Vocabulary chart teaches children that dark skin is 'ugly'

[simondan]

Shawoooo1

Lol many girl and actress with tan skin famous in Thailand to don't need to leave

I will post the picture and name next pose

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438414263.424347.jpg

Jany

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438414329.365126.jpg

Opal

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438414374.032091.jpg

Baitoey

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438414455.598451.jpg

Jui

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Careful Pugga...all the Dudley Dorights will be accusing you of exploiting their female, party endorsed, card carrying, fully paid up, female "brothers".

The possibly call you a reverse sexist.

Thank you for your caring

I just express my opinion as a Thai girl. And I know my opinion will be different than their Thai wife. But I understand they just trying to protect their wife.

And they will understand my point. That Thai people already accept the Thai girl who is tan but nonetheless beautiful. And people who is not beautiful even they are tan or white. They will just not consider to be beautiful. Maybe attractive if they are thin which show sign of healthy

To see my point. This is miss Thailand world ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438418977.692556.jpgImageUploadedByTapatalk1438419041.665392.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can not use famous people to make your point. Those women have been promoted and are not necessarily looked upon by the color of their skin but instead by their being famous, popular, or rich. The average Thai male sees dark skin as unattractive. That is why so many women buy skin whitening cream and wear jackets when they rude motorcycles even on cloudy days. They want to hide from the sun so they don't get any darker.

Are you saying beauty pageants are NOT a level playing field??

Seriously? My world is crashing in flames and my worldview has imploded...

[user82374298374]

The holocaust based upon religious hatred and bigotry.

The genocide in Rwanda based upon racist intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

The indiscriminate slaughter and genocide carried out in China during world war 2 by the japanese because of racism, intolerance and bigotry.

The genocide of the Balkans war. Again based upon hatred and bigotry.

The unbelievable degree of butchery and slaughter going on in syria and other parts of the middle east, again based upon hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

The persecution going on in Burma and Sri Lanka again based upon intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

Don't try to tell me that hate is good. That bigotry is harmless. That intolerance is acceptable.

The cause of so much human misery, terror, slaughter, genocide and horror has been based on those things you seem to find acceptable.

Don't tell me they are harmless.

So, your problem isn't with 'racism' - it's with human nature.

The Holocaust, which (figure inflated by about 50%, but OK) cost 6 million lives, is only 10% of the total deaths in World War II, which was 60 million.

The Japanese slaughter in China was based upon economic imperialism. 'Bigotry' wasn't the reason the Japanese invaded China and proceeded to do in the natives.

The 'genocide' (actually a civil war) in Rwanda was/is a tribal conflict over domination and exploitation of natural resources. The two main tribes are indeed physically different in terms of skin color and height, but that's why they're tribes, in the first place - genetics.

Of course, you still haven't stated why any of these things are inherently bad. You're a self-proclaimed atheist; I'm pretty sure you would gleefully pull the trigger or flip the switch on any 'racists' or 'bigots' you could get your hands on, if you thought you could get away with it.

You just say all these things - 'racism', 'intolerance', 'bigotry', 'slaughter', 'genocide', 'terror', 'horror' - are somehow wrong.

But you don't say why.

I think it's because you can't articulate why, because you, the self-proclaimed rationalist atheist, don't know. You have no justification for your moral stances.

After all, it's pretty clear that the Japanese were pushed and maneuvered into kicking off the Second World War by FDR and his administration, many of whom were in turn agitating for intolerable sanctions against the Japanese because they were Soviet agents of influence, Stalin wanting to keep the Japanese occupied so he wouldn't be fighting a two-front war. It's also pretty clear that the Japanese government themselves were influenced by Soviet agents of influence in their choice to go the southern route to establish their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, so that they wouldn't invade the 'Northern Resource Area ' - e.g., Siberia.

I don't see a lot of 'racism' there. I just see human nature in terms of covetousness and the desire to dominate others.

Kind of like condemning Asian culture as 'racist' from your privileged white Western point of view - which is in fact quite blatantly racist.

[user82374298374]

Yes, I truly believe they are..because I firmly believe in the decency of the human being..

Then you believe in fairytales - because the lessons of current events, much less all of human history, conclusively demonstrate that you are wrong.

After all, if human beings were inherently 'decent', there wouldn't be any 'racism' to rail about, would there?

[user82374298374]

Amazing in this century (after the last century and its multiple failed experiments in racial purity) we have people asking such stupid questions.

