/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

How are you so dense? Did pickle inspector do this to you?

TheColdTurtle wrote:How are you so dense? Did pickle inspector do this to you?

How much salt do you actually have?

TBM and I are fine.

CosmicScientist wrote:When will it end?


In other news, what do people think of Myanmar (formerly Burma) and its shenanigans? I know the hurricane is on everyone's mind and it's very sad that some islands have been pretty much stripped of infrastructure or enough to make pointless the remainder. That and Florida's still to come. But the ethnic migration/cleansing/thing sounds concerning even if it's to every Westerner's scapegoat religion if we ignore the far and alt right approach to matters.

Its extremely sad and frustrating that people slaughter each other in the name of religion. War, poverty and cruelty seem to be constant reminders of the darker side of humans. It seems it will continue ad finitum.

It's just the same old they've been doing since long before we had global media to hear about it
And indeed, before we even knew of that place's existence they've been at it

It's unlikely to change any time soon, and since all sides (More than just two in that region) participate in it and take turns I can't really be arsed to have any sort of strong feelings about it

4chan is gay

Buddhists believe in reincarnation so if they genocide a bunch of islams does that mean the islams will come back another religion?

no
that means they'll come back

coming back is a bad thing though and killing people is a sign you're not advanced enough not to come back at all

Wait, is Burma ethnically cleansing muslims?

Technically
Muslims vs Buddhists has been going on for centuries in south-east asia, with the occasional Hindu group joining in. They've all been trying to genocide eachother for a while now, and now it's the muslims turn on the receiving end

Honestly the place was probably better off under colonialism, with the colonial power at least preventing such things like "Genocide" and "Warlords fighting and pillaging"

XSI wrote:
Honestly the place was probably better off under colonialism, with the colonial power at least preventing such things like "Genocide" and "Warlords fighting and pillaging"

ding ding ding we have a winner.

this applies to africa too

ah yes the classic white mans burden i see i see

Not saying that colonised places had a great old time back then
But they sure as fuck aren't having one now either

Besides, south-america turned out pretty alright as far as stability goes. Mostly. North-america is practically an example. As is Australia

nah as we all know europeans did not colonise africa to steal all the natural resources but to actually educate and spread CIVILISATION to them.


they were actually doing them a service by conquering them.

I'm pretty sure Africa was still fucked even under colonialism

It's debatable whether European colonialism, independence(Read: Colonialism by corporations bribing the government), or modern Chinese colonialism are better for them
They're kinda fucked no matter what really

XSI wrote:Not saying that colonised places had a great old time back then
But they sure as fuck aren't having one now either

Besides, south-america turned out pretty alright as far as stability goes. Mostly. North-america is practically an example. As is Australia

I wonder if that's because the entire system of government built in the colonies was to suit the extraction of natural resources and not for running a sovereign nation and instead of facilitating decolonisation European countries just left the region all at once and destabilised it to shit, whilst drawing country lines completely disregarding tribal affiliations.

Nah it must be because those booga booga men aren't as SMART and as WISE as the whiteys.

No, that's pretty much it

Instead of properly decolonizing and helping them out with making functional government etc the Europeans just sorta up and left after WW2, leaving behind dictators and countries with people who have historically hated eachother and often fought wars in the same government and country and just told to make it work
The locals in those countries just went right back to hating eachother and internal warfare in many cases, with many of the governments left behind completely unsuited to handling anything in a modern way

Of course the Europeans didn't actually get a real choice in the matter either, thanks to international influence

Colonisation caused tremendous suffering and pain, but it bumped Africa down the hill of infrastructural development and inevitably caused the population boom.

Hell, many people would not exist today if slavery didn't happen because disease, the elements, and local flora and fauna kept the population down - do you think that the people who suffer today in Africa would've been better off not existing and that thus you can attribute this to colonialism, or do you think that Africa is currently safer to inhabit as a result of colonialism? It's kind of a matter of perspective.

On one hand:
1. Industrialization began.
2. Education was more accessible and eventually a class of educated Africans rose who would eventually fight against colonialism.
3. Sanitation in Africa improved greatly, and the life expectancy rate increased tremendously.
4. Africa entered the global world market, although as a disadvantaged competitor.
5. Africans had access to previously unknown technologies, and I don't feel good putting this in the advantages bracket since one of the technologies given to Africa was firearms, and we know how that turned out.

