On "uncivilized savages"

[Smoother]

On 5/3/2019 at 10:16 PM, travsformation said:

Facts are as subjective as belief. Objective data will always be interpreted (and made to fit into) based on one''s beliefs.

I don't understand where this statement comes from.  Did you read the article in the link?  Two researches (a married couple) accidentally realize their two unrelated professional data sets (re-housed Section 8 renters, and violent crime reports) have an almost perfect correlation across hundreds of data point. Neither was trying to prove a biased theory finding, they just both were in the habit of bringing their (completely different) work, home, and noticed the correlation. Nothing needed to be "interpreted" or made to "fit", it just fit.  There were no "beliefs" being proved.

I believe there is a growing tendency on the forum to dismiss everything Langham writes, simple because it is controversial, and sometimes derogatory. I have had issues with his statements too.  But,  if you separate  the derogatory statements from the uncomfortable ones, you might see that he often supports his arguments with multiple scholarly reports or journalistic reports reporting on scholarly reports.  I too question some of his statements, but after reading some or all of the accompanying links, my skepticism is often quashed, sometimes despite me not wanting it to be, because it runs contrary to my beliefs.

Watch out for beliefs folks, beliefs are behind so much violence and death in the world.  I try not to have any beliefs, because beliefs are just opinions wrapped up in some form of entrenched dogma. And you know what they say about opinions.

I think the curse of political correctness has spread too far.  People are afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of being shouted down (not just here), even if they can provide data that supports their view.

Over 1,500 under age girls paid for political correctness here in England, in the town of Wrotherham.  They paid by being repeatedly raped and abused by men of Parkistani background and by default Muslim.  There I said it.  But It's not opinion, it's fact. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46222421

If you don't have time to read the article or view the pictures of these handsome devils, here's a quote:

"A trial heard one girl had been sexually abused by "at least 100 Asian men" by the time she was 16, while another described being passed around.

The men, who are all of British Pakistani heritage, targeted and groomed the girls, who were aged between 13 and 16, over seven years between 1998 and 2005.

In a victim impact statement, one of the girls said: "I feel like I'm constantly fighting to get justice for what they did to me. I hope the court realises these men have destroyed me."

"Some parts of me can never be fixed."

Why did these children pay the price of PC?  They paid because the police, realizing the Parkistani connection early on, were afraid of acting on the mounting number of rape reports, for fear of having to  report the "race" angle.  Well guess what, there already was a race angle.  Young white girls were being systematically groomed and raped by gangs of Pakistani men.  And Wrotherham was not the only town where this was happening.  Over 16 towns have or are still investigating grooming and systematic rape of under age girls by gangs of Asian men.

Rape victims never really recover and a significant number commit suicide somewhere down the line.  Political correctness kills.  Rape is effectively attempted murder, and I believe it should be sentenced in court the same way.  Why, because it is well documented in the medical research that rape victims attempt and succeed at commit suicide at a higher rate than the general public. So if you know that, and you rape someone, you are effectively agreeing that your actions might eventually cause their death.

Accidentally I seem to have come back around to the concept of "uncivilized savages" even though I was just searching for an example of how political correctness is harming the world. Would anyone not agree these Asian gangs are anything but?

Don't ignore the data folks, just because you are not the ones being hurt by it, or because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[LanghamP]

31 minutes ago, Smoother said:

believe there is a growing tendency on the forum to dismiss everything Langham writes, simple because it is controversial, and sometimes derogatory. I have had issues with his statements too.  But,  if you separate  the derogatory statements from the uncomfortable ones, you might see that he often supports his arguments with multiple scholarly reports or journalistic reports reporting on scholarly reports.  I too question some of his statements, but after reading some or all of the accompanying links, my skepticism is often quashed, sometimes despite me not wanting it to be, because it runs contrary to my beliefs.

Aw that's the nicest thing someone has said to me recently. Give me a non-gay man-hug.

I saw the Rotherdam documentary on Netflix, although I had read about it on and off throughout the years. I don't have a problem at all with young girls with older men simply because such relationships seem very low-key. Twenty years ago in the US it seemed perfectly normal, desired even, as the girl's parents knew damned well that an established older male was a valuable catch.

These aren't relationships, though. They're simply money making machines, with the attentive male as the bait and the drugs the constraints. This seems such an evil thing to do, and while I would expect a scientific society to spot the threat and implement a solution, no such solution is forthcoming.

Is politically correct thought so strong that is puts a gigantic hole in one's mind?

[Smoother]

On 5/5/2019 at 3:48 AM, LanghamP said:

Is politically correct thought so strong that is puts a gigantic hole in one's mind?