>Bigotry and divisiveness and racism are ill advised at the least, and I would argue plain wrong, because they dont benefit anyone, especially the bigot, and society as a whole suffers.

If they didn't benefit anyone, if they didn't provide some sort of advantage, they wouldn't exist - natural selection, don't you know?

>If you judge someone just on their skin color you are missing 99.99% of that person - hey, they could have the cure for cancer in their head!

I'll be sure to ask the next Nigerian drug dealer I see on Soi 3/1, and the next drunken caucasian American I see holding forth in a beer garden, and the next yaa-baaed Thai taxi driver I meet about that cure for cancer. Somehow, I don't think they'll have a coherent answer.

Edited August 1, 2015 by disambiguated

[MW72]

I've explained my position and reasoning to you.

You just don't like it.

I've asked you why bigotry and 'racism' and divisiveness are wrong.

You have failed to address any of those points.

You just keep saying they're wrong. You don't answer why they're wrong.

I can't believe you would need to ask why these things are wrong.

Are you just trying to bait Bluespunk or do you sriously not understand the pain and suffering inflicted on countless millions throughout history? And all because of ignorance and fear and some natural human emotions (bigotry & racism) that we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors. Fear and emotions which through knowledge understanding most of us can overcome.

We are all naturally prejudicist in different ways. Some of us learn to overcome our prejudices. Other let them rule their lives.

[Bluespunk]

The holocaust based upon religious hatred and bigotry.

The genocide in Rwanda based upon racist intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

The indiscriminate slaughter and genocide carried out in China during world war 2 by the japanese because of racism, intolerance and bigotry.

The genocide of the Balkans war. Again based upon hatred and bigotry.

The unbelievable degree of butchery and slaughter going on in syria and other parts of the middle east, again based upon hatred, intolerance and bigotry.

The persecution going on in Burma and Sri Lanka again based upon intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

Don't try to tell me that hate is good. That bigotry is harmless. That intolerance is acceptable.

The cause of so much human misery, terror, slaughter, genocide and horror has been based on those things you seem to find acceptable.

Don't tell me they are harmless.

So, your problem isn't with 'racism' - it's with human nature.

The Holocaust, which (figure inflated by about 50%, but OK) cost 6 million lives, is only 10% of the total deaths in World War II, which was 60 million.

The Japanese slaughter in China was based upon economic imperialism. 'Bigotry' wasn't the reason the Japanese invaded China and proceeded to do in the natives.

The 'genocide' (actually a civil war) in Rwanda was/is a tribal conflict over domination and exploitation of natural resources. The two main tribes are indeed physically different in terms of skin color and height, but that's why they're tribes, in the first place - genetics.

Of course, you still haven't stated why any of these things are inherently bad. You're a self-proclaimed atheist; I'm pretty sure you would gleefully pull the trigger or flip the switch on any 'racists' or 'bigots' you could get your hands on, if you thought you could get away with it.

You just say all these things - 'racism', 'intolerance', 'bigotry', 'slaughter', 'genocide', 'terror', 'horror' - are somehow wrong.

But you don't say why.

I think it's because you can't articulate why, because you, the self-proclaimed rationalist atheist, don't know. You have no justification for your moral stances.

After all, it's pretty clear that the Japanese were pushed and maneuvered into kicking off the Second World War by FDR and his administration, many of whom were in turn agitating for intolerable sanctions against the Japanese because they were Soviet agents of influence, Stalin wanting to keep the Japanese occupied so he wouldn't be fighting a two-front war. It's also pretty clear that the Japanese government themselves were influenced by Soviet agents of influence in their choice to go the southern route to establish their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, so that they wouldn't invade the 'Northern Resource Area ' - e.g., Siberia.

I don't see a lot of 'racism' there. I just see human nature in terms of covetousness and the desire to dominate others.

Kind of like condemning Asian culture as 'racist' from your privileged white Western point of view - which is in fact quite blatantly racist.

Racism is just another form hatred. It is based on colour and is just as vile a cancer on humanity as any other form of prejudice, intolerance and bigotry.

It allows the idea to develop that one section of society is lesser. It justifies prejudice and hatred. It is a step towards dehumanising another human being and that is the first step towards all the horrors that have occurred throughout human history.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Bluespunk

[simondan]

Amazing in this century (after the last century and its multiple failed experiments in racial purity) we have people asking such stupid questions.

