According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because of colonialism and slavery

Mate have you ever been to the Balkans? It's pretty much the Africa of Europe.

> They are

lol they aren't.

They have quite the low crime rate overall, very low homicide and rape stats and drug use is similar as in western Europe.

> Mate have you ever been to the Balkans? It's pretty much the Africa of Europe.

I like how the crime rates and intentional homicide rates are higher in France than in basically everywhere in the Balkans outside Kosovo.

Hungary is a moral and intellectual cesspit with slave mentality
t. Hungarian

>According to [unrealistic interlocutor I invented in my head] the reason [divisive, unsubstantiated claim] is because of [extremely general term].

>So how come [absolutely terrible example that suggests nothing or even the complete opposite of original claim]?

145 replies / 27 images

would rather live in kenya than serbia tbqh

>So how come Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and other victims of centuries of Ottoman slavery and colonialism aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape?
Bad example.

But seriously, they're very rough around the edges, but not black tier. Hungarians are fairly civilised. Pot bellied drunks, but civilised.

>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because of colonialism and slavery.

Source? I am a liberal yet I didn't know I thought this way

first post best post

thats because niggers

It's race, OP. Sub-Saharan Africans are much more predisposed to all of those.

Looking at stats, at home and in diaspora, it fully confirms your point. Even people from countries like Albania (which are catching up), let alone Cyprus and Greece.

>Balkanshits aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape
Nigga have you ever met anyone from those countries? Slav memes don't come from nowhere
Hell I dated a Bulgarian chick for a while and even I'll admit they're all a bunch of retards

He's completely right, even if he were 'joking'. This thread just skirts around confronting his question via ridiculous deflection/memes.

Ottomans didn't colonise their territory, they just administrated them terribly

>eastern europe

>not prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape

It depends on what you mean with "colonizing territory" but there are Anatolian Turkish minorities left in various places in the Balkans, even after plenty of population exchanges, war and exile. They did colonize strategic areas of the territory they expanded to to better control it.

>why isn't anybody addressing racial pseudo facts in my shitposting? is it because they're true and no one wants to admit it?

no, it's because nobody is interested in trying to have a discussion with an obvious moron who's clearly made up his mind on the topic and just wants to stir up shit

both of the functional predicates in OP are beyond retarded, there's nothing even worth addressing. trying to compare the processes of both colonization and decolonization in the former Ottoman Empire versus sub-Saharan Africa is a meaningless exercise here.

> eastern europe
> illiteracy
EE here, perfectly comfortable with three languages. Are you retarded?

He's completely right, one just needs to learn something about our current understanding of behavioral genetics to appreciate that.

By the way, one could as easily claim "you've made up your mind on this". It's a non-argument.

We'll keep hearing about colonialism forever, of course even though it's provably not a real factor in those disparities.

I concur.

>colonialism is provably not a real factor in the current situation in Africa
>our current understanding of behavioral genetics proves that Africans are just stupid

bring out the big list of links, my guy

I don't need to, this thread is a dumpster fire, even if OP's post was inflammatory in the first place.

Read something about the heritability of personality characteristics though and look at crime rates of various immigrants in EU countries (since African countries have no trustworthy crime data).

Get ready for those 3 or 4 papers that one white supremacist in minnesota group did

>do my research for me
>but by the way, check out how the latest immigrant populations are disproportionately criminal, unlike all those previous immigrant populations

you're part of the reason it's a shitpit

Read it, it's inconclusive garbage like most (even modern) genetics is.

You have a pop-sci at best understanding of genetics if you actually believe that finally "proves niggers are subhuman" or whatever. Back to /pol/ now.

The premise of the question itself is flawed. "If X are retarded, how come Y aren't?", when Y are in fact also retarded. I never denied that Sub-Saharan Africans have all those problems with crime etc.
The problem with people like OP is they can't see the wood for the trees. Claiming that blacks have so many social problems in Africa and the US simply because they have black skin just doesn't make any sense to me. It makes more sense to me to factor in all the socioeconomic, historical and cultural factors at play.