No. But I think it puts a giant muzzle on people who see that the emperor is wearing no clothes.  Then when something horrific become the new norm, people ask why didn't we see this coming.  Some of us did, we just weren't allowed to talk about it.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Smoother

[stephenbadger]

It was irritating to be told by "friends" that the hooded maori teenager that recently tried to stab me with his knife when he discovered me alone in the park at 10.30pm "didn't really mean it" hahaha! ...only in New Zealand will you hear such absolute twaddle voiced by adults.

 Here in NZ it is politically- correct & poolice standard procedure to prosecute the victim if the criminal is injured during the crime, so ordinary sheep are confused & sadly even in "denial" ...maori culture applauds scams, that's just a "fact" hence the old NZ saying "cunning as a maori dog" (don't take your eye off the sunday roast) and yesterday, when l asked if the scammer that used a stolen credit-card & false ID to wheel a brand-new minimotors DUALTRON e-scooter out of an agents shop was maori, l was fed "there is no profit in disclosing the con-artists race" which is true enough, lol

In earlier times & up until the 1960s the accepted definition of "uncivilised savage" was unequivocally an unambiguous unrepentant "cannibal" ...when the practice of eating your enemies & victims was more or less discontinued by the 60s, those particular governments (never let the facts get in the way of the truth) policies has been to politically-correct/rewrite/readjust/whitewash history in our schools & media which has resulted in the term being applied in ignorance to a multitude of unrelated applications ...similar examples are "bob's your uncle" "codd's wallop" ...the english language is always borrowing, changing & adapting.

2 cents worth

[travsformation]

On 5/5/2019 at 3:39 AM, Smoother said:

On 5/3/2019 at 11:16 PM, travsformation said:

Facts are as subjective as belief. Objective data will always be interpreted (and made to fit into) based on one''s beliefs.

I don't understand where this statement comes from.  Did you read the article in the link?

I should have phrased that as "facts can sometimes be as subjective as beliefs". But actually, no, I started reading the BBC article first, saw the time, made supper, and replied afterwards, and completely forgot about the rest of the article (and the other link). Simple forgetfulness....the 3 or 4 glasses of wine I had...or perhaps a subconscious will to dismiss the articles out of lack of interest in the subject...? Perhaps a combination of the second two options...

On 5/5/2019 at 3:39 AM, Smoother said:

I believe there is a growing tendency on the forum to dismiss everything Langham writes, simple because it is controversial, and sometimes derogatory. I have had issues with his statements too.  But,  if you separate  the derogatory statements from the uncomfortable ones, you might see that he often supports his arguments with multiple scholarly reports or journalistic reports reporting on scholarly reports.  I too question some of his statements, but after reading some or all of the accompanying links, my skepticism is often quashed, sometimes despite me not wanting it to be, because it runs contrary to my beliefs.

I agree about certain (or a lot of) comments being derogatory (which is why I started this thread), but haven't been around the forums/interacted with Langham long enough to notice the dismissal you mention. My reason for dismissing Langham's arguments is quite different: lack of courtesy. Or in other words, he entirely ignores (not dismisses, but entirely ignores) all of my arguments, disregards the different variables, nuances and complexities I bring up, and from my (subjective) perspective, "hijacks" the conversation and directs it towards where he wants it to go without taking into account anything anyone else says. Personally, I find that quite rude, and after a lengthier discussion than this subject merited, I feel it's justified to be equally dismissive. In fact, I'm not even sure why I replied to his last post in the first place, as my "Canada border post" was simply meant as a provocative joke in reply to his previous sarcastic comment--I didn't expect it to be taken seriously. Which probably explains why I didn't particularly fancy further delving into the subject after that...

In any case, it's not the content of the conversation that turned me off, but the undiplomatic, unfiltered (as in tactless), and often somewhat hostile and downright rude tone...

I have no issue with accepting uncomfortable facts that run contrary to my beliefs (although I don't feel I need to prove that to anyone; knowing it is enough for me), and am not as politically correct as you might think (Ricky Gervais, Louis CK and Anthony Jeselnik are among my favourite stand-up comedians, if that's any indication ). But I do believe there's a difference between PC and tact. It just annoys me when people are unnecessarily disrespectful ("Is politically correct thought so strong that is puts a gigantic hole in one's mind?"), when a perfectly amicable debate could be had regardless of how far apart different points of view are, and I quickly lose interest.

The subjects you and @stephenbadger have brought to the discussion (from my point of view, in a less adamant and more neutral, productive way), on the other hand, and just as importantly, HOW you've done so (respectfully as opposed to mockingly; taking your time to lay out your perspective, wording it in a tactful way), are a whole different story. You've piqued my interest in the subject again, and more importantly, changed the tone to one that's much more conducive to an actual (amicable) debate.

