ScottSA

Gosh, that sounds bigoted. Or should I say "racist?"

If only one Scotsman shagged a sheep, I don't expect it would be a topic of polite conversation at all, on either the right of the left. However, since many Scotsman shag sheep, one may use heuristics and declare that Scotsman shag sheep. If it appears that many Scotsmen shag sheep while most or many more cheer on the sheep shaggers, or secretly loath sheep and wish they would all be shagged, or better yet turned into mutton chops, or even better turned into Scotsmen, then we have a problem. Or at least sheep have a problem. The solutions are manyfold; probably the best being to stop inviting Scotsmen to sheep farms, and lay down the law to the Scotsmen who insist upon visiting. The solution most certainly isn't to invite MORE Scotsmen to sheep farms while celebrating their diversity and customs, now is it?

Wanna play dueling IQs?

This is one of the most ridiculous and overblown diatribes ever to grace this board. Men beating their wives? Starving them? WTF? What does this have to do with dragging Norway's economy through the mud in the name of "gender equity?"

The "conservative base" doesn't debate itself, it debates the left, and just about anything works against the left, because emotion holds by far the higher place in the leftist pantheon than in the "conservative base," which tends to hold rationality in higher esteem. That's why the left assumes without thinking that "racism" means whatever one feels they should mean, while the right points out that the term is a derivative of "race," and much therefore refer to things racial. Another hallmark of the left is that it assumes that all bigotry is wrong, thereby switching bigotries from discriminatory to anti-discriminatory. If, for example, it comes to light on the left that all Scotsmen don't shag sheep, the left siezes the assumption that no Scotsman ever shags sheep, and announces that anyone who claims Scotsmen shag sheep is a "bigot." Or, apparently in light of this thread, a "racist."

Actually, I try not to. Do you find them exciting? I just thought that as long as we're going to engage in definition expansion, we might as well expand the bejesus out of every ism in sight.

Let's change the word 'feminist' so it refers to the empowerment of cats! And what about "ageist?" Why shouldn't it refer to one legged folks too; after all, some of them are old and others are young!

Did you miss the "visible" bit? It's actually the core of my post, so it's odd that you'd miss it twice running...

You didn't read my post very carefully, did you?

Those are policies aimed at keeping national resources under the control of nationals, and there's a good, if not entirely defensible, reason for it. There is nothing remotely redeeming about this gender-based nonsense. It will do nothing to further the cause of "gender equalization," even if that was a admirable aim, and it's not; all it will do is make a lucky couple of women rich for doing absolutely nothing.

Your gut feeling is quite likely correct. When "visible minorities" come to foreign shores, they do it with the expectation that it will be a benefit to acclimatize and change. I know we did when we moved to India. It's apparently when a critical mass is reached that insularity begins. The "Chinese laundry" in every western town was never an issue, and even "Chinatowns" and Little [insert visible minority]s in large cities are not remarkable, but when enough people of a given race or religion congregate in large enough numbers, it seems the muscle flexing begins. The fact that such groups are actually encouraged to do so by policies of official multiculturalism naturally makes things worse and probably lowers the critical numbers threshold, but the argument that brooks no opposition in western society today is the "rights" argument. They have a "right" to live in a country more to their liking...why should they, a generation later, still have to acclimatize? The factor that seems to make the difference is the 'visible' aspect. Scotsmen no longer feel the need to shag sheep, Ukrainians no longer hitch the wife to plows, and Irish no longer drink too mu...well, anyway... But that's because a few generations on, no one knows the difference anymore. That was never going to be the case with Asian immigration; a policy embarked on with a great deal of hope that society would turn colorblind. Unfortunately while most of the welcoming society seems to be more or less colorblind, few of the visible minorities are. That, I suspect, more than any newlyfound allegiance to a psychotic thug, is why second gen Muslims are regressing into the sociopathy of Islam. Naturally, anyone who is not a visible minority who points this out is immediately branded a racist and so on, but the facts pretty much speak for themselves. And all the arguments for the muscle flexing are "valid," according to the lexicon of 21st century western society. Which leaves the only 'cure' to be a radical slowdown of immigration, in hopes that it's not too late.

I find "European" to be offensive. And "white" causes great angst. "Whitey" devalues me as a human being. I'd like to be called "Scottish," and more than that, I'd like to be called "Hiland Scottish," because we are the fighters, unlike ye lowland sassnatch loovers, ken? But since I'm not strictly Scottish, removed by several generations, I'd like to be called "Dispossessed Hiland Scottish Red River Settler who moved to BC." That name, and only that name, will allow me to flower as a fully potentialized human being.

You're a smart guy, but this sort of nonsense belies it.

You should read Theodore Dalrymple's "In Praise of Prejudice," and you'll see why that kind of radical atomization is not only impossible but undesireable.

Including piles of ashes?

Nazism is just another credo. Alarmist arguments have been used against other credos in the past, they're nothing new. Your post is a good example of how the rush to embrace anything requires that you ignore even bogeymen. See how empty your words are Mikey? Everything is "just another" anything. Communism is just another political system...Islam is just another religion...Attila the Hun is just another barbarian; but the problem is, Mikey, that the differences you so blithely gloss over involve the deaths of thousands and millions, and untold misery for millions and even billions. Islam has shown its colours...Europe is only now starting to wake up to the threat. So-called "moderate" Muslims are actively working to abolish, piece by piece, the framework of the European Enlightenment. As we speak they are demanding that Europe revise its already harsh laws against free speech to encompass "Islamophobia" as well. Islam is not "just another religion" anymore than communism or nazism are "just another" political systems.

I see we've retreated from "racist" to "bigoted". Please define "bigoted."

Not that it matters, but I use the phrase "little brown people" to mock the lilly white liberal paternalism so reekingly apparent among champagne liberals that they don't even smell it anymore.

Why, that's exactly what I found too. I guess Jazzer has a "special" understanding of how to read text as well. Not that it matters a whit even if some dictionary included kumquats and gheckos in the definition, because the term is fairly exclusionary.

I don't suppose you see the irony of this post.

Sooner or later, the Left is going to have to decide which is more important, proving they each can survive and hobble along individually in a Conservative Majority, or the Environment. Until the left jumps off the bandwagon of a fabricated issue, it's going to be in trouble.

I don't think that's the issue. Israeli isn't claiming the right to decide. It's just bombing a reactor in Syria.

It's not written in German. Never was. Can't imagine what you're talking about.

You have much to learn about the partition of India before displaying the type of anti-British hatred so typical of the unthinking left.