BUT:

1. Millions of deaths.
2. Although living standards increased on average, not everyone's living standards increased.
3. Africa's newly founded industrialization was stunted.
4. This sudden increase in living standards caused a giant population boom, which many countries were unable to handle.
5. Colonization kept the lid down on explosive conflict that found its freedom after European countries pulled out of Africa.

That's why it's certainly not completely true to say that colonization was a net positive, nor is it true to say that Africa did not benefit at all from colonization at all because it was specifically automagically designed to ENSURE that no benefits reached Africans.

Africa did benefit from colonization, but paid a great price for it, here's one quote:

Now all these benefits did not come on a platter. African paid a great price for it. Actually the benefits were overpriced. Many lives were lost, Africa lost it self-esteem and traditional African cultures were affected.

All these benefits were scraps that fell from the colonists' table.

It's an interesting discussion, but a hard one to have.

I'm sure that colonic ignore this and continue to imply that what I'm saying is:

they were actually doing them a service by conquering them.

tl;dr massive amounts of fence-sitting.
tl;dr im autistic and felt like writing this up sorry

ColonicAcid wrote:

XSI wrote:Not saying that colonised places had a great old time back then
But they sure as fuck aren't having one now either

Besides, south-america turned out pretty alright as far as stability goes. Mostly. North-america is practically an example. As is Australia

I wonder if that's because the entire system of government built in the colonies was to suit the extraction of natural resources and not for running a sovereign nation and instead of facilitating decolonisation European countries just left the region all at once and destabilised it to shit, whilst drawing country lines completely disregarding tribal affiliations.

Nah it must be because those booga booga men aren't as SMART and as WISE as the whiteys.

If it was so shit being a coon in South Africa then why the fuck did all the Ungo Bungos migrate to SA?
The Cape of Africa was unpopulated when the Dutch first arrived.

They might not've had the best rights living under apartheid but atleast they didn't have rival tribals giving them a rubber necklace.

Man colonialism sucks

Malkevin wrote: The Cape of Africa was unpopulated when the Dutch first arrived.

Technically not. There were scattered small tribes of bushmen. Nomadic populations are still populations
And these bushmen were given benefits and such(Plus apologies) from the government before the place collapsed after the whole apartheid thing ended

Also technically Belgium happened because the Dutch government decided Belgium didn't count. And then foreign powers supported Belgium and there was a treaty
I guess the Dutch government was right that time, since Belgium still doesn't count even today

Yes
And then they had a vote over some religious issue that would fuck over the catholics
The vote result was to not be a dick to the catholics

So the government decided catholic votes don't count as much as protestant votes, declared that the vote was in favour of fucking over the catholics, and then the catholics decided to declare they were done with the whole thing
What actually happened was basically that but with some slightly more fancy wording and some more political maneuvering

Sorry bman you're incorrect.

Population booms happened AFTER decolonosation not whilst under the yolk.

As did GDP. It stayed virtually the same for all colonial states until they were freed and then it exploded.

The reason why Africa is so destabilized and has a low quality of living is not and never has been due to Europeans being smarter. Europeans were the sole driving force of science and commerce not because of a god given right and a bigger brain but because of luck and position.

Europe also has ethnic conflict, look at Yugoslavia after it's breakup, so getting rubber necklaced by a different tribe isn't exactly solely just present in Africa. There's also very little need for the government of African nations to push for healthcare and increase standard of living for the very poor because unlike when we did it in the early 1900s there is zero need to do it now. Our economy has gone past the days of industrial production, financial and service sectors are the future, and you only need a small percentage of the population to increase your GDP to a near western level. Zimbabwe, Brazil, all these countries could invest significant amount of money on fixing poverty but that would be counter intuitive because the money gotten back is very little nowadays. Modern medicine allows you to live in a slum and still be relatively healthy. In the 1900s you had to leave the slums entirely because of antibiotics not being a thing. Regardless, it was also caused due to the need of healthy soldiers for total war, something we will probably never see again.

Trying to argue whether colonialism was good for the natives is a stupid argument, because the end should never justify the means when it comes to human suffering and sovereignty. What you're stating is the 19th century viewpoint of the white man's burden. It doesn't matter what benefits it brought to the natives either at the current times or after. It was abhorrent and has caused issues that still lay the foundations for problems to this day. You're all supporting this notion because you, surprise surprise, come from countries that did the colonizing and not from the colonised. You're basically arguing "slavery was actually really beneficial for the slaves.".

Yes don't try and weasel your way out by saying "but ackshyally it wasn't slavery :^)))))" because colonialism was slavery that instead of shipping them to America you pay then quite literally nothing and work them to near death.

Also we don't really know the full crimes against humanity commited by the British Empire because funnily enough as the British were in the process of decolonisation they white washed the entire thing and destroyed massive amounts of documents in this little operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Legacy

ColonicAcid wrote:Sorry bman you're incorrect.

Population booms happened AFTER decolonosation not whilst under the yolk.

Sure? I'm not arguing otherwise.

bman wrote:"and inevitably caused the population boom."

Keyword inevitably, without the infrastructural development Africa would've remained difficult to inhabit (do you think that they had antibiotics before colonization?) and the population wouldn't have boomed in the first place.

As did GDP. It stayed virtually the same for all colonial states until they were freed and then it exploded.
Sure, almost because there was no need for local economy if all the resources are being exported without any returns?

The reason why Africa is so destabilized and has a low quality of living is not and never has been due to Europeans being smarter. Europeans were the sole driving force of science and commerce not because of a god given right and a

bigger brain but because of luck and position.

No one's saying this, Colonic, you're answering your own point.

In fact, I predicted you doing this in my last post.

bman wrote:I'm sure that colonic ignore this and continue to imply that what I'm saying is:

ColonicAcid wrote:they were actually doing them a service by conquering them.

Europe also has ethnic conflict, look at Yugoslavia after it's breakup, so getting rubber necklaced by a different tribe isn't exactly solely just present in Africa. There's also very little need for the government of African nations to push for healthcare and increase standard of living for the very poor because unlike when we did it in the early 1900s there is zero need to do it now. Our economy has gone past the days of industrial production, financial and service sectors are the future, and you only need a small percentage of the population to increase your GDP to a near western level. Zimbabwe, Brazil, all these countries could invest significant amount of money on fixing poverty but that would be counter intuitive because the money gotten back is very little nowadays. Modern medicine allows you to live in a slum and still be relatively healthy. In the 1900s you had to leave the slums entirely because of antibiotics not being a thing. Regardless, it was also caused due to the need of healthy soldiers for total war, something we will probably never see again.
You just proved my point: Yes, there is no need to push for further development because Africa now has access to antibiotics in the first place. Africa now has a chance to compete for itself in the global market because they're not getting ravaged by disease, they even have technology to counter disease such as various pesticides and planes to spray said pesticides, now, I wonder how Africans have access to antibiotics and technology nowadays in the first place, hmm......

Trying to argue whether colonialism was good for the natives is a stupid argument predicted, because the end should never justify the means when it comes to human suffering and sovereignty. What you're stating is the 19th century viewpoint of the white man's burden predicted. It doesn't matter what benefits it brought to the natives either at the current times or after. It was abhorrent and has caused issues that still lay the foundations for problems to this day.

Sure, and that's a very safe viewpoint that I don't really disagree with or contest, but the notion that Africa did not benefit from colonialism is objectively false.

You're all supporting this notion because you, surprise surprise, come from countries that did the colonizing and not from the colonised. You're basically arguing "slavery was actually really beneficial for the slaves.".

Good job assuming everyone's nationality, Colonic.

Yes don't try and weasel your way out by saying "but ackshyally it wasn't slavery :^)))))" because colonialism was slavery that instead of shipping them to America you pay then quite literally nothing and work them to near death.

Absolutely no one is arguing this.

ColonicAcid wrote:Also we don't really know the full crimes against humanity commited by the British Empire because funnily enough as the British were in the process of decolonisation they white washed the entire thing and destroyed massive amounts of documents in this little operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Legacy

Well what else were they supposed to do? "Congratulation you're your own man now, oh by the way here are all the atrocities we committed against your people for the past decades, no hard feelings!" It was either full disclosure or peaceful decolonisation. Disclosure would've resulted in a pretty bad break-up, I'm talking "angry ex trashes your apartment and keys your car" kind of bad break-up

oh look its bman taking something i said in general as a personal statement towards him

let me make this clear buddy because this is really hard for you to get apparantly.

if im talking to you, i wouldve said your name multiple times, the first statement was directed to you, the others were not.

i'm not really assuming identity, i can count the amount of asian or africans that played on this server on one hand. the only small majority of people that haven't done any colonisation is the balkans to which there aren't many people and south american which also there aren't that many people.

a very large majority of the population of this server are either North American or Western European, all of which have colonised a whole lot of the world.