In a nutshell, if you treat people like shit for hundreds of years of course they're gonna end up fucked up. But if the reason you were treating them like shit was simply for the colour of their skin, you can't turn around and say they're only fucked up because of their skin and not how you treated them. That's some serious mental gymnastics. You're just trying to justify a means by which to continue treating them poorly and/or returning more concretely to a system of social stratification with whites on top and blacks on the bottom.

So we're just going to ignore the fact that for a very long time teaching black slaves in America was a serious crime? That slaves were malnourished on purpose? That alot of black people were imprisoned or executed by mobs for trumpted up crimes? We're just going to ignore those points?

...

Underrated thread

I didn't ask you to do my research for me. I already know what the research shows about behavior and its relationship to genetics. You don't. And I'm talking about recent immigrants of similar socioeconomic status from various parts of the world.

It's very conclusive but you can't understand it.

I also mentioned nothing about "subhumans". It's a fact that human populations differ a lot on various characteristics due to genetics, though.

>when Y are in fact also retarded

It isn't when Y are actually much less "retarded" and both have gone through colonialism. I've actually looked deeply into immigrant and national crime rates and didn't stick to memes.

>simply because they have black skin

Why does everyone keep talking about skin? Genetics doesn't concern just skin, you know, it also concerns personality characteristics and the like. Oh, nevermind, people are just clueless and repeat the usual nonsense.

>I don't hate niggers cos they're black, I hate them cos they act like niggers
Great argument

>I've never travelled outside my basement and I get all my information about the outside world from /pol/; the post

>guy X is shorter than guy Y
>why do you hate guy X

No one wrote anything about "hate". Stop projecting.

Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that someone who devotes his time and energy to denigrating the black race on imageboards isn't a racist.

>I didn't ask you to do my research for me. I already know what the research shows about behavior and its relationship to genetics. You don't. And I'm talking about recent immigrants of similar socioeconomic status from various parts of the world.
>I don't have to explain why I'm right, I already know I'm right and if your opinions were as well-researched as mine then you'd already agree with me.

>It's very conclusive but you can't understand it.
>And if you did do my research and still disagree, it's because you didn't understand the data. Trust me. The facts are all there, they're just being suppressed by the liberal scientific journals.

>I also mentioned nothing about "subhumans". It's a fact that human populations differ a lot on various characteristics due to genetics, though.
>I never said the word "subhumans", I just classified certain groups of people and suggested that some of those groups have an inherent predisposition towards overwhelmingly negative or destructive traits.

>It isn't when Y are actually much less "retarded" and both have gone through colonialism. I've actually looked deeply into immigrant and national crime rates and didn't stick to memes.
>Listen bud, colonialism = colonialism in all contexts, doesn't matter who did it, where they did it, or how they did it. I should know; I've visited a lot of websites posted on Veeky Forums.org

>Why does everyone keep talking about skin? Genetics doesn't concern just skin, you know, it also concerns personality characteristics and the like. Oh, nevermind, people are just clueless and repeat the usual nonsense.
>Listen, I'm not saying black people are stupid and violent because they're black. I'm saying black people are stupid and violent because it's inevitable given their genes and the shape of their skulls.

Yeah dude. This thread wouldn't be so shitty if everyone were just more like you. Then we could post some WE WUZ KANGZ memes and talk about alternate histories where Germany wins WW2.

It's universally academically accepted that the human brain is capable of dealing with the same tasks just as efficiently whether it belongs to a man or a woman or a person with whatever colour.
So yes, it only makes sense to assume that all these statistics and factors and crime rates are attributed to the blatant history of oppression that blacks have faced.
We refer to blacks and latinos and chinks as "races" but in reality blacks and whites belong to the same race; that is the human one.

There's no substantial biological differences between us to classify blacks as another race, hence claiming that they are intrinsically less intelligent just goes on to show that you need to either restrict yourself to /pol/ or leave it once and for all.

I didn't denigrate anyone, unlike many other posters in this thread. Why not direct all this nonsense towards them, then? Maybe you have a certain agenda.

Why are you so proud of knowing nothing of behavioral genetics? By the way, papers are already coming out with robust associations of certain alleles with certain personality characteristics and IQ and let's say, the genetic potential of certain populations is exactly as you'd expect.

