The Romans civilized the Germans through conquest, as have many other people experienced in one way or another throughout human existence.
And slowly the Germans started to learn from the vastly superior cultural advances in the mediterranean regions to the Middle East to the East Asia.
And then as fate would have it, the Europeans figured out some advancements themselves from which others would have to learn later.
Then Germany made several bad mistakes again, payed a bitter price, and had to learn difficult lessons yet again from others.
There is no shame in this. Everyone learned from everyone. The only shame is in resentments preventing learning.

Last edited by RAV; 07-14-2018 at 10:31 PM..
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 04:29 PM   #1930
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
How is it that Abu Dhabi in the Middle East became prosperous from dealing oil with the West, while Venezuela is a starving hell hole?
Because we love the Arabs so much more than dirty South Americans? Why has Iran so many problems, but not the Emirates? Both have oil. Both are Arabs.
The Left loves the narrative of the resource stealing West. But the prosperity of the West is based on producing useful products from resources that have no intrinsic value on their own.
I'm sorry but this is absurd. The US is an empire like the UK before it and we setup colonies just like they did, but we didn't/don't call them colonies. This doesn't make the US evil, it is just the reality of the world. As long as there has been civilization there have been empires, and if it wasn't the US it would be someone else. Russia with the recent expansion into Ukraine, China trying to expand its empire currently, and Iran is as well. They come up hard against the extents of the US empire which bottles them up.

The United Fruit company acted hand in hand with the US government to export wealth from south america.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

"John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930s – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary. You could not see these connections until you could – and then you could not stop seeing them."

"For the company to maintain its unequal land holdings it often required government concessions. And this in turn meant that the company had to be politically involved in the region even though it was an American company. In fact, the heavy-handed involvement of the company in often-corrupt governments created the term "banana republic", which represents a servile dictatorship."

The telegram from Bogotá Embassy to the U.S. Secretary of State, dated December 5, 1928, stated: "I have been following Santa Marta fruit strike through United Fruit Company representative here; also through Minister of Foreign Affairs who on Saturday told me government would send additional troops and would arrest all strike leaders and transport them to prison at Cartagena; that government would give adequate protection to American interests involved."


The US has a history of going into countries and toppling their governments when they won't play ball with our companies moving in and exporting their wealth and suppressing their interests.

Iran is fucked up because we destroyed their democracy by arranging a coup of a lawfully elected leader who was not a communist.

"A fierce nationalist, Mosaddeq immediately began attacks on British oil companies operating in his country, calling for expropriation and nationalization of the oil fields.

Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq. On August 19, 1953, the military, backed by street protests organized and financed by the CIA, overthrew Mossadeq. The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran’s oil fields to U.S. companies."

That is not capitalism. That is how an empire operates.

This doesn't reflect poorly on the US, it is how all empires have operated since the dawn of civilization. Unless something radical happens like an AI takeover things will always be this way.

We have a history of going in and toppling governments that try to own their own resources and stop the export of wealth. We can pretend this is "communism", and sometimes it truly was, but in most cases it really was just these countries trying to assert their economic independence from the American empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_G..._d%27%C3%A9tat

It is ridiculous to suggest this was just the US fighting communism.

Also right now we have basically destroyed Mexico, but that is more by accident I think. We have flooded mexico with guns and offer them an extremely lucrative black market to sell drugs. They are long past the tipping point where the mafia runs the government. Just like prohibition was fucking up the US, a very similar situation has destroyed mexico, and it is much worse than prohibition ever was.

Last edited by Eats; 07-11-2018 at 07:10 PM..
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 04:36 PM   #1931
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzc View Post
Africa is going to have to be cut loose at some point and left to fend for themselves. Bill Gates thinking he can instill European values onto Africans was silly, if they are fed and given shelter they will fuck and fuck and have more kids than Terran did. Difference is, Terran feeds his kids and africans will not in many cases.
Why do you think this? Every country that has modernized has seen declining birth rates. What reason is there to think Africa will be different?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 05:07 PM   #1932
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
All of mine were from wikipedia on a cursory look
Nice source! I think your post summed up your ideas quite well:

Quote:
fully retarded

shitty

pedantic

and stupid.
lol@u. 1,000 ppm fucks your shit up, man, but 5,000 ppm is allowed in the workplace and up to 10,000 ppm on nuclear submarines because...we're doomed!