ColonicAcid wrote:oh look its bman taking something i said in general as a personal statement towards him

let me make this clear buddy because this is really hard for you to get apparantly.

if im talking to you, i wouldve said your name multiple times, the first statement was directed to you, the others were not.

i'm not really assuming identity, i can count the amount of asian or africans that played on this server on one hand. the only small majority of people that haven't done any colonisation is the balkans to which there aren't many people and south american which also there aren't that many people.

a very large majority of the population of this server are either North American or Western European, all of which have colonised a whole lot of the world.

oh looks its colonic nitpicking a single part of my post.

it's not even a successful complaint, because i even said:

Good job assuming >>>>everyone's<<<< nationality, Colonic.

How is this "a personal statement towards me", are you special?

fucking hell take it to the politics thread

Africa being a shithole is largely a result of colonialism, but also because it's chock full of a lot of groups of people that fucking hate each other.

This is also assuming you have to address me for me to respond to your points, what?

ShadowDimentio wrote:Africa being a shithole is largely a result of colonialism, but also because it's chock full of a lot of groups of people that fucking hate each other.

In South Sudan if you have the wrong FACIAL SCARS and you're in the WRONG TERRITORY you get killed.

which honestly the rest of the world is too
look at eastern europe and the united states

The US and eastern Europe hasn't descended into tribal warfare though

ShadowDimentio wrote:The US and eastern Europe hasn't descended into tribal warfare though

at least in places that arent ghettos :::^^^^))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) it's a fucking joke smell a banter

CosmicScientist wrote:But the telleh told me if you wear the wrong colour shirt and shoes in Murica, on the wrong side of town, you get shot by the most edgelord named WoW Raid clans black gangs.

bloods and clocks

see this is why you need to work on your reading comprehension.

its okay, i know the education system can sometimes leave people behind, here ill highlight some parts where you took things i said generally as if i was responding to you:

bman wrote:

bman wrote:I'm sure that colonic ignore this and continue to imply that what I'm saying is:

ColonicAcid wrote:they were actually doing them a service by conquering them.

uh nope, wasn't directed at you, doesn't have your name, i was arguing to other people, you know the people who did say that colonialism was a good thing. you are not the only person here bman, cease the narcissism because i dont believe in solipism and you're not the only one posting about colonialism.

bman wrote:Trying to argue whether colonialism was good for the natives is a stupid argument predicted, because the end should never justify the means when it comes to human suffering and sovereignty. What you're stating is the 19th century viewpoint of the white man's burden predicted. It doesn't matter what benefits it brought to the natives either at the current times or after. It was abhorrent and has caused issues that still lay the foundations for problems to this day.

congrats, you predicted my arguements, unfortunately they still werent aimed at you. your name is only in the first part, if I wanted to direct anything at you i would state your name when i said it.

bman wrote:Yes don't try and weasel your way out by saying "but ackshyally it wasn't slavery :^)))))" because colonialism was slavery that instead of shipping them to America you pay then quite literally nothing and work them to near death.

Absolutely no one is arguing this.

that's a real cool opinion you got there, unfortunately once again wasn't talking to you but as a general statement, because knowing the people that visit this website someone WILL say that colonialism wasn't slavery. whether you want to argue if anyone will ever say that you can, it won't change my opinion that there are people here dumb enough to believe that.

bman wrote: In South Sudan if you have the wrong FACIAL SCARS and you're in the WRONG TERRITORY you get killed.

And in northern ireland if you are a known catholic and you go into a protestant area you're going to get killed as well. In fact I know of a person who got literally lynched for writing a graffiti of "God Fuck the Queen" in a protestant area. The only reason that there isn't as much violence in Europe is that we are homogenised.

Sub-saharan Africa has more genetic differences between tribes than between the rest of the world. Tutsis and Hutus were more different than a French person and a Chinese person.

Humans naturally hate people who aren't part of their tribe or general look because unfortunately we've been a tribal society for far, far longer than we've been nation states.

