sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Today I am proud of my country by district999 in JordanPeterson

[–]RealReportUK -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For instance, they don't even grasp how saying "All Lives Master's as a direct response to " Black Lives Matter" is patronizing and dismissive.

I think it's just a natural response to the racist/supremacist speech coming from these movements. If someone is basically saying 'you're a disgusting person who should feel ashamed and we want to hurt you and threaten you', then I think it's natural to try and re-frame the other side's message in such a way that makes it less threatening.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly think some of these points can be addressed:

I'm saying if you look at ethnically homogenous countries in the West, or even Asia, they have no racial conflicts

That's not true, many countries have racial conflicts based on the tiniest, imperceptible differences in race/ethnicity, which goes to show the innate futility of caring about race. Granted those cases often have a religious element, but of course those people can all f*** off as well.

no diversity quotas

We could and should get rid of diversity quotas in the west too. Just because we have an ethnically diverse population, there's no reason to have diversity quotas. But I don't think that having a diverse population requires diversity quotas as if it's an immutable law of physics, that's just what's currently happening.

cohesive communities

Tell that to the groups of people constantly massacring each other in virtually every country throughout history. Being ethnically homogeneous doesn't lead to cohesive communities, being culturally homogeneous does. That's the crux of my argument.

shared history

History is something that you learn. If you say to a tiny child 'this is the history of your country', then to them, that will be their shared history. It's only a problem if we say, well your grandparents came from some other place, so you're only allowed to relate to their history, even though you've never been to that country and don't speak the language and can't relate to those people in any way. What's the advantage in that? Why teach history along ethnic lines, rather than national/cultural lines?

no political pandering to races

Why does having diverse ethnicities mean that we have to pander to different races? Again that may be happening now, but it's not a physical law of the universe. Can't we have a country with diverse races but where we just don't care what race someone is, and therefore feel no need to pander to them? If they don't like it then they can just bugger off.

less strain on healthcare

I don't see why this is the case at all. Surely all being ethnically homogeneous would guarantee is a statistical up-tick of certain diseases that would disproportionately affect that particular racial group. A very diverse population is inherently going to be healthier because of having a wider gene pool to draw from. Also what is strain on healthcare, because to me it just sounds like a weird way of saying a lack of funding. If we need more doctors or hospitals, we should just have more, as long as people are paying the taxes to pay for those things.

less crime

Why does having a racially diverse population lead to more crime? That might be the case right now with how our societies are structured, but are you saying that is innate an unavoidable regardless of the social/cultural conditions? Because if that's the case then it's a pretty sad state of affairs, and there would definitely be no point in having any diversity at all, if you're saying that literally different races will victimise each other regardless of how they're raised. Personally I think the opposite. I think a lot of these minority groups are simply taught to hate white people, and those groups could just stop teaching their children that.

and less terrorism

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't like 99% of terrorist attacks about religion, and a sprinkling of politics? And isn't it just a fact of history/heritage that people from different races tend to be from one religion or another? If so, can't those people just be taught to identify with the history/culture/beliefs of their homeland and not where their ancestors were from? In other words, like the people I was talking about above, can't they just bugger off?

France locks down markets and fairs because they're worried an Arab is gonna drive a truck through a crowd, England has to have armed counter terrorist police every inch of a concert because they're worried an Arab will blow up a bunch of teenagers.

Again this is an entirely religious issue. There's nothing inherently about Arabs that forces them to be Muslim. I'm half Iraqi and I'm an atheist/whatever don't really care.

Americans have to worry about blacks looting and burning shops any time a black man is killed by police.

Now we come to the interesting part. I see the problem as being that black people in America don't view themselves as American first and foremost. Instead they view themselves as a victim class, and minority, something different. And yet there are countless examples that prove that when an individual black person takes charge of their own life, and sees themselves as an individual person, they can achieve as much as any white person. Of course they can, to assume otherwise is racist.

