Evil non-white hawaiian Christian fundie slams science

[cmdrjones]

http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com ... ation.html


What a Shitlord!

[Thanas]

Why did you feel the need to bring up his race in the title?

[madd0ct0r]

Not seeing a mention of science in there, but it's a mmarvellous piece of satire. I'd quote from it but on phone.

[cmdrjones]

Why did you feel the need to bring up his race in the title?

accuracy's sake

[madd0ct0r]

Silly answer. The entire article is about race, but instead you don't seem to have read it and instead hoping to troll people based on the idea we're tumblr.

[cmdrjones]

Silly answer. The entire article is about race, but instead you don't seem to have read it and instead hoping to troll people based on the idea we're tumblr.

Of course I read it. He seems to believe that because he is (nominally at least) non-white, that entitles him to think that he can't BE racist and thus his call for a Hawaiian only "homeland" is perfectly acceptable. If I'm not reading the situation correctly, then fine. I thought non-whiteness didn't make you immune from mockery for using religiousness to justify your medieval political beliefs.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I thought non-whiteness didn't make you immune from mockery for using religiousness to justify your medieval political beliefs.

It doesn't. It's just irrelevant to the issue entirely. If you want to see how this board has handled a similar situation, look in Parting shots for the wave of Afrocentrist morons who came through here a little while ago. Nobody on these boards had to comment on their race at all in order to demonstrate their inherent stupidity and general dishonesty. If you are actually committed to becoming a productive member of this board, I recommend you take a look at how people handled that situation. Nobody just said, "lol evil black African fundies blah blah blah". The man you linked to is profoundly stupid, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he is non-white. It's as pointless as saying "Evil 52-year-old Christian fundie" or "Evil diabetic Christian fundie" or "Evil Christian fundie that likes My Little Pony". It's just an irrelevant piece of information that there's no reason to include for purposes of mockery.

[Covenant]

Of course I read it. He seems to believe that because he is (nominally at least) non-white, that entitles him to think that he can't BE racist and thus his call for a Hawaiian only "homeland" is perfectly acceptable. If I'm not reading the situation correctly, then fine. I thought non-whiteness didn't make you immune from mockery for using religiousness to justify your medieval political beliefs.

If you read it then what motivated you to think the title was at all representative of the article? He goes on and on about usury, the antiquated religious term for interest with regard to loans, and has a "libertarian" in his name so this guy is either bonkers or is writing satire. How can you be a libertarian, let alone a capitalist, and deny the value of debt to generating economic movement? Judging by the rest of his stuff I'd say he's bonkers. He really hates debt and, I don't know, unmanly men or something like that. He's certainly terrified of certain things WRT the NFL and MMA involving women and so forth. He's also slinging the term "SJW" without irony so there's that whole bag of rats in there too.

Really, I think it's absurd to have such a minor mind as this random blogger put in a place like SLAM. This would be inconsequential even in the bowels of Testingstan or Rants.

[cmdrjones]

Of course I read it. He seems to believe that because he is (nominally at least) non-white, that entitles him to think that he can't BE racist and thus his call for a Hawaiian only "homeland" is perfectly acceptable. If I'm not reading the situation correctly, then fine. I thought non-whiteness didn't make you immune from mockery for using religiousness to justify your medieval political beliefs.

If you read it then what motivated you to think the title was at all representative of the article? He goes on and on about usury, the antiquated religious term for interest with regard to loans, and has a "libertarian" in his name so this guy is either bonkers or is writing satire. How can you be a libertarian, let alone a capitalist, and deny the value of debt to generating economic movement? Judging by the rest of his stuff I'd say he's bonkers. He really hates debt and, I don't know, unmanly men or something like that. He's certainly terrified of certain things WRT the NFL and MMA involving women and so forth. He's also slinging the term "SJW" without irony so there's that whole bag of rats in there too.

Really, I think it's absurd to have such a minor mind as this random blogger put in a place like SLAM. This would be inconsequential even in the bowels of Testingstan or Rants.