And yes, populations will have differences in certain characteristics that go well beyond skin color. If you find this a reason to hate a whole group of people, it's your prerogative.

I suggest not keeping your head in the sand much longer, these facts will eventually become commonly accepted as they are more and more conclusively proven and people who think you're bound to hate someone if you believe that will be in an uncomfortable position.

>in reality blacks and whites belong to the same race; that is the human one

Oh ok, you were just baiting.

Read some of Gottfredson's and Plomin's papers on these issues if you're genuinely interested, though.

What if I'm a liberal who believes that black people are genetically disabled?

If you really believe that black people are "stupid," or more "stupid" than white people, why do you think that gives you the right to look down upon them and abuse them? Is that how you treat mentally disabled people? Faggot.

Serb here.

OP, while we may do well on those metrics we were and continue to be undeniably fucked by Ottoman rule.

We never went through the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, and our literary and artistic contributions for five fucking centuries are close to none.

The Ottoman legacy is one of the absolute worst form of (non-totalitarian) government: a society that expects the government to do anything and everything, a lack of democratic culture, clientelism and political machines as deeply entrenched parts of the system, and monstrously corrupt local government (far more so than the national one, in fact, I know several politicians on all levels and I've been told point blank "I prefer to stay on the municipality level because there's a lot less oversight and I can take more"). All of these come from the idiotic Ottoman practice of decentralized autocracy - the Sultan wasn't a constitutional monarch by any means, but due to the size of the empire he delegated a lot of power to provincial governors who often pursued their own agendas.

Not to mention the fact that the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo wouldn't exist without them.

Yes, we aren't illiterate now, but that's 100% due to education-heavy socialist policies. In the early 20th century literacy was practically at medieval levels.

So, OP, please don't use the Balkans as an example of how you can bounce back from centuries of imperialism, because we still haven't managed to. And likely never will.

Greece is safer than the UK imo, I've hiked across the Peloponnese and did a summer at the British School in Athens.

70% of Greek jails are foreigners.

>both of the functional predicates in OP are beyond retarded, there's nothing even worth addressing. trying to compare the processes of both colonization and decolonization in the former Ottoman Empire versus sub-Saharan Africa is a meaningless exercise here.

If you actually want to get into the distinctions, the Europeans left way, way more infrastructure and capital equipment in SSA than the Turds did in the Balkans. Remember that the Turds actually allowed lands to go OUT of cultivation that had been in cultivation in the Byzantine period.

Then they're literally the Africa of Europe.

>Read it, it's inconclusive garbage like most (even modern) genetics is.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/

Heritability of g is well established.

>that for a very long time teaching black slaves in America was a serious crime?

And you people have the audacity to complain about beigeman's nonsensical assertions.

What's next:

>"SSAs actually had a really humane form of slavery! That's why you can't say there is moral equivalence between Eurofags and Africans! What? Primary sources? What are those?"

It's astonishing to me you have Turks who unironically believe the Christian subject peoples of the Empire "betrayed" them and owed them loyalty in the first place.

Really. Turks unironically believe this.

>Is that how you treat mentally disabled people? Faggot.

You already treat them that way. If a black person comes on public transport and starts acting obnoxious it's just expected of him. If a black person can string a sentence together without resorting to ebonics, libs will say he's "smart". If he can get a research degree, he's the greatest genius since Newton (Black Science Man).

See, I'm the one who's been arguing all this time against the posters who know very little about genetics, heritability and how people of different backgrounds seem to behave in the same countries and my thought process is rarely like that.

When it comes to individuals, I treat them as individuals and don't let my prejudices take over too much.

But facts are still facts, they can't be waved away with shitposting and making inane, sarcastic arguments.

History/gender studies everyone

The reason no one is taking you seriously in this thread is that you've taken some outdated, flavor-of-the-month theories from nature.com and extrapolated them to say that OP is correct in asserting that people of African descent are "dumb" and "prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape". You're justifying this leap using classic hallmarks of pseudo-science like crime statistics and national IQ. If the Roman's had magazines with articles about behavioral genetics in them, what do you think they'd be saying about Germania people?