In any case, I did read the comments above (thanks for the summary of the article, Smoother, I am in fact pretty overwhelmed with work lately and shouldn't even be taking the time to write this post in the first place), and will read the article (as well as Langham's) and happily join the discussion again as soon as I have the time, as you make some very good points, almost all of which I agree with.

But my quick 2 cents, until I can afford to explain further: our societies need to strike a better balance between PC and calling things what they are, but they seem to have swayed from one extreme (the derogatory and offensive, colonial-style treatment of racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, etc.) to the other (muzzle-mode, as you called it). I guess it'll take time until a reasonable balance is eventually reached, but there's definitely value in both camps, if both are applied with common sense and moderation (aka replacing derogatory terms and attitudes with straightforward, no-bullshit, but non-offensive ones, and over-the-top PC with plain old respect).

 

[Smoother]

Or maybe we could drop it altogether and focus on EUC stuff (and sheep)

[travsformation]

16 hours ago, Smoother said:

Or maybe we could drop it altogether and focus on EUC stuff (and sheep)

Good point. I'll take a "Sheep are not like dogs" thread over crime statistics and articles on rape any day of the week! Now THAT has piqued my curiosity! And I'm pretty sure it makes for MUCH Smoother® reading... 

 

[Dingfelder]

On 5/4/2019 at 9:18 PM, stephenbadger said:

It was irritating to be told by "friends" that the hooded maori teenager that recently tried to stab me with his knife when he discovered me alone in the park at 10.30pm "didn't really mean it" hahaha! ...only in New Zealand will you hear such absolute twaddle voiced by adults.

 Here in NZ it is politically- correct & poolice standard procedure to prosecute the victim if the criminal is injured during the crime, so ordinary sheep are confused & sadly even in "denial" ...maori culture applauds scams, that's just a "fact" hence the old NZ saying "cunning as a maori dog" (don't take your eye off the sunday roast) and yesterday, when l asked if the scammer that used a stolen credit-card & false ID to wheel a brand-new minimotors DUALTRON e-scooter out of an agents shop was maori, l was fed "there is no profit in disclosing the con-artists race" which is true enough, lol

In earlier times & up until the 1960s the accepted definition of "uncivilised savage" was unequivocally an unambiguous unrepentant "cannibal" ...when the practice of eating your enemies & victims was more or less discontinued by the 60s, those particular governments (never let the facts get in the way of the truth) policies has been to politically-correct/rewrite/readjust/whitewash history in our schools & media which has resulted in the term being applied in ignorance to a multitude of unrelated applications ...similar examples are "bob's your uncle" "codd's wallop" ...the english language is always borrowing, changing & adapting.

2 cents worth

I am intrigued by this post but don't understand it. Perhaps too much insider baseball with the assumption everyone follows the game and knows the stats?  I can assure you most people around the world have zero or effectively zero understanding of anything relating to New Zealand.  It is an extremely large world.

Care to explain?  I ask because I am legit curious.  You are saying cannibalism was going on up to or into the 60's in New Zealand?  And that those phrases -- none of which as an American i have any acquaintance with outside the extraordinarily rare hearing -- are from NZ?  And maybe related to cannabalism?  Please explain.  This is simply outside the cultural ken of most people, though it might seem so familiar to you as to perhaps seem to go without saying.

[stephenbadger]

Hi Ding, when l was a child l knew a young man called Boing, who was fathered by an american soldier.

Yes, l know most people are "pig-ignorant" about NZ ...but l assure you this planet won't be big enough for them for much longer.

l did NOT say cannibalism was going on up to or into the 60's in New Zealand ...if l thought you were a "troll" l wouldn't bother to respond, but you only get one break.

Cannibalism was very reluctantly discontinued in NZ by about 1879, when the last rebel Te Kooti (Te Kooti's War) was  pardoned in 1883 & allowed to retire.

Te Kooti was fond of sending runners to his friends carrying 4 gallon kerosene tin's full of cooked european flesh topped-up with fat to preserve it.

Those 2 phases are english "quips" ...[bob's your uncle] refers to a famous 1887 case of english nepotism ...[codd's wallop] refers to Hiram Codd's invention of marble-stoppered bottled fizzy soft drinks (soda's) ...wallop was a slang word for beer.

"long pig" is the South Pacific Region description for human meat for consumption ...everyone ate people extending from Papua, New Guinea (PNG) and all the way around the pacific ocean islands to the Hawaiian Islands with only very rare exceptions ...2 or 3 by my count.

l don't know what they call human flesh for eating in Africa ...probably 'dinner'  ...human flesh tastes like pork, but it's sweeter & delicious ...practicing cannibals usually refused pointblank to stop ...a notable exception is Samoa which stopped the practice when asked the very first time.