>Bigotry and divisiveness and racism are ill advised at the least, and I would argue plain wrong, because they dont benefit anyone, especially the bigot, and society as a whole suffers.

If they didn't benefit anyone, if they didn't provide some sort of advantage, they wouldn't exist - natural selection, don't you know?

>If you judge someone just on their skin color you are missing 99.99% of that person - hey, they could have the cure for cancer in their head!

I'll be sure to ask the next Nigerian drug dealer I see on Soi 3/1, and the next drunken caucasian American I see holding forth in a beer garden, and the next yaa-baaed Thai taxi driver I meet about that cure for cancer. Somehow, I don't think they'll have a coherent answer.

Yeah, there is nothing malevonent in the world, its all here to make us better. Every thought we have will move us forward!

Thats not evolutionary theory its poorly conceived Social Darwinism. Actually, its not even that. Its just illogical.

As is your next comment! Expecting every body to have the cure to cancer is a bit optimistic, especially the pissed caucasian American!

As I said, discombobulated!

[user82374298374]

I can't believe you would need to ask why these things are wrong.

Are you just trying to bait Bluespunk or do you sriously not understand the pain and suffering inflicted on countless millions throughout history? And all because of ignorance and fear and some natural human emotions (bigotry & racism) that we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors. Fear and emotions which through knowledge understanding most of us can overcome.

We are all naturally prejudicist in different ways. Some of us learn to overcome our prejudices. Other let them rule their lives.

I do understand said pain and suffering. But since Bluespunk has made it known that he considers himself to be a rationalist atheist, I can't seem to figure out why he thinks they're wrong.

Why do you and Bluespunk believe that you're somehow superior to our prehistoric ancestors? After all, if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here. Seems as if you're indulging in the 'bigotry' of 'chronologism'.

Natural selection selects for traits which enhance chances of survival long enough to pass on one's genetic material - so, it seems to me that from the atheist rationalist point of view, 'bigotry' and 'racism' must provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.

After all, with no God in the picture, there's no overarching moral order to tell us otherwise; only hard, cold, rationalistic, indeed scientific, views.

And it also seems to me that those who preach the most about 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and 'racism' are the quickest to condemn entire categories of people based upon just one aspect of their characters.

According to the 'you're missing 99.999%' of the person argument, Bluespunk and his ilk are judging people who hold 'racist' or 'intolerant' views based on just that aspect of their character - after all, that 'bigoted' 'racist' may just have the cure for cancer in his head!

[MW72]

Amazing in this century (after the last century and its multiple failed experiments in racial purity) we have people asking such stupid questions.

>Bigotry and divisiveness and racism are ill advised at the least, and I would argue plain wrong, because they dont benefit anyone, especially the bigot, and society as a whole suffers.

If they didn't benefit anyone, if they didn't provide some sort of advantage, they wouldn't exist - natural selection, don't you know?

>If you judge someone just on their skin color you are missing 99.99% of that person - hey, they could have the cure for cancer in their head!

I'll be sure to ask the next Nigerian drug dealer I see on Soi 3/1, and the next drunken caucasian American I see holding forth in a beer garden, and the next yaa-baaed Thai taxi driver I meet about that cure for cancer. Somehow, I don't think they'll have a coherent answer.

If it's coherent answers you seek then please don't look in the mirror.

You keep asking why racism and bigotry are bad. Please explain to us why they are not bad or even good.

Don't come out with the old evolution crap. There are many instincts we have inherited from our ignorant, superstitious, cave dwelling ancestors that we are more than capable of ignoring.

[user82374298374]

Racism is just another form hatred. It is based on colour and is just as vile a cancer on humanity as any other form of prejudice, intolerance and bigotry.

What's wrong with hatred?

After all, you hate 'racists', don't you?

You've proclaimed yourself 'intolerant' of 'racism' - so, you're saying some forms of 'intolerance' are good, but other forms of 'intolerance' are bad?

Isn't it just as bad to judge someone based upon a single aspect of his character - say, 'racism' or 'intolerance' - as it is to judge someone based upon the color of his skin?

[Bluespunk]

I can't believe you would need to ask why these things are wrong.

Are you just trying to bait Bluespunk or do you sriously not understand the pain and suffering inflicted on countless millions throughout history? And all because of ignorance and fear and some natural human emotions (bigotry & racism) that we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors. Fear and emotions which through knowledge understanding most of us can overcome.