Clown.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 05:50 PM   #1933
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Nice source! I think your post summed up your ideas quite well:



lol@u. 1,000 ppm fucks your shit up, man, but 5,000 ppm is allowed in the workplace and up to 10,000 ppm on nuclear submarines because...we're doomed!

Clown.
To summarize your position:
There is clear evidence of mental decline during exposure from 750-1000ppm, also it is generally unpleasant for people to experience, but you think it sounds ok to make the entire world dumber, and we shouldn't consider tax incentives to move away from fossil fuels?

Also no research has really been done on long term chronic exposure, but it isn't unreasonable to think there could be health issues.

Is that correct?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 06:15 PM   #1934
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Why do you think this? Every country that has modernized has seen declining birth rates. What reason is there to think Africa will be different?
Because he's a fucking racist and doesn't think people with darker skin have enough smarts or sense to bottle up their animal instincts in the pursuit of what we would deem "civilized" society in western terms. The darker the skin, the harder it is for them to stop fucking things up for white people.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 07:22 PM   #1935
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Why do you think this? Every country that has modernized has seen declining birth rates. What reason is there to think Africa will be different?
Modernizing them wont be possible. They need to be left alone.

The germans and romans were genetically similar with similar climates that they needed to improvise in order to survive. This is resulted in an improved IQ and spatial IQ.


Africa will never go through this change until the climates flip. Not only did they not have to 50k years ago, they still don't have to improve, everything has been given to them forever, from fruit and animals to no need for shelter, to colonization. We need to leave them alone.
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 07:31 PM   #1936
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Because he's a fucking racist and doesn't think people with darker skin have enough smarts or sense to bottle up their animal instincts in the pursuit of what we would deem "civilized" society in western terms. The darker the skin, the harder it is for them to stop fucking things up for white people.
Heh.

Have they so far? Are you telling me what i deem civilized is no good? Do i need to lower my fucking standards? How many murders a year is an acceptable amount? 6% of the country commits 50% of all murders in the US.

Well, china will find out. They are exploiting the shit out of Africa, the west wasn't able to get them to climb the hill. Maybe china can. And yes i understand there is a big difference between east and west Africans. So save it.

China is going to end up killing lots of them.....They dont do that white guilt shit..

Its a sad situation all the way around. I vote to leave the continent entirely but the north and forget about it, let it operate as it has for a million years...i know, doing that would be so racist..
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy

Last edited by blackzc; 07-11-2018 at 07:42 PM..
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 07:39 PM   #1937
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/co..._and_parts_10/
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 07:48 PM   #1938
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzc View Post
Modernizing them wont be possible. They need to be left alone.

The germans and romans were genetically similar with similar climates that they needed to improvise in order to survive. This is resulted in an improved IQ and spatial IQ.


Africa will never go through this change until the climates flip. Not only did they not have to 50k years ago, they still don't have to improve, everything has been given to them forever, from fruit and animals to no need for shelter, to colonization. We need to leave them alone.
I really didn't think you would just own being racist so outright. What you are saying is fucking ridiculous, and your bullshit "scientific" justification for it is completely absurd.

Do us a favor and take this shit over to stormfront where it belongs.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 08:17 PM   #1939
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Of course America is an empire. It sure messed some around in the world.
A lot of those they messed with probably deserved some of it.

And the forest is full of animals stronger than you.
But this alone doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean you are helpless.