It's pure techne. You've asserted the primacy of one discipline and hand-waved or cherry-picked the rest so you can arrive where you want to arrive.

Poverty and WE WUZ ism are problems, the other ones aren't, check the statistics. Also illiteracy was a big thing in the early 20th century, it isn't now.
Also, curiously they're heavy smokers.

Individuals are part of groups. If enough individuals of group X move to my nation to be demographically significant, they invariably alter the body politic and start to influence it in ways that are not advantageous to group Y (the natives). See: Muslims of South Asian and Maghrebi descent in Western Europe.

>You've asserted the primacy of one discipline

Humans are bipedal apes. There's nothing "sacred" about our lives, we're not born with "inalienable rights", we're just bipedal apes with a few more amino acids in the places it counts (e.g. communication related alleles). As a result, the study of what forms us into who we are is going to place a huge emphasis on both genes and environment. The problem is, like most shitlibs, you de facto discount the former whenever it comes to topics that are politically uncomfortable for you.

Anyone else notice shitlibs were happy to accept gays are fags because of "genes" but engage in the exact same sort of genetic denialism to deny the heritability of things they don't want to be genetic like aggression and intelligence?

Well, maybe the people of Germania at that point in time were kinda dumb, we'll never find out. Selection never stops. We're talking about the present where there's good data about all this.

Again, read some Plomin and Gottfredson, it's cutting-edge and robust, the opposite of your "outdated, flavor-of-the-month" ascriptions.

I don't care if people who know nothing about this don't take me seriously, though they should since these ideas will become commonly accepted in a generation.

Every country has idiotic nationalists. Serbian ones are meme-famous.

I must admit, even viewed through the lens of nationalism which is ridiculous, the Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish state, Royal Ottoman Turkish was practically unintelligible to Turks, and they didn't see themselves as a nation-state. Ffs Ataturk rebelled AGAINST the empire. Turkey waged a war of independence against the Sultan.

Ottoman Empire was as much modern-Turkish as Stuart England was Scottish.

But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state. The "Sick Man of Europe" for over a century. They produced no inventions, no innovations, no major achievements in any field whatsoever. No real infrastructure, either.

They were just good at conquering territory and keeping it under for a while.

When you have the fucking devsirme system where parents mutilated their children so they wouldn't be taken from them how can you possibly think the Christian populations owed you anything?

The Ottomans took our ancestors' independence, lives, religions (for those who converted), culture, and gave literally nothing back, ruling through fear and abuse.

To demand any sort of loyalty is beyond ridiculous.

>If the Roman's had magazines with articles about behavioral genetics in them, what do you think they'd be saying about Germania people?

Let's be real user, Germans to this day are sub-humans prone to violence, genocide and rape.

>But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state.

That's my point. Regardless of what you think of the way the Ottomans treated their subject christian peoples, the actual quality of governance was fucking Liberia-tier.

>we're not born with inalienable rights
Good job on failing literally the first mark of being American.

If you legitimately believe that there are no inherent rights for sentient beings, you're either an edgy teenager, horribly brainwashed or mentally ill.

Feel free to respond, I won't give you a (you) back.

I agree with you, I just wanted to expound for the benefit of any posters reading who might not be aware how horrible the Ottomans were.

There was more religious toleration than in contemporary Western Europe, and that's the only good thing they ever did.

>Doesn't believe in a God
>Scoffs at religion
>"But yeah, some sort of metaphysical force invested all of us slightly more evolved apes with these things called "unalienable rights"

Why is western "atheism" basically just "let's just create a surrogate religion out of liberalism"?

>I must admit, even viewed through the lens of nationalism which is ridiculous, the Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish state, Royal Ottoman Turkish was practically unintelligible to Turks, and they didn't see themselves as a nation-state. Ffs Ataturk rebelled AGAINST the empire. Turkey waged a war of independence against the Sultan.

True.

>But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state. The "Sick Man of Europe" for over a century. They produced no inventions, no innovations, no major achievements in any field whatsoever. No real infrastructure, either.

They managed to keep an incredibly multi-cultural society running under laws which were pretty damn fair to Christians, Muslims and Jews for a long-ass time. Things only tarted falling apart when the Jannissaries became less strictly regulated.