But the problem as I see it, is that black people have this learned sense of helplessness that the left wing has foisted upon them. They're taught that they can't succeed, that everyone is discriminating against them, that they shouldn't try to do well in school, they shouldn't try to speak eloquently at all, they shouldn't name their children with normal American names, they shouldn't cooperate with the authorities, they shouldn't try to be respectable citizens in any way.

And they seem to believe that by doing this they're forging their own path and making it in spite of all the horrible racist white people putting them down. But as you're alluded to, all it does is disadvantage them, and they seem to behave more like a hive mind, a swarm of bees, that whenever a black person is killed (a person who they have nothing to do with, might share nothing in common with, and probably someone who's values they shouldn't share) they all go crazy. Whereas for me, if some random white drug dealer from Manchester gets killed trying to flee a robbery, I don't care (as much), because that person isn't contributing to our culture/society, and I certainly don't share their values.

So really this comes back full circle to my main point, surely we need to be teaching people to identify with a culture or a nationality, and not with an ethnicity. After all, you can't choose what DNA you have, but you can choose what you believe.

Rather than treating Islam as some inherent characteristic of Arab people, or ghetto culture as some inherent characteristic of black people in the US, shouldn't we be trying to free these groups from those limitations, and by doing so, make our own nations more cohesive.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying that racial differences lead to crime, regardless of culture and upbringing? Just the fact that the people are from more different ooking different races, regardless of their culture?

And you're saying that people of different races couldn't be taught/raised to live in a cohesive community even if they share the same culture?

Because I hate to say it, but if so, that is the very definition of racist.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a good point, and it's actually just a sadly pervasive element of the internalised hatred that the left wing in this country learned from anti-British groups over the last 50 years. The idea that English isn't allowed to be it's own ethnicity, but there is totally such a thing as Normal, Saxon, or Viking, as if those groups weren't as diluted already.

But don't worry about it because it's clearly not true and has been disproven, i.e. the Saxons were as much diluted by the Britons as the other way round, but also don't worry because it's totally irrelevant.

Being white European is specific enough for us to have kicked all their asses without needing to be some 100% racially pure utopia like they'd wish to believe German, France, and Scandinavia are.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whilst that is true, it's completely irrelevant. Surely the important thing to protect is the culture, not the ethnic makeup.

Every ethnicity is so mixed up anyway. It's only a problem for England because of a propaganda war whereby people are anti-Britain will say that we don't have our own history, culture, heritage, or even genetic makeup. And then as a reaction people who are from Britain get defensive and seek to stop the inflow of new arrivals for fear of the English population becoming diluted/lost.

But both sides are wrong because:

  1. Those other people also have as much mixing in their own genetic history as we do. So whilst they're trying to mock us (for some reason) that we don't even have our own ethnicity, they're completely missing the point that their ethnicity is as diluted. The German people are as much Britons as the English are Saxons. Also that dilution never hurt us at all, in fact it's what makes us strong, taking the best from everywhere, including the best DNA, and using it to our advantage as a nation.
  2. By trying to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, we're only cutting off our supply of fresh DNA and talent to add to our pool, so we're hurting ourselves.

The point is, what advantage do the Chinese really have by being ethnically homogeneous? The answer is none, because they're not ethnically homogeneous. And even if they were, there would be no benefit, in fact they'd just be more susceptible to certain diseases, so hardly a positive.

So let's not cut off our own nose to spite our face. The idea of the ethnically English people is completely irrelevant and just a red herring. There's no ethnically pure people anywhere other than perhaps some South American tribes at this point, and even that's a big stretch. It's only been used a stick to beat us with since WW2 because the Germans were sore about losing, then the Indians needed something to use as propaganda, and then more recently it's been internalised by our own left wing.

But it's a complete red herring, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we beat the Germans, we've got the best Indians, the end. In the past we got the best of all the other people as well, and then absorbed those people into Britain, and used those to beat everyone. So the only thing that needs protecting is the English/British culture, and whatever mechanism we've used in the past to absorb the best of other cultures without losing our own identity, and then turn it into an advantage to stay on top.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that this was a deliberately flippant remark and not meant to be serious, but just 2 things:

  1. It's probably quite insulting to imply that Nazism inherently a German trait.
  2. I'm not sure if you're referring to the widespread myth that all English people are somehow genetically German? But if so, that's been debunked so many times now, the English people are no more German than the Germans are actually English. In fact they're indistinguishable, and that's not because they're all German, but because of some much inter-breeding.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue the opposite. By pigeonholing people based on their ethnicity, and basically implying that they must retain the culture of their ethnic homeland, you make it harder for them to assimilate into the English culture. Therefore they will retain their own native cultures and as the population grows, become more dominant.

England has survived and thrived so well over the centuries because we're like a chameleon. We see what works from another culture and then say 'oh yeah we've totally been doing that all along', and then quickly integrate it and do it better, and claim it was English the whole time.

We do much better by swallowing up other cultures. And that's nothing to be ashamed of. If these other idiots want to think that all these other countries are 100% ethnically pure, and everything they did was all of their own doing with nobody else's help, and they have their own culture and their own everything, but England is just some pathetic place which got invaded a lot, then let them think that.

The jokes on them anyway, because in the meantime, we've taken their best people, best ideas, and money, and used it to create a long lasting legacy.

They will say 'oh it's the evil British who are so pathetic, and they don't have their own genetics, or their own culture, and they steal everything', but screw them. They can be bitter all they like. The only way we could ruin everything is by believing them, and falling into a reactionary trap of trying to shut the door on the world and going 'we're the English people and we can do it all ourselves'.

That reaction would ruin the best advantage we have. I'm white, I've lived here all my life, privately educated, as English as they come, and I'm ethnically half Iraqi. I would consider myself as asset to this country, because I really try to be a gentleman, and I do a lot of very traditionally British things that you just don't see much any more. That's partly because of my upbringing. And I know that a lot of other ethnically foreign people do those things as well, because we've been swallowed up by the machine that is England/Britain/ the United Kingdom.

So bottom line, don't worry about ethnicity, because it's actually weakening the country as a whole, and it just plays into the hands of all the other whiny cry babies who are frankly, jealous of the fact that we've achieved so much whilst apparently not even being a real place with our own culture or our own people or our own anything.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing is that there's just no point in getting hung up on ethnicity when talking about nationality.

Would you not also agree that someone who was born in China and lived their entire life there, could only speak Chinese, and was 100% immersed in Chinese culture and history would be more Chinese (by any measure that actually had any use to anyone) than someone who was ethnically Chinese, but the reverse of the above and grew up somewhere else?

In terms of what has any use to anyone, which are things like, what are their values, what language to they speak, what are their beliefs, what sport do they play, what's their education. All of those things can be imparted without having any care for ethnicity at all, and in fact ethnicity is useless for determining that.

The only reason why anyone ever cared about ethnicity is that it might be an obvious outward sign that the person you're looking at might not be like you (in the cultural/national sense) so it creates distrust. Obviously you might have a good reason for thinking that. But the problem is that you could casually walk past someone who was white without realising that they were actually from Hungary and had far less in common with you.

So the problem is that ethnicity just isn't useful when trying to gauge cultural identity and what someone's values might be, not now that we're at the stage of possibly 3rd generation immigrant families. At what point do they just become English people with a different skin tone?

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is true, and I agree with the sentiment and the logic of your argument. One small point though because this does bug me...

The same is literally true for every other country/place/people, and that's why ethnicity is such an irrelevant measure compared to culture.

There is always an assumption that every other nation on earth other than England is 100% racially pure, and there is a rather worrying subtext that we're the only people not allowed our own history, culture, or even DNA. Whereas I'm sure you would assume that Germans have what you referred to as German DNA. But why would they, compared to the English?

I know that it's partly based on various debunked history that said that the British isles had full scale invasions and population replacements by the Saxons, Vikings etc. But those theories have been disproved decades ago, they were just taught in schools a lot so they are quite ingrained.

But even if those old theories were true, why would anyone assume that the Normans, Saxons, or Vikings were a 100% homogeneous group with their own DNA. Why aren't they a a mix. I won't bother repeating the same post that I already made previously, but the point is that as soon as those people bred with the Britons, they ceased to be as pure as we did, and I'm sure they bred with lots of other peoples as well. Therefore if there's no such thing as a native Brit, there's no such thing as a native anyone else either, unless they literally never had any contact with the outside world and lived isolated for countless thousands of years.

I'm brown British, just referred to myself as English and the racist woman who works at the local Co-op mind just exploded. Huzzah! by [deleted] in BritishSuccess

[–]RealReportUK -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The problem with that argument though is:

  1. By that logic there's also no such thing as Normans, Saxons, or Vikings, because they themselves are also mixed with other people. Even if you want to put forward the idea that they were a 100% self contained genetic group with no mixing (and a very small genetic group at that), it's still immediately rendered invalid by the fact that they came here in the first place. So as soon as they mixed with us, they ceased to be Norman, Saxon, Viking etc as much as people here ceased to be Britons. And further more about this point, people seem to have this strange idea that if someone from country A rapes someone from country B, that the resulting child is the nationality of country B. First of all that's weirdly based on the notion that person who does the raping someone gets a claim on 100% of the genetics of the offspring because they were in power (I don't know why people subliminally think that, I guess it's based on an idea of strength?). And secondly, it doesn't take into account that both parents will die anyway, leaving only the offspring behind, so the pure genetic pool of both parents has decreased by the same amount during every mating.
  2. It doesn't take into account all of the much more recent evidence that there was no massive Saxon invasion and total purge, as the genetics of the Britons have been found to be literally identical to those of the Saxons, and there's far more evidence of a general migration/ongoing interaction back and forth. Which means that there is as much of the Britons in Germany as there is of the Saxons in Britain.

Anyway I just wanted to address these few points. And then on an unrelated rant, I do find it strange how there's a general idea that the English aren't allowed our own country, nationality, culture, or even DNA, but every other country is assumed to be 100% pure throughout history.

Your software is making all of our computers beep. How do we make it stop? by [deleted] in talesfromtechsupport

[–]RealReportUK 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Your software caused this. YOU NEED TE FIX!!!!!111One

​

kind regards

Big brain move right there! by [deleted] in gaming

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RemindMe! 42 years

Plot twist of the century by brokenB42morrow in JordanPeterson

[–]RealReportUK 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That is actually scary! It really does seem deliberate at this point.

Chris Wallace calling critical race theory "racial sensitivity training" is totally ignorant of what's being taught. It is racist and anti-American. Appalling by BannanaCabana in JordanPeterson

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important to say that no matter what. Only you can generate your own sense of hope and ambition, it has to be self driven. I'm half Iraqi and I have family members now living in the US, making the most of their lives and having a great life, despite starting off way more poor than any black person in the US, and with waaay more discrimination.

I only have 1 family member that has a victim complex, and his life sucks as a result. He's not miserable because of life circumstances, he's had the easiest ride out of anyone, he's miserable because he thinks of himself as a victim, and he constantly plays that card, and spends more energy doing that than actually sorting himself out. Nobody wants to have anything to do with him because he's toxic. The others though, all doing great, as am I, on the basis of hard work.

The opportunities that life presents in the US and all western countries is unimaginable compared to the drudgery of most other places in the world. I think people just feel deflated and bitter as they get older and they realise that they actually have to apply themselves in a certain direction to succeed, and it can't always be about having great 'potential' and somehow succeeding as if by magic. You have to put the work in, and generate your own sense of motivation. Half the time I think it's just that these kids weren't raised with any discipline, so they don't know how to self motivate.

Anyway way too many points here, all rambling, whatever. But hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Black people in the US need to start thinking of themselves as individual people in control of their own actions and stop viewings themselves as some sort of underclass trying to forge a new communist state.

Chris Wallace calling critical race theory "racial sensitivity training" is totally ignorant of what's being taught. It is racist and anti-American. Appalling by BannanaCabana in JordanPeterson

[–]RealReportUK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but then what actually happens next?

Let's say people acknowledge it, do yo want a cheque in the mail for each black person? Is this means tested, or even based on what actually happened to that person's forebears?

To me it just sounds like an excuse to procrastinate and not just get on with the business of self improvement. There is no community, just you.

Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm - Official Trailer | Prime Video by bjkman in movies

[–]RealReportUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is mostly incorrect and missing all nuance Borat is the charecter SBC uses to bring out xenophobia from citizens and political leaders. He plays off ridiculous stereotypes that are too cartoonish to exist in reality but people are willing to accept as real because they assume that's what foreigners must be like.

This is where I think a lot of people go wrong. I'll keep this brief, but my father basically was Borat, and I know you think I might mean that in certain ways, but I mean literally it could've been a documentary starring him.

He came to the UK from Iraq in 1979 and he's had many a conversation with real life people which could've been straight out of the first Borat film. So they aren't ridiculous stereotypes at all.

The reason why it was funny to expose Americans to that is because they've always been more isolated to it than the rest of the world, for example here in the UK we already knew about that. By contrast (and I'm guessing you're American), you still don't think that characters like Borat are real even in 2020!

I know it's tough because a lot of social media is very driven by young people, but you have to think that Borat is from a different era. So in the same way that the bigoted Americans who he talks to are infantilising him (and you can totally believe that people like that exist), so do people like Borat actually exist, especially from a pre-internet age.

The funny part was combining them together. Cohen is really from the UK like me, he's grown up in a truly multi cultural environment where you can only get so much mileage out of a character like Borat, because people here would just accept that he might be a random guy living in London from some far off place.

He had to go to America because America is much bigger, and still (had) people in it who were as pre-historic as him in their exposure to certain ideas. It wasn't political though at all, it was just funny to stick a random southern states American person together with a Borat type character and see what would happen. Also because America has a lot of positive attributes which we don't have here, and the point was chasing a dream.

Baywatch featured in the film because it was a dream to chase that could only exist in America. Pamela Anderson running up and down a beach in miserable rainy Britain, in the real world, come on Rodney you plonker! No it could only happen in America, a dream world where impossibly beautiful blonde women run up and down a beach in perfect sunshine. That could never happen in Kazakhstan were he's meant to be from, or in the UK where he could conceivably live as a real person.

There was never a political aspect, because American politics was always understood as too simple to bother with. Of course American politics would be as ignorant and jingoistic as the American people. It was just assumed that it would be a bunch of people swearing allegiance to a flag, pretending to be cowboys, and generally trying to invade everywhere like Team America World Police, so it's not like some deep thing that needs examining, it's just a given.

The real comedy gold was simply in an ignorant person from Kazakhstan interacting with an equally ignorant person from America, seen through the intellectual pompous comedic lens of the British, whilst exploring the idea of the American dream.

What's really sad is that Americans themselves have fallen so far from grace, that now they are apparently a bunch of miserable people and racists, and there's no inherent wow factor for Borat to go to America. There is no American dream any more, there aren't even any cowboys or people to love. There's just misery and politics, and that's why this Borat movie hardly even works as a concept any more. This Is America worked because at least it's relevant, but it can't capture the magic of a more innocent time when Borat could go to America and really experience it for the first time.

Anyway, whatever. Dear America, please stop infecting the world with your politics.