Perhaps I jumped the gun with the title. Usually these types of articles ARE written by the proverbial "cracker" this one is, in that respect, unusual. AS for the Usury argument, I agree with him (at first blush anyway) that fractional reserve banking is probably NOT the best thing to use as the centerpiece of your economy, it has its uses as a tool in the toolbox, but it shouldn't be the organizing prinicple of your society. (i.e. TBTF banks) OTOH, I do recognize that without interest, money i.e the fungible proxy for ones ability to think, work, create etc loses pretty much all meaning. For example, if I steal your life savings, keep it for 40 years then return it to you to the penny, have I commited a crime or not? Of course, i stole from you the opportunity to use that money for 40 years, plus the inflationary cost. hence, If I am going to give you something that represents a huge chunk of my life, I'd best get some value out of it!

AS for his arguments about an ethnic homeland for Hawaiians.... it seems to me that ethnic minorities of course have rights, to a point, otherwise we'd be arguing that hat Zimbabwe should still be called Rhodesia. (Yes I know that the whites weren't native to Zimbabwe, but, if the whites had been successful in subsuming the original population and some blogger was arguing for "Zimbabwe for Zimbabwe" would we hold him in the same contempt as this guy? (His other views aside)

[PKRudeBoy]

White Rhodesians peaked at 4-5% of the population. Try again.

That said, looking at this blog is probably the deepest I've delved down the loony rabbit hole in a while.

[cmdrjones]

White Rhodesians peaked at 4-5% of the population. Try again.

That said, looking at this blog is probably the deepest I've delved down the loony rabbit hole in a while.

ok, the basques then... East Timor? Israel? None of these are perfect comparisons or they wouldn't be analogies. In any case, do Ethnic "homelands" have a right to exist?

He says "yes" unequivocally... Most people on this blog I'd hazard would answer "No" Or "yes" with a laundry list of caveats and addendums....

[Covenant]

He also sees the mixing of various peoples as "miscegenation" so we can be pretty sure he's against any kind of mixing whatsoever anyway.

Ethnic Homelands have been nothing but trouble. They are, by nature of an identity-focused geographical ideology-fortress, hostile to their neighbors and hostile to change of any sort. Smaller cultures should not be obliterated by a dominant culture, if only because things like language, traditions, songs, ceremonies and so forth are so interesting and valuable to us as signposts of our past, but it is not as if we need to continue honoring and enforcing all of them within small "homelands" that enforce separation from the outside world. I am not religious but I would loudly protest the destruction of religious cultural artifacts, as a good number of us do when people like the Taliban crazies demolish priceless human heritage (ie, those stone buddhas for one) for no other reason than to enforce their own "ethnic homeland" stays free of "miscegenation" of ideas.

The more elegant solution to this is to allow some modicum of local/state/national sovereignty and self-determination which would allow a small, but dense, concentration of a specific cultural group to retain some subculture status. To me, as an American, this seems to be the de-facto way things trend anyway. My home-city and home-region is very different from where I am currently, and it has a host of cultural artifacts that I miss and enjoy being surrounded by. However, I'm not part of an 'ethnic homeland' nor is there any form of policing to enforce cultural norms... outside, I don't know, the Sox/Cubs divide (hah) or the things people will do if you do not honor the "I put a chair here, this is my parking spot" during the winter months.

Put in another way, if the Hawaiian people want to make sure Hawaii keeps the traditions alive, I think the solution is to have Hawaii use the state and local protections already in place to make that happen. Have festivals, teach kids, etc. Most democratic countries (by nature of democratic systems) already have such protections and have seen them used, at times, to keep local traditions alive. Though not an "ethnic homeland" it certainly does the same kind of job without all the repugnant baggage that comes with the concept. The most extreme example of this would be the Amish, which I think are a much better model to work from than, for example, our Native American reservations or our colonization efforts in Liberia.

This usually works out pretty well. Ethnic Homelands, on the other hand, seem to always turn out horribly.

[Executor32]

I find it hilarious that he can rant at length about non-Hawaiians coming in and muddying up the Hawaiian race and culture, and then in the same breath argue that 'usury' and globalization are bad because they're un-Christian.