>When you have the fucking devsirme system where parents mutilated their children so they wouldn't be taken from them how can you possibly think the Christian populations owed you anything?

You also had parents fighting to get their kids /into/ that system since it was a direct line to something which was basically nobility.

I'm not even Turksh or Muslim, but the Ottomans were a damn fine state until things started to degenerate. Probably one of the best examples of pluralism done right in history.

>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because of colonialism and slavery.
Slavery had place in ancient Roman Empire, and modern Europeans are their descendants

>I'm not even Turksh or Muslim

Are you a leftist/liberal?

>Probably one of the best examples of pluralism done right in history.

lol, do you realize just how many massacres Ottoman history is punctuated by? They managed to make the Greeks hate them so much that the ones in the Ionian Islands would thank God that they lived under VENETIAN rule (Greece/Byzantium's old enemy).

>under laws which were pretty damn fair to Christians, Muslims and Jews for a long-ass time.

They were "fair" to Jews because Jews ran the slaving racket in the Ottoman Empire that operated in the Crimea/Eastern Europe.

They weren't particularly fair on the Christians. One part of the Shariah that was periodically upheld was the one that prohibited repairing of a church that had fallen into disrepair. Others include not allowing Christians to ride horses and so on. The entire system of the Shariah was built around the systematic humiliation of subject non-Muslim peoples, which makes sense as Islam is a slightly more universalistic Talmudic Judaism.

>If enough individuals of group X move to my nation to be demographically significant, they invariably alter the body politic and start to influence it in ways that are not advantageous to group Y (the natives).

Sure but that's a different story, I was just saying that believing in differences doesn't necessarily mean prejudice towards individuals.

Because the Founding Fathers weren't atheist, they were Christian or Deist.

Modern philosophy has more than enough logical justification for the concept of inalienable right.

My personal favorite is the one of convenience - unless we all agree to treat each other with a certain level of respect regardless of anything else, we're literally animals. If society doesn't respect someone's right to life, liberty or property there's nothing to stop someone from taking it away from someone else.

You'd quickly end up in a Hobbesian dystopia. Hope you're the strongest guy around, don't mind living in constant fear, and don't need any amenities of civilization whatsoever.

Even if it's a lie, it's an incredibly useful one.

Gotta post more images, but we're getting close.

Ditched your trip I see, Sultan Mehmed-whateverthatis.

>Modern philosophy has more than enough logical justification for the concept of inalienable right.

No it doesn't. Outside of half-baked consequentialist circular reasoning, it is literally impossible to pretend that human beings are imbued with some sort of inalienable "right" unless you actually believe in a Godhead.

You are dumb. Liberalism is dumb. Liberalism is literally just FEELS > REALZ and you are proving it right now.

>My personal favorite is the one of convenience - unless we all agree to treat each other with a certain level of respect regardless of anything else, we're literally animals.

Plenty of people don't believe in the golden rule, and plenty of people do, and even more people believe in it - but only really apply it to members of their own group.

These people are going to carry on behaving as such regardless of what the laws say. What you are describing at this point is interpersonal ethics and has nothing to do with the initial point anyway.

>Even if it's a lie, it's an incredibly useful one.

Yes. It's incredibly useful to have a legal framework that makes it virtually impossible for EU27 countries to deport people, even when they murder and rape someone.

>You also had parents fighting to get their kids /into/ that system since it was a direct line to something which was basically nobility.
True, but it was likely much rare than the opposite.

There's a reason every Christian country that was under the Ottoman yoke utterly despised them and fought tooth and nail for their freedom.

Look at their songs, folk traditions and sayings about Turks.

I said they were good at keeping territory (for a while at least), that's true. But that's a far cry from "one of the best examples of pluralism".

Saying that just means you haven't actually bothered to research how the people of the region actually felt. It's nice being able to sit in a comfy chair somewhere, thousands of miles and many years apart and speculate, but the people involved HATED it. It's like those people now who say the slaves sure did love working for massa. Yes, that's why they fled at every possible opportunity. Because they were enjoying it so much.