We are all naturally prejudicist in different ways. Some of us learn to overcome our prejudices. Other let them rule their lives.

I do understand said pain and suffering. But since Bluespunk has made it known that he considers himself to be a rationalist atheist, I can't seem to figure out why he thinks they're wrong.

Why do you and Bluespunk believe that you're somehow superior to our prehistoric ancestors? After all, if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here. Seems as if you're indulging in the 'bigotry' of 'chronologism'.

Natural selection selects for traits which enhance chances of survival long enough to pass on one's genetic material - so, it seems to me that from the atheist rationalist point of view, 'bigotry' and 'racism' must provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.

After all, with no God in the picture, there's no overarching moral order to tell us otherwise; only hard, cold, rationalistic, indeed scientific, views.

And it also seems to me that those who preach the most about 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and 'racism' are the quickest to condemn entire categories of people based upon just one aspect of their characters.

According to the 'you're missing 99.999%' of the person argument, Bluespunk and his ilk are judging people who hold 'racist' or 'intolerant' views based on just that aspect of their character - after all, that 'bigoted' 'racist' may just have the cure for cancer in his head!

At no point have I called myself a rationalist. Stop labelling people according to your judgements.

[Bluespunk]

Racism is just another form hatred. It is based on colour and is just as vile a cancer on humanity as any other form of prejudice, intolerance and bigotry.

What's wrong with hatred?

After all, you hate 'racists', don't you?

You've proclaimed yourself 'intolerant' of 'racism' - so, you're saying some forms of 'intolerance' are good, but other forms of 'intolerance' are bad?

Isn't it just as bad to judge someone based upon a single aspect of his character - say, 'racism' or 'intolerance' - as it is to judge someone based upon the color of his skin?

You ask this crap about what is wrong with hatred after I made it clear why i feel it is wrong? Edited August 1, 2015 by Bluespunk

[user82374298374]

There are many instincts we have inherited from our ignorant, superstitious, cave dwelling ancestors that we are more than capable of ignoring.

If it weren't for those ignorant, superstitious, cave-dwelling ancestors, neither you nor I would be here.

Why are you so quick to condemn them, simply because of the accident of their time of birth and death?

That's 'chronologist' 'bigotry', is it not?

[user82374298374]

You ask this crap about what is wrong with hatred after I made it clear why it is wrong?

All you've made clear is that you believe that your own personal brands of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry towards those whose beliefs differ from yours is somehow superior to the hatred, intolerance and bigotry of those with whom you disagree.

In other words, those whom you hate and despise and refuse to tolerate are evil, because their hatred and intolerance is based upon different parameters.

But your hatred and intolerance and bigotry are A-OK, because you're righteous.

[user82374298374]

At no point have I called myself a rationalist. Stop labelling people according to your judgements.

All atheists are by definition rationalists, just as, say, all Marxists are by definition Hegelians.

[simondan]

You ask this crap about what is wrong with hatred after I made it clear why it is wrong?

All you've made clear is that you believe that your own personal brands of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry towards those whose beliefs differ from yours is somehow superior to the hatred, intolerance and bigotry of those with whom you disagree.

In other words, those whom you hate and despise and refuse to tolerate are evil, because their hatred and intolerance is based upon different parameters.

But your hatred and intolerance and bigotry are A-OK, because you're righteous.

Ho hum, how troll...

[MW72]

I can't believe you would need to ask why these things are wrong.

Are you just trying to bait Bluespunk or do you sriously not understand the pain and suffering inflicted on countless millions throughout history? And all because of ignorance and fear and some natural human emotions (bigotry & racism) that we inherited from our prehistoric ancestors. Fear and emotions which through knowledge understanding most of us can overcome.

We are all naturally prejudicist in different ways. Some of us learn to overcome our prejudices. Other let them rule their lives.

I do understand said pain and suffering. But since Bluespunk has made it known that he considers himself to be a rationalist atheist, I can't seem to figure out why he thinks they're wrong.

Why do you and Bluespunk believe that you're somehow superior to our prehistoric ancestors? After all, if it weren't for them, we wouldn't be here. Seems as if you're indulging in the 'bigotry' of 'chronologism'.

Natural selection selects for traits which enhance chances of survival long enough to pass on one's genetic material - so, it seems to me that from the atheist rationalist point of view, 'bigotry' and 'racism' must provide some sort of evolutionary advantage.