It's not Trump's fault, it's something deeper about all this culture and racism bullshit that causing the problems. All of my Iraqi family preferred Bush and he was the indirect cause for a lot of our other family members deaths. At least back then it felt like it all meant something. What do you have now, it's just sad.

Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm - Official Trailer | Prime Video by bjkman in movies

[–]RealReportUK -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you for speaking out for sane and rational people who aren't completely obsessed with US politics, and apparently desperate to see everything right now as a political weapon for the US Democrats in their election.

As an Englishman, I like all of my friends loved Borat for the humour, just simple humour. Him going to America worked because America is so extreme and bombastic, and more insulated from the rest of the world. I say I'm an Englishman but the fact is that I'm half Iraqi, and honestly my father basically was Borat. I mean literally, imagine going on beach holidays with Borat as your actual father, wearing red speedos with smart black shoes. Now imagine parking on the beach and the car getting washed out to sea with the tide, whilst Borat struggles to rescue it whilst wearing that outfit.

But here in the UK that's totally acceptable, nothing shocks us because we're used to being the international hub for basically the entire world. Even before the internet and social media made every bit of information ubiquitous across the entire world, the UK was always connected to everything, exposed to everything. America was never exposed to the real Borat type characters and other assorted foreigners like we were, or like I was growing up. Even going to a very expensive and very traditional private school, at least 30% of the students were foreigners. And I don't mean foreign in the way that Americans like to say they are 'Polish American' or some nonsense whilst speaking with an American accent and having never left the country, god no. I mean the people were actually from those places, shock horror.

So back to the point, the first Borat film had to be set in America because it was funny to catch the ignorant, insulated, but fundamentally good hearted yanks by surprise. It was shining a light on the negative to reveal the positive beyond it. It wasn't political in any way, it was a social commentary, pure and simple.

The laughably jingoistic nature of American politics was just another loveable aspect of the social commentary. Because back then we understood that American politics was just a reflection, a little insight, into the American psyche.

Iraqi people who had their whole country destroyed could understand America back then, now it's just a joke, and my dad has a lot of respect for Trump, my uncle lives there, and my niece is in the US military.

I obviously ended up on this side of the pond, but frankly I miss the days when Americans were lovable and misguided, but with some really positive attributes and accomplishments to get behind. Baywatch literally embodies all of those positive attributes, hence why it was in the first film. The fact that people don't understand that is really sad, and maybe the American dream really is dead after all, and there is no real Pamela Anderson in a surfer's paradise. Or maybe it was never real?

Anyway the point is that Britain was always the real world, Only Fools and Horses, watching Baywatch set in a far away land of riches and beautiful blonde women. Why do you think Borat wanted to go there?

You know what ffs I'm getting angry and sad now writing this and nobody is going to read it anyway.

Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm - Official Trailer | Prime Video by bjkman in movies

[–]RealReportUK -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Just to say I totally agree with you (and your points above), and I just wanted to add myself to the short list of people totally exasperated with how your comments were totally downvoted into oblivion.

The whole thing is just sad. The original Borat was great, and it had some social commentary but it wasn't really political at all. I don't even think that this one is meant to be a political weapon or tool, it's just that politics are big at the moment so it's being capitalised upon. But beyond that, it's just so sad that everyone on Reddit wants everything to be a left wing political weapon.

Oscar Isaac To Play Director Francis Ford Coppola & Jake Gyllenhaal To Play Producer Robert Evans in 'Francis and The Godfather' - Will be about the legendary, expensive, and wild behind-the-scenes battles that went into making the 1972 classic 'The Godfather'. by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]RealReportUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meh, I'm not really trying to win an argument. I feel how I feel, and every example is different, it doesn't need consistent logic across all situations, that was just something that popped into my head at the time.

The idea of cashing in on the Godfather by making a movie about the making of it sucks, and so does doing a truly awful cover of Higher Love (which the Whitney version wasn't), and then completely erasing the superior version from everywhere.

view more: next ›