The existence of Microsoft alone doesn't explain, why Apple could make it, and others would not.
Microsoft did what they could to push Apple out of the market. Many powerful companies fight unfairly against upstarts.
But this alone was not reason enough to explain why some make it anyway, and others fail. Apple changed to meet the challenge, and succeeded.
What is here to learn, is the question. What can others learn from those that succeeded against the odds. That's what's really interesting.
AMD is a laughing stock compared to Intel in terms of resources and market share, and Intel is known to be hugely anti-competitive in many ways.
Yet look at what comeback AMD recently accomplished. And no one remembers Cyrix. What did AMD different than Cyrix? What better than even IBM?

This is the question. How you deal with it. Everyone had it hard, everyone suffered in some way or another.
This alone does not explain why some made it through better than others. This is the point.
Not whether there were injustices or not, as they've always been, as everyone has always done.
The Middle East has a huge history of doing conquest and colonialism. It brought Europe to its knees many times.
Yet why could it not fortify these advantages in the long term? How did Europe survive? How could it rise despite?

Because clearly, it is not impossible to have success in the face of difficulty. And those countries that find success, clearly share certain attributes compared to those that don't.
Like not having too much grievances about the past, but productive lessons. All kinds of countries have at some point or another experienced such injustices,
yet this alone did not hold them back forever, some recovered much faster than others despite harsher injustices.
The deciding question is the conclusions and consequences these people drew from their experience of hardship.

Again, many countries that are shining jewels today, were at the state of absolute destruction and poverty just 50 years ago.
Those countries that were in some form or another exploited at whatever point, had in fact much more infrastructure and alternatives.
They had a much better starting point 50 years ago. And even though clearly many of the injustices were reduced and vanished, they did not advance the same.

When I say Germany and Japan decided to bury their resentment and consider America its friends, I did NOT mean the Americans were simply nice to them.
The aftermath was TOUGH, and while we had no natural resources to exploit, every production machinery that was not destroyed, they took for themselves.
as well as they took many of our best engineers. These were our resources. We were left with near nothing, but a lot of trials.

After WW2, the entirety of Europe was in ruins. Most of its goods destroyed. Whatever it had amassed before was largely gone. The slate was clean.
Europe's larger history does not explain the absolutely mind-blowing developments of the past 50 years. This success is something else entirely.
And many countries figured out that the interests in favour of the USA, are not automatically disadvantages to everyone else.

India was not simply just exploited by the UK. Of course it was tough. But this is not all there was to it.
The UK introduced many important advancements to their country. So did many colonialists on the host countries.
And india, despite all its own proud cultural heritage and beauty... it too had dark shadows of its own.
It's not simply, the foreign oppressor abused the innocent victims. Indian culture enslaved and oppressed plenty on its own through its deplorable caste system.
And what you will find is in fact, that many of these countries had a recent history of slavery all on their own, in fact much much more than the West ever had.
Actually, even though the West exploited these countries in some form or another, it often ended their own oppressive slavery of others meanwhile, and the periods of exploitation were much shorter than theirs.
If slavery and exploitation is all there is to our success, why did other countries not benefit of it like the West? Not even close to our success?
In fact communism were ALL about slave labour, its entire economy depended on exploitation of others. And the West had its greatest periods of growth when they were at their lowest of it.
Exploitation and slavery does not at all explain the success of the West, as it doesn't explain why those others couldn't succeed more on their own by doing it themselves before.
And it alone does not explain why some countries are more successful than others. Some countries decided to learn more than others. From their oppressors, not in opposite spite to them.

The important point I'm trying to make is, that what holds these people back most, is the perpetuation of grievances in the population, by Socialists or Nationalists or other fundamentalists.

Last edited by RAV; 07-14-2018 at 10:35 PM..
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 09:19 PM   #1940
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
Of course America is an empire. But this alone doesn't explain anything.
The existence of Microsoft alone doesn't explain, why Apple could make it, and others would not.
Microsoft did what they could to push Apple out of the market. Many powerful companies fight unfairly against upstarts.
But this alone was not reason enough to explain why some make it and others fail. Apple changed to meet the challange, and succeeded.
AMD is a laughing stock compared to Intel in terms of resources and market share, and Intel is known to be hugely anti-competitive in many ways.
Yet look at what comeback AMD recently accomplished. And no one remembers Cyrix. What did AMD different than Cyrix? What better than even IBM?