After all, with no God in the picture, there's no overarching moral order to tell us otherwise; only hard, cold, rationalistic, indeed scientific, views.

And it also seems to me that those who preach the most about 'tolerance' and 'diversity' and 'racism' are the quickest to condemn entire categories of people based upon just one aspect of their characters.

According to the 'you're missing 99.999%' of the person argument, Bluespunk and his ilk are judging people who hold 'racist' or 'intolerant' views based on just that aspect of their character - after all, that 'bigoted' 'racist' may just have the cure for cancer in his head!

Just to answer a couple of points, I believe I am superior to our prehistoric ancestors because of thousands of years of evolution. That is just a fact. Nothing bigoted about that.

As for the comment about no moral order without god

Seriously? Are you even gonna try that one out? That is one of the oldest and most ridiculous argument ever.

As god didn't deem fit to give his moral code to humans until he had his chat with Moses what do you think we did for our morals up until then? Do you think we lived without any or do you think we evolved a moral code without the need for god to babysit us?

You are either a troll or just a space cadet. "'bigotry' of 'chronologism'." what a belter.

[Gandtee]

The second guy is an ugly git, not? He's got tattoos on his face. Dont understand why this is made into a color discussion.n

Then perhaps you should look more closely at the pictures.

Colour has clearly played a part in the criteria used to choose the pictures.

Are you sure its not the tattoos or the earrings that make the kid ugly? The fairer Korean looking boy's facial features are more symmetrical as well, We assume that Thais are per definition racists, while we don't know the reasons why the maker of the poster calls the other kid ugly.

If you see 2 girls, one is ugly and dark and the other pretty and fair skinned, does that make you a racist when asked about your preference?

If the creator of this educational poster intended to mean that dark skinned people are uglier than light skinned people, then yes he's a racist.

I think he is just plain dumb to put such a possible sensibility on an educational learning resource.

I understand your points, but want to be careful to play the racist card. I think the person responsible for this material lacks a certain number of brain cells rather than being a racist.

I think you are making excuses for the one who is lacking brain cells. Ask most Thais what colour skin they prefer. I don't think I need to tell you the answer.

[soalbundy]

Righteous ele

Racism is wrong.

It is nothing but hatred and prejudice based on someones colour.

It is bigotry and should always be opposed.

Again you cause me of being judgmental?

*Why* is it wrong?

What's wrong with hatred and prejudice based on someone's color?

You seem fine with hatred and prejudice based on someone's inner thoughts, so what's the difference?

Why should bigotry always be opposed?

You are being judgmental. You believe you are a better person than those whose beliefs and cultural values differ from yours. That's called judgementalism.

What's wrong with hatred based on colour…….seriously you need to ask that? Wow.

Why should bigotry be opposed?

This is just getting sad now.

And yes, that is me being judgmental.

Where did I say I was happy with prejudice and hatred based on someones inner thoughts? Really doesn't sound like something I'd say.

When red haired people are above a certain social grade their hair becomes auburn

[user82374298374]

.

Ho hum, how troll...

It's always been amusing to me that when people can't refute an argument, they resort to labeling the person making the argument they can't refute as a troll.

Just another form of intolerance and bigotry, isn't it?

[Bluespunk]

You ask this crap about what is wrong with hatred after I made it clear why it is wrong?

All you've made clear is that you believe that your own personal brands of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry towards those whose beliefs differ from yours is somehow superior to the hatred, intolerance and bigotry of those with whom you disagree.

In other words, those whom you hate and despise and refuse to tolerate are evil, because their hatred and intolerance is based upon different parameters.

But your hatred and intolerance and bigotry are A-OK, because you're righteous.

No.

I despise thinking that leads people to hate others based on their faith, ethnicity, nationality political philosophy or any physical trait.

I despise it because history shows us where it leads.

[mikemac]

Racism is just another form hatred. It is based on colour and is just as vile a cancer on humanity as any other form of prejudice, intolerance and bigotry.

What's wrong with hatred?

After all, you hate 'racists', don't you?

You've proclaimed yourself 'intolerant' of 'racism' - so, you're saying some forms of 'intolerance' are good, but other forms of 'intolerance' are bad?

Isn't it just as bad to judge someone based upon a single aspect of his character - say, 'racism' or 'intolerance' - as it is to judge someone based upon the color of his skin?

...................."What's wrong with hatred?".....................

I just gotta set this guy up with my ex-wife ! A match made in heaven.............................

[simondan]

. Ho hum, how troll...

It's always been amusing to me that when people can't refute an argument, they resort to labeling the person making the argument they can't refute as a troll.

Just another form of intolerance and bigotry, isn't it?

Nah, youre just baiting Bluespunk, thats clear. Your 'argument' is tenuous (ludicrous even) and has been refuted. Suggesting you are trolling was actually cutting you a break - if you seriously believe the claptrap you're trotting out is actually worthy of serious treatment Im sorry for you.

[user82374298374]

>Just to answer a couple of points, I believe I am superior to our prehistoric ancestors because of thousands of years of evolution. That is just a fact. Nothing bigoted about that.

You don't see the contradiction, there? You're saying you're superior to others, but then claim that isn't bigotry?

Isn't your argument against 'racism' based upon the premise that people of one race believing they're somehow superior to people of another race is wrong?

How is proclaiming yourself to be superior to others because your beliefs differ from theirs any better than proclaiming yourself be superior to them because your skin color is different from theirs?

In point of fact, most of our human and prehuman ancestors had dark skin. So, you're in effect proclaiming yourself a 'racist', too, aren't you?

>That is one of the oldest and most ridiculous argument ever.

Why does something being old make it somehow invalid?

Why is it ridiculous? You seem to have no problem proclaiming your own personal moral code as superior to that adhered to by the majority of Asians - indeed, by the majority of human beings - now living, or in fact who ever lived. That's kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

>Do you think we lived without any or do you think we evolved a moral code without the need for god to babysit us?

I'm not the one arguing against the evolution of moral codes - you are. You're the one who states that the moral codes which have evolved over millennia are 'bigoted' and 'racist', and thus inherently evil.

>"'bigotry' of 'chronologism'." what a belter.

Now who is it who is condemning the evolution of moral order?

[Bluespunk]

At no point have I called myself a rationalist. Stop labelling people according to your judgements.

All atheists are by definition rationalists, just as, say, all Marxists are by definition Hegelians.

Nonsense

[xavierr]

Thai TV commercials of creams, deodorants and skin treatments tell that dark skin is ugly, and not always in an subtle manner. This vocabulary chart is merely straightforward and tells the same thing. This is a matter of fact in the society's way of thinking.

Edited August 1, 2015 by xavierr

[MW72]

. Ho hum, how troll...

It's always been amusing to me that when people can't refute an argument, they resort to labeling the person making the argument they can't refute as a troll.

Just another form of intolerance and bigotry, isn't it?

What's really amusing is that I asked you to explain why racism and bigotry were not bad. You managed to delete that part of my post when you replied. That gives me the impression that you cannot back up your argument and are just trolling because you don't really believe what you are saying. Either way you not an actractive human being.

Sorry for being bigotted against a bigot.

[user82374298374]

> I despise it because history shows us where it leads.

Well, let's see.

Han Chinese culture is intensely 'racist', 'bigoted', and 'xenophobic'. Yet they seem to be well on their way to economically and demographically dominating the human race.

Indian culture is also intensely 'racist', 'bigoted', and 'xenophobic'. Yet they're making huge economic strides, and are also making a serious play for demographic domination.

African culture is intensely 'racist', 'bigoted', and 'xenophobic', yet they seem to be well on the way to being contenders for demographic domination, as well.

In fact, the only cultures which are in demographic and economic free-fall seem to be the 'tolerant' (except of 'intolerance'), 'diverse' (except in their hatred towards those who don't share their views) liberal Western societies.

It seems to me that the trend of history is quite favorable with regards to the 'bigots', 'racists', and 'xenophobes', and quite unfavorable towards the (intolerant) 'tolerant' and (authoritarian) 'diverse'.

[user82374298374]

>What's really amusing is that I asked you to explain why racism and bigotry were not bad.

I'm not arrogant enough to have any certainty at all as to whether they're bad or good - although there's a compelling economic and demographic case to be made (as I posted elsewhere on this thread) that they may in fact have social utility.

And I'm not the one who kicked off this thread preaching about how morally superior I feel to 'racists' and 'bigots' and 'xenophobes'. I've learned enough humility over the years to realize that I've no basis for claiming to be morally superior to anyone, you see.

[mikemac]

Will someone please pull the plug on the broken record player !