...roasting hands & feet on sharp sticks over a fire was common, knocking a stray girl on the head & butchering her carcass for lunch was normal, killing 120 enemies or 50 slaves for a feast was, when asked by a journalist "what of it ?? ...it was our custom"

 

ps. l had a look & noticed a report that cannibalism continued in the Pacific Region right up to 1974, which was later than my early research (pre-internet) had turned up ...if you or anyone is interested in learning more about this very politically-incorrect subject, simply type "polynesian cannibalism" into your search engine & have a good poke around ...there are a number of other sources ie. newspaper logs, govt, historical societies (journals & memoirs), etc etc BUT start there & you will end up everywhere, lol ...what occurred on the Chatham Islands to genocide/extinct the Moriori people was unforgivable in its savagery, BUT  is simply one recorded example of a huge number of others stretching back into prehistory.

Edited May 19, 2019 by stephenbadger
2 cents worth

[Dingfelder]

On 5/4/2019 at 9:18 PM, stephenbadger said:

It was irritating to be told by "friends" that the hooded maori teenager that recently tried to stab me with his knife when he discovered me alone in the park at 10.30pm "didn't really mean it" hahaha! ...only in New Zealand will you hear such absolute twaddle voiced by adults.

 Here in NZ it is politically- correct & poolice standard procedure to prosecute the victim if the criminal is injured during the crime, so ordinary sheep are confused & sadly even in "denial" ...maori culture applauds scams, that's just a "fact" hence the old NZ saying "cunning as a maori dog" (don't take your eye off the sunday roast) and yesterday, when l asked if the scammer that used a stolen credit-card & false ID to wheel a brand-new minimotors DUALTRON e-scooter out of an agents shop was maori, l was fed "there is no profit in disclosing the con-artists race" which is true enough, lol

In earlier times & up until the 1960s the accepted definition of "uncivilised savage" was unequivocally an unambiguous unrepentant "cannibal" ...when the practice of eating your enemies & victims was more or less discontinued by the 60s, those particular governments (never let the facts get in the way of the truth) policies has been to politically-correct/rewrite/readjust/whitewash history in our schools & media which has resulted in the term being applied in ignorance to a multitude of unrelated applications ...similar examples are "bob's your uncle" "codd's wallop" ...the english language is always borrowing, changing & adapting.

2 cents worth

This sounds a lot like Micronesia and Hawaii where I was raised, actually.  Racial violence (I'm not even allowed to say racist anymore) was common and approved and excused.

[Dingfelder]

18 hours ago, stephenbadger said:

Hi Ding, when l was a child l knew a young man called Boing, who was fathered by an american soldier.

What about him?  I am confused.

l did NOT say cannibalism was going on up to or into the 60's in New Zealand ...if l thought you were a "troll" l wouldn't bother to respond, but you only get one break.

I wasn't asking for a break and don't know what would be the point of one?  I'm not asking for one now.  Your post is confusing to me and seems contradictory.

In earlier times & up until the 1960s the accepted definition of "uncivilised savage" was unequivocally an unambiguous unrepentant "cannibal" ...when the practice of eating your enemies & victims was more or less discontinued by the 60s...

I'm only responding to what you said here.  If you meant elsewhere besides New Zealand, I guess I misunderstood.  But it sounds like you want to hold a gun to my head because of it.  What gives?

I did enjoy the history lesson otherwise.  In fact I just bought a book on cannibalism last week, but haven't cracked it yet.  I had no idea Hawaiians were cannibals, though I knew the Pacific was so full of cannibals that sailors might risk death rather than seek shores there. A book that in part discusses it is the recounting of the original episode that inspired Moby Dick, "In the Heart of the Sea" by Nathan Philbrick.  I've read about cannibalism throughout the American Southwest and putatively wider in North America and central America, as well as elsewhere, but, as stated, am not knowledgeable about New Zealand.  I doubt I ever intend to be, but I wasn't trying to yank your chain somehow. 

[Smoother]

FYI both "cods wallop" and "bob's your uncle" are clearly defined via a Google search, as are ANY unfamiliar terms, phases, euphemisms, colloquialisms, etc, etc.  If in doubt, Google it; that's what I do. 

[travsformation]

1 hour ago, Smoother said:

If in doubt, Google it; that's what I do.

 

Oxford dictionary definition:

 

 

Urban dictionary definition:

 

 

 

P.S. I was entirely unaware of the urban dictionary definition until today

P.P.S. Sorry, was just too hard to resist...

Edited May 19, 2019 by travsformation