This is the question. How you deal with it. Everyone had it hard, everyone suffered in some way or another.
This alone does not explain why some made it through better than others. This is the point.
Not whether there were injustices or not, as they've always been, as everyone has always done.
The Middle East has a huge history of doing conquest and colonialism. It brought Europe to its knees many times.
Yet why could it not fortify these advantages in the long term? How did Europe survive? How could it rise despite?

Because clearly, it is not impossible to have success in the face of difficulty. And those countries that find success, clearly share certain attributes compared to those that don't.
Like not having too much grievances about the past, but productive lections. All kinds of countries have at some point or another experienced such injustices,
yet this alone did not hold them back forever, some recovered much faster than others despite harsher injustices.
The deciding question is the conclusions and consequences these people drew from their experience of hardship.

Again, many countries that are shining jewels today, were at the state of absolute destruction and poverty just 50 years ago.
Those countries that were in some form or another exploited at whatever point, had in fact much more infrastructure and alternatives.
They had a much better starting point 50 years ago. And even though clearly many of the injustices were reduced and vanished, they did not advance the same.

When I say Germany and Japan decided to bury their resentment and consider America its friends, I did NOT mean the Americans were simply nice to them.
The aftermath was TOUGH, and while we had no natural resources to exploit, every production machinery that was not destroyed, they took for themselves.
as well as they took many of our best engineers. These were our resources. We were left with near nothing, but a lot of trials.

After WW2, the entirety of Europe was in ruins. Most of its goods destroyed. Whatever it had amassed before was largely gone. The slate was clean.
Europe's larger history does not explain the absolutely mind-blowing developments of the past 50 years. This success is something else entirely.
And many countries figured out that the interests in favour of the USA, are not automatically disadvantages to everyone else.

India was not simply just exploited by the UK. Of course it was tough. But this is not all there was to it.
The UK introduced many important advancements to their country. So did many colonialists on the host countries.
And india, despite all its own proud cultural heritage and beauty... it too had dark shadows of its own.
It's not simply, the foreign oppressor abused the innocent victims. Indian culture enslaved and oppressed plenty on its own through its deplorable caste system.
And what you will find is in fact, that many of these countries had a recent history of slavery all on their own, in fact much much more than the West ever had.
Actually, even though the West exploited these countries in some form or another, it often ended their own oppressive slavery of others meanwhile, and the periods of exploitation were much shorter than theirs.
If slavery and exploitation is all there is to our success, why did other countries not benefit of it like the West? Not even close to our success?
In fact communism were ALL about slave labour, its entire economy depended on exploitation of others. And the West had its greatest periods of growth when they were at their lowest of it.
Exploitation and slavery does not at all explain the success of the West, as it doesn't explain why those others couldn't succeed more on their own by doing it themselves before.
And it alone does not explain why some countries are more successful than others. Other countries decided to learn more than others. From their oppressors, not in opposite spite to them.

The important point I'm trying to make is, that what holds these people back most, is the perpetuation of grievances in the population, by Socialists or Nationalists or other fundamentalists.
So these countries that bounced back have a lot in common. They already had an educated populace with the technical know how and on the ground experience to rebuild quickly and efficiently. They also had functioning non-corrupt governments. They also were not centrally managed like the USSR/China were. Though the centrally managed nature of the USSR did work very well in WW2, where if you really look at it they were basically going 1v1 with Germany and winning. We don't really like to acknowledge it but the war was truly mostly between Russia and Germany.

The colony countries essentially just had a bunch of uneducated people who could do manual labor/farming, and a history of corrupt government. Or they were sitting on tons of unexploited resources and they did not have an educated populace capable of exploiting those resources. Also the companies that came in to exploit them took advantage of the corruption and lack of sophistication in their own governments to export tons of their wealth.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM.