Jump to content

The Anti-Targ

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Anti-Targ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

9,823 profile views
  1. The Anti-Targ

    U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

    I feel like getting tagged with "annointed by Zuckerberg" is likely to do more harm than good for a candidate.
  2. It's still relevant, unless Gove has said anything since 2013 that indicates he's genuinely changed his opinion. It's not like "If you're poor, it's your fault" isn't a commonly and firmly held view among a segment of the political right.
  3. Yes, but ONLY on safety grounds and not because of any cultural mumbo jumbo; I'm guessing.
  4. I'm assuming Australia never had any bush fires before it legalised gay marriage and abortion. A person must know they've gone too far with putting their intolerance on display when Alan Jones tells you to pull your head in.
  5. What was Buckingham Palace PR thinking could be achieved by Andrew fronting for an interview? Could anything good come from it? Seems to me like there were only downsides and no upsides. I would think the only public thing that might be of any value would be a media statement and no questions. No one would be convinced by such a thing, but he's less likely to make his reputation and suspicion of involvement any worse by it. Then again, is someone (or a bunch of somones) is so out of touch that they truly think they did nothing wrong when they actually did something wrong, I suppose they would think it was a great idea to do an interview and clear their name once and for all.
  6. Even if the conservative claim of Labour letting in 840K per year was to happen, that's still too slow of a rate of immigration to actually have a significant cultural impact long term. Any cultural replacement argument is xenophobic, its as simple as that. The only question is what, if anything, should be done to reduce that irrational opinion? Do you give these people up as beyond help and just push on with rational immigration policies? Or do you take it seriously that there's a non-negligible number of voters who believe this kind of thing and attempt to address those irrational fears without pandering to them? Or do you pander to those irrational fears for reasons of electoral expediency? To some extent it doesn't matter if there are East-European ghettos, or Islamic no-go zones in Britain where Shariah law is in effect and not British law. A lot (apparently) of people believe these things are true, and this is influencing their thinking and voting choices and their social discourse. A fear might be based in fantasy, but the fear is still real.
  7. It's interesting. New Zealand has gone out of it's way to avoid ghettoising the lower socioeconomic groups along ethnic lines...except for Maori and Pasifika. Unofficial of course, no actual policy to keep those demographics separate. So isn't it interesting that we don't really have racial problems among the masses, except for everyone else vs Maori and Pasifika, and Maori and Pasifika between each other. It's almost like integrating communities prevents ethnic division and facilitates cultural exchange and appreciation and a realisation that we have more in common than not, and segregating them has the opposite effect.
  8. The thing is, the chance of becoming a minority in your own country really only arises in history with invasion and colonisation. When was the last time the "natives" of a country became the minority through natural individual migration flows? Some white people in the USA, Australia and New Zealand are worried. But they are the colonists, so it doesn't count. Without Google searching the only examples of natives becoming the minority I can think of is through imperialist colonisation or outright invasion and ethnic cleansing. Normal economic migration if far too slow to create a "native" minority. After 2 maybe 3 generations the descendants of immigrants are now locals in every sense with far more in common with people who's families have been citizens for a few centuries than differences. It's why the daughter of immigrants can talk as equally xenophobically about immigration as people like JRM and BJ.
  9. I mean it is instructive that of all the countries where colonial immigrants outnumbered the indigenous people (though not any more) to use as an example of bad immigration nhe chooses one of the very few where the immigrants aren't white.
  10. Does the Brexit party standing anywhere advantage the Cons vs Labour? I imagine the Brexit part will bleed votes from Labour and Cons but would they pull more votes from Labour in some places? To kind of answer my own question, I would think in a very Brexit dominated election the Brexit Party is more likely to take votes off Labour in numbers they would probably not otherwise do. But even so, will that rise to a level where they take more form Labour than the Cons in key electorates? Will Lib Dem voters in marginal Lab/Con seats vote strategically to try to make sure they get the largest party they want (not making any assumptions about which that is), or will they stick with voting Lib Dem?
  11. I mean any colonised country is the perfect demonstration of the ultimate outcome of long term immigration on the political power of the indigenous people. But I imagine you are not advocating for yourself to be "sent back where you came from" to allow native Americans to regain the political power over their own country that they deserve. Also in the case of Fiji, almost no Fijian Indians originally came to Fiji by choice. the original immigrants were brought in as indentured Labour by the Colonial Brits to run the sugar plantations. So if you are going to draw some kind of parallel with Britain I guess it would be the Afro-Brits who are the decendants of slaves brought to Britain before slavery was abolished in Britain? Fortunately for white Brits they did not enslave enough Africans for it to lead to Afro-Brits having all of the political power. However, contrary to your assertions about Fiji. This country is actually a pretty good example of the indigeous people managing to maintain political power in the face of forced colonialist immigration. The actual colonialists are entirely gone, and native Fijians remain the sizeable majority (>56%) with most of the political control, and are the only ethnic group allowed to own land (Natrive Land)other than about 8% of the total land area which is freehold and can be bought and sold including to non-Fiji citizens.
  12. The Anti-Targ

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    I just put it through my enigma machine: Trump hid one of his son's nut.
  13. The Anti-Targ

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Epste ind idn tk ill hims elf Doesn't make any sense to me.
  14. The Anti-Targ

    Space Launches, Landings, and Destinations - SpaceX Thread #3

    Has the recent data from Voyager 2 just hitting interstellar space put the kibosh on the Dyson sphere concept? To regard a Dyson sphere as a sensible energy solution, one must have always assume that capturing all, or almost all, of the sun's energy output for human use would have no unintended consequences. But the recent data coming from voyager which indicates that the solar wind blocks a lot of cosmic rays from entering the inner solar system means effectively blotting out the sun could actually have disastrous consequences and that solar energy radiating out into empty space is not just wasted energy waiting to be harvested. The solar ecosystem depends on the outward pressure of the solar wind to maintain an electromagnetic bubble that would disappear with a Dyson sphere. Even if a Dyson sphere only captured 50% of solar radiation that would probably still be bad for the EM equilibrium. I think perhaps the hopes for energy sources in our distant future might need to rest on something other than an idea developed by a 20th century futurist.
  15. Why would anyone be opposed to something that doesn't happen and is not being proposed by anyone, at least not anyone likely to get within cooee of #10? That's a completely disingenous position to be taking. Is it possible for people of a particular ethnicity to be prejudiced towards other people of their own ethnicity? I think you only need to look at the perpetuation of the class / caste systems in various societies, including (white) British society to an extent, to be able to answer that question. It can't really be called racism, since racisim is really the belief that a race as a whole is inferior to another race. But the underlying prejudice is the same. And I don't think it's even a question that needs to be asked as to whether one minority group can be racist towards another. In my opinion being straight up anti-immigration is a xenophobic position rooted in one or more forms of prejudice including, but not limited to, racism. One concession I would make is that liberalisation of immigration can be motivated by right-wing corporate capitalists as a way to maintain a downward pressure on wages. But in that case people should be fighting the implementation of capitalist economic theories that seek to increasingly concentrate wealth to the few, and not trying to demonise immigrants.