I don't see the point of going to the Codex for anything other than talking about games and things related to them, or studying the deranged wildlife. The hidden glades of Politics are where the Stormfront wannabes gather to graze and perform their mating rituals, hoping their numbers protect them from the many imagined foes that plague them. In contrast to other species of the Poster family, they have a far more developed sense of racism, gleaning a great deal of information about each other from use of slurs alone, such as health, age, dentistry, sincerity and sexual availability, though, tragically, not sex. This is made further complicated by the species being exclusively male and perpetually hostile, leading to all conservation efforts being met with failure. Whether this means that it propagates in a yet unidentified manner or that we are looking at the off-shoot of a larger group that is doomed to die out, is a matter of great interest to enterprising herpetologists.
What if the ones crying racis all the time were the actual racises? 2 deep 4 u my friend. Except of course in this case it's actually true.
If you live in cuckrope then for you ethnics are an exciting and new experience and you see them in relatively small quantities. If you deal with them long enough then after the 50000th time asking yourself how is [fill in the blank] racist then you realize that racist simply means everything white. If a white person has something they got it through racism and its true owner is someone else, and it's just an excuse to steal their shit. According to them the whole fucking country was built by stealing from blacks and indians, even though they make up this amazingly tiny percentage of the population (and even less before welfare let them breed like crazy).
It's even crazier when it's a bunch of mexicans talking about 'taking back' a country they never had (hint: the natives in ca and texas never left) and especially funny when you take a drive to mexico. North of the border there's all these almond orchards everywhere and productivity everywhere even though there's not a huge population visible. Go south and you immediately see a bunch of shanty towns and endless numbers of people who just sort of stand around all day. Yep, all that shit up north belongs to them. Just because. Of course if you actually gave it to them then the same result would occur and it would just be a fucking wasteland except for the few places that foreign investors pump billions of dollars into to make shitty cars and dump all the waste into the rivers.
Nah, that's just buying into the same definitions spouted by the perpetually sensitive identity politicians. Those concepts of tolerance (the skin/gender-as-identity ones), insofar as they're useful, predated popular use of the terms 'racism and 'sexism' - for as long as humanity has existed, there's been the notion of 'respect for women' and 'respectful diplomacy' between cultures. The irony is that sort of identity-based definition of racism/sexism assumes a hard separation of genders and cultures - by making it
the definition of racism/sexism, people are actually bringing back the worldview where you're put in a box pre-determined by your gender/colour/religion.
The concepts of 'racism' and 'sexism', however, come from the Enlightenment worldview - utter anathema to most of the people who spout the terms today - where people are to be judged as rational agents. Note the term 'judged as' - the Enlightenment philosophers
never thought that people were actually capable of perfect rationality, or that there weren't biological differences in intellect. That's a myth that would be dispelled if people spent 5 minutes actually
reading Kant/Mill/etc; these guys were Newtonian determinists, they had
no belief in causal free will. As far as Kant is concerned, we are physical objects, ergo our brains and intellects are as subject to the laws of physics as a billiard ball bouncing off the side of the table. Rather, they're appealing to the fact that
even though we can take a step back and acknowledge that, objectively, we have all sorts of biologically determined limitations and differences, we all experience the world from the perspective of moral agency (i.e. knowing that we're biologically/causally determined doesn't stop us from having to make choices; we can have
moral agency even if we don't have
causal/physical free will).
If you view people as individuals with moral agency, then it makes no sense to force them into boxes by gender/colour/religion. If you meet a great redneck/black/Krogan scientist, it's simply irrelevant whether or not rednecks/blacks/Krogans are, on average, less intelligent than hipsters/jews/Asari - you're dealing with an individual, and it's nonsensical to lean on averages when you've got the actual person in front of you. If a woman is a good car mechanic, it's irrelevant whether woman are, on average, more or less interested in car mechanics, because she's an individual agent first and foremost, and shouldn't be forced into a box that doesn't fit her individual capacities and choices.
Thing is, it also follows that you can't excuse poor behaviour on the basis of structural disadvantage - because doing so is actually
demeaning to those who you're trying to help, as you're treating them as objects, to be measured solely by prior causation like a billiard ball, instead of as fellow moral agents. That doesn't mean that you can't recognise that structural disadvantage is unfair, or that you shouldn't do anything about it. But it does mean that it's never an excuse to refer to your past circumstances, let alone past historical events, as justification for bad behaviour or differential treatment.
I.e. by throwing out 'racism' and 'sexism', and saying they don't matter, you're conceding to the identity-grievance-mongers
and the stormfags something that's actually important. Identity politics (and its practical implementation through policy) is bad, in large part
because it's racist and sexist - it demands that we judge people by their group, not their individual capacities and choices. As objects, not people.
And can you think of any group, in any place, at any moment of history, that has ever gained prosperity and respect (let alone power) by being treated as a 'favoured object' instead of a person? Because I can think of lots of examples of 'favoured object' being the first step on the road to oppression, for whichever group it is that trades their moral agency for the temporary ease of 'favoured object' stats. Which wouldn't be a problem (it would just be karmic justice) if not for the fact that plenty of blacks/women/etc recognise that and fervently resist being robbed of their moral agency, but can't stop their communities from degrading due to the tyranny of lowered expectations.