Whenever Austria went to war with the Ottomans, the Balkan Orthodox flocked to their side. The reason Vojvodina is majority Serb even though it was historically Hungarian is because twice in our history Austria managed to wrest control of Serbia form the Ottomans. Both times, when the Ottomans returned, tens of thousands fled.

The Orthodox hated Catholics before the Ottomans came, but once they actually fell under Ottoman rule they quickly changed tack. Austrian Serbs were very loyal to Vienna because they knew the alternative. There were no rebellions against Vienna in Serbian-majority parts.

There were many rebellions against the Porte.

No empires really believe in "pluralism". The entire term is another one of those bullshit enlightenment memes like Rousseau's "General Will".

Consider this. For a contemporary governmental system to be as pluralistic as possible, you'd need to imagine a state where one branch/department is led by a fascist, one by a monarchist, one by a Marxist-Leninist, one by a social democrat etc.

Nobody REALLY believes in pluralism. They believe in a pseudo-pluralism on their own terms, as in "here's my personal overton window of what is acceptable, and here are the boundaries for what constitutes pluralistic thought". It's like when libs say they like "moderates", or say that America "needs to have a conservation about such and such", what they really mean is "me and people who think broadly similar to me need to have a conservation about such and such"

>You are dumb
no u
Great argument, idiotic faggot.

>Liberalism is dumb
Maybe, but far less so than /pol/tardation, which is so far off from internal coherence it doesn't even merit refuting.

>Yes. It's incredibly useful to have a legal framework that makes it virtually impossible for EU27 countries to deport people, even when they murder and rape someone.
Literally has nothing to do with what I said but you're so buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way that you can't even present an actual argument beyond "nuh uh".

Go ahead, try. I know you'll fail because far-right thought has always been strongly correlated with low intelligence, but let's give it a whirl. Maybe you're not one of the idiots.

Looking at your post, though, highly unlikely.

I agree completely. I assumed the other user (based on the context) was talking about religious pluralism, and argued on that merit.

Full ideological pluralism has never been present in any society on any level.

>Liberalism is literally just FEELS>REALZ and you are proving it right now.

>Implying our feelings don't shape our reality

If you believe that your feelings don't shape your reality then don't you believe that you are somehow unique in intelligence amongst other species (animals) and that makes you special somehow? You think that you somehow possess the objective unique universal truth while simultaneously not being the product of some almighty herp derp deity? How does that work?

You take pride in yourself being so "cold-hearted" and "factual", but in """"reality"""" you seem like an entitled, privileged little bitch

>far-right thought has always been strongly correlated with low intelligence

It's actually true that social conservatism seems to correlate with lower IQ and both IQ and conservativism/liberalism are highly heritable.

Maybe we'll finally get you to accept similar findings elsewhere.

Colonialism and slavery lowers intelligence by harming state formation and therefore provision of nutrition, healthcare, education, and other social goods, as well as eradicating pre-existing social welfare structures.

State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions rather than just exploit them, as well as pre-existing national identities and deep restructuring and integration into the world market following the world wars.

>Great argument, idiotic faggot.

You never made an argument, you're an atheist who handwaved away the fact you believe in something retarded like "unalienable human rights" with a reference to "modern philosophy" (who exactly?)

>Maybe, but far less so than /pol/tardation, which is so far off from internal coherence it doesn't even merit refuting.

I'm not aware of a political ideology called "/pol/tardation".

>over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated

You think it's a lie that it's incredibly difficult to actually deport people from states that adhere to the Acquis Communintaire and ECHR? I have an LLB faggot, you really don't want to debate me on this topic.

>because far-right thought

Yes, yes. Anything to the right of People like Martin Schulz and Angela Merkel is far right. It's not like literally every single country outside of Western Europe and North America is "nazi" by an objective appraisal of what liberals think of domestic western politics.

Glad you understand. Enlightenment philosophy is largely horrible.

Don't look at me, I'm not arguing against genetic intelligence. I'm actually open to it.

I don't really get why the poster automatically assumed I was liberal because I don't subscribe to some Neo-reactionary bullshit.

>State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions rather than just exploit them
All those balkan slaves sure were intergrated. kys.