ColonicAcid wrote:see this is why you need to work on your reading comprehension.

its okay, i know the education system can sometimes leave people behind, here ill highlight some parts where you took things i said generally as if i was responding to you:

bman wrote:

bman wrote:I'm sure that colonic ignore this and continue to imply that what I'm saying is:

ColonicAcid wrote:they were actually doing them a service by conquering them.

uh nope, wasn't directed at you, doesn't have your name, i was arguing to other people, you know the people who did say that colonialism was a good thing. you are not the only person here bman, cease the narcissism >colonic telling me to stop being a narcissist because i dont believe in solipism and you're not the only one posting about colonialism.
THERE IS STILL NO ONE ARGUING THIS, NAME ME A PERSON.

bman wrote:Trying to argue whether colonialism was good for the natives is a stupid argument predicted, because the end should never justify the means when it comes to human suffering and sovereignty. What you're stating is the 19th century viewpoint of the white man's burden predicted. It doesn't matter what benefits it brought to the natives either at the current times or after. It was abhorrent and has caused issues that still lay the foundations for problems to this day.

congrats, you predicted my arguements, unfortunately they still werent aimed at you. your name is only in the first part, if I wanted to direct anything at you i would state your name when i said it.
THERE IS STILL NO ONE ARGUING THIS, NAME ME A PERSON.

bman wrote:Yes don't try and weasel your way out by saying "but ackshyally it wasn't slavery :^)))))" because colonialism was slavery that instead of shipping them to America you pay then quite literally nothing and work them to near death.

Absolutely no one is arguing this.

that's a real cool opinion you got there, unfortunately once again wasn't talking to you but as a general statement, because knowing the people that visit this website someone WILL say that colonialism wasn't slavery. whether you want to argue if anyone will ever say that you can, it won't change my opinion that there are people here dumb enough to believe that.

THERE IS STILL NO ONE ARGUING THIS, NAME ME A PERSON.

---

AND let's assume that someone IS arguing this, just because it's not aimed at me doesn't mean I cant reply to it.

AND you're still nitpicking on this aspect and refusing to address the main points.

Africa has been in constant tribal warfare for like forever, colonialism/slavery wasn't the cause of that, but incentivizing war and taking slaves for guns made everything much worse, and even after the practice was ended everyone fucking hated everyone else forever.

im thoroughly convinced colonic is baiting me at this point

that's a real cool opinion you got there, unfortunately once again wasn't talking to you but as a general statement, because knowing the people that visit this website someone WILL say that colonialism wasn't slavery. whether you want to argue if anyone will ever say that you can, it won't change my opinion that there are people here dumb enough to believe that.


youre actually a cherry berry retard jesus christ

Ooga booga! *throws a rock at colonic acid*

You've violated the NAP, prepare to be firebombed

-me catches the rock and then does a frontflip using the momentum to throw the rock back at crag at the speed of mach 3-


heh....................

ColonicAcid wrote:that's a real cool opinion you got there, unfortunately once again wasn't talking to you but as a general statement, because knowing the people that visit this website someone WILL say that colonialism wasn't slavery. whether you want to argue if anyone will ever say that you can, it won't change my opinion that there are people here dumb enough to believe that.


youre actually a cherry berry retard jesus christ

SIZE 200 MESSAGE: JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO ME DOESNT MEAN I CANT REPLY TO YOUR POINTS

someone WILL say that colonialism wasn't slavery

"There is racism, you just don't see it."
"In my imagination, it was true."

ColonicAcid wrote:-me catches the rock and then does a frontflip using the momentum to throw the rock back at crag at the speed of mach 3-


heh....................

*the rock passes through me it was a hologram*

Hmph...*folds arms* they told me you were better...

"liderally nobody is saying this!" 3 times

>i literally state that i know it hasnt been said but i know for a fact there are people who think this in this forum.

>>wow colonic is trying to bait me

real cool really nice thats imma put that down as another "shit bman says on /pol/ thread."

first addictions, now reading comprehension, whats the next step in human civilisation?

>i literally state that i know it hasnt been said but i know for a fact there are people who think this in this forum.

[youtube]NuceZlimnNE[/youtube]

Super Aggro Crag wrote:*the rock passes through me it was a hologram*

Hmph...*folds arms* they told me you were better...

look at the rock again.... its a heat seeking missile... its smelled your blood

*laughs like a big boy villian*

actually you know what colonic, im sorry, this wasnt actually me replying to you, it was my illusion of free will making me do it!

bman wrote:

>i literally state that i know it hasnt been said but i know for a fact there are people who think this in this forum.

[youtube]NuceZlimnNE[/youtube]

motherfucker i have played on this server for nearly 6 years i know exactly the type of retards that inhibit this place.

i know for a fact that there are people RIGHT now who will argue that the american civil war had LIDERALLY zero to do with slaves.