>
The Ottoman legacy is one of the absolute worst form of (non-totalitarian) government: a society that expects the government to do anything and everything, a lack of democratic culture, clientelism and political machines as deeply entrenched parts of the system, and monstrously corrupt local government (far more so than the national one, in fact, I know several politicians on all levels and I've been told point blank "I prefer to stay on the municipality level because there's a lot less oversight and I can take more"). All of these come from the idiotic Ottoman practice of decentralized autocracy - the Sultan wasn't a constitutional monarch by any means, but due to the size of the empire he delegated a lot of power to provincial governors who often pursued their own agendas.

Fuck this is so true for all of Eastern Europe basically.

t. another EEian

But they are

>Implying our feelings don't shape our reality

They don't. Your willing of race not to be real or meaningful has no effect upon the virtual entirety of the non-western world being staunch racialists, either implicitly or explicitly. Nor does it change anything about human nature itself.

>privileged

Back to Plebbit son. You are completely rectum ravaged if you're using postmodern bullshit terms like this unironically.

>You think that you somehow possess the objective unique universal truth

No, that's liberalism. I believe that different peoples (Chinese, Gulf Arabs, Europeans) believe in different things and that broad, universalist ideologies like liberalism are retarded as a result.

>State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions

What?

Again, the capital stock of the various Balkan states upon independence was lower than the capital stock of most African states (e.g. The Ivory Coast) upon decolonization. The latter had modern farms, had infrastructure, had capital equipment etc.

>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid
Life into this world do not give advantages to smart people. A lot of riches are idiots. It's a marvel that humans evolved from monkeys.

Fair enough, I was influenced by one of your previous posts. I agree with you on that, I'm far more on the liberal side of things too.

The entire Greek nation was not turned into field slaves you dumb shit

>You are dumb. Liberalism is dumb. Liberalism is literally just FEELS > REALZ and you are proving it right now.

Liberalism is such a wide term that can be applied to so many subjects I have no idea how can you unironically claim that it is dumb.

I'm the same user, you idiot.

You're so fucking retarded you can't even recognize my argument (they weren't pluralistic when they should have been).

Jesus Christ you might literally be the stupidest person on this website.

Literally every single thing you assumed about me, literally every single one, is fals. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a liberal, I'm not against the Enlightenment.

You're the most incompetent poster I've seen in months, if not longer.

I made an argument. You selectively ignored it, then called me dumb for saying there are tons of philosophical strains that justify inalienable right. And then you just say "nuh uh" and pretend that's an argument.

>I'm not aware of a political ideology called "/pol/tardation".
This is, I assume, what your retarded brain thinks passes for humor. If not, another proof you're either mentally challenged (can't recognize rudimentary wordplay) or actively avoiding defending your stance because you don't know how to. An idiot, either way.

>trying to paint me as arguing that anything right of Angela Merkel is far-right (again, without any evidence whatsoever) for saying you're far-right
>End your post with "Enlightenment philosophy is largely horrible"
I'm laughing my ass off at the incompent-and-stupid combo you got going there.

>deporting people
You're the one who started this discussion. I said no such thing. I said you and those like you are "buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way". You keep proving my point with every statement you make.

>LLB
I pity the university that granted you one. You write and think like a middle schooler.

Liberalism orientates around two axioms generally:

1. Making things more equal makes them better.
2. More individual freedom is morally good.

Both axioms are wrong.

Those countries all garbage thou.

Serb Diaspora here, from the times I've visited Serbia this so true. Its only thanks to Yugoslavia that we don't suck completely desu.

>for saying there are tons of philosophical strains that justify inalienable right

Let's hear it then, if there's no God or no metaphysical realm whatsoever, what or who imbues humans with said inalienable rights, and how are they made inalienable?

>"buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way"

What specifically is exaggerated or factually incorrect about stating that it is incredibly hard, comparatively speaking, to deport people within the European legal framework?

The rest of your post is just huffing and puffing.

>all Garbage

Retarded Amerifat spotted.

The point is that they aren't as garbage as blackland, despite colonialism. And how garbage some of them are actually underestimates how much more criminal blacklanders are even in the least garbage societies like the USA.