According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because

>>2510986
>So how come Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and other victims of centuries of Ottoman slavery and colonialism aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape?

They are

>>2510993
This

>>2510993
I am?

>>2510986
>So how come Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and other victims of centuries of Ottoman slavery and colonialism aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape?

Did you seriously make a thread so people could green text and you get your jollies?

>>2510986
>So how come Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and other victims of centuries of Ottoman slavery and colonialism aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape?


HMMMMM really makes me dink

>>2510986
"Liberals"

>>2510986
I always get a chuckle whenever a black activist tells me that "White People" are responsible for the evils of slavery while Muslim Arabs, Persians, Berbers, and Turks enslaved Africans and Europeans for centuries.

>>2510986
I actually typed out half a response to this before realizing what hopelessly retarded bait it is.

Also just goes to show that even with the Ottoman's highly refined and centuries-old colonialism, you'll still get drunk mountain people trying to commit genocide against one another in the end.

>>2511003
>>2510997
>>2510993
>>2510994
t. subhuman t*rkroach nazi

>>2510986
Mate have you ever been to the Balkans? It's pretty much the Africa of Europe.

>>2510993

> They are

lol they aren't.

They have quite the low crime rate overall, very low homicide and rape stats and drug use is similar as in western Europe.

>>2511027

> Mate have you ever been to the Balkans? It's pretty much the Africa of Europe.

I like how the crime rates and intentional homicide rates are higher in France than in basically everywhere in the Balkans outside Kosovo.

>>2510993
Hungary is a moral and intellectual cesspit with slave mentality
t. Hungarian

>>2510986
>According to [unrealistic interlocutor I invented in my head] the reason [divisive, unsubstantiated claim] is because of [extremely general term].

>So how come [absolutely terrible example that suggests nothing or even the complete opposite of original claim]?

145 replies / 27 images

would rather live in kenya than serbia tbqh

>>2510986
>So how come Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and other victims of centuries of Ottoman slavery and colonialism aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape?
Bad example.

But seriously, they're very rough around the edges, but not black tier. Hungarians are fairly civilised. Pot bellied drunks, but civilised.

>>2510986
>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because of colonialism and slavery.

Source? I am a liberal yet I didn't know I thought this way

>>2510993
first post best post

>>2511039
thats because niggers

It's race, OP. Sub-Saharan Africans are much more predisposed to all of those.

Looking at stats, at home and in diaspora, it fully confirms your point. Even people from countries like Albania (which are catching up), let alone Cyprus and Greece.

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>>2510986
>Balkanshits aren't prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape
Nigga have you ever met anyone from those countries? Slav memes don't come from nowhere
Hell I dated a Bulgarian chick for a while and even I'll admit they're all a bunch of retards

>>2511189
He's completely right, even if he were 'joking'. This thread just skirts around confronting his question via ridiculous deflection/memes.

>>2510986
Ottomans didn't colonise their territory, they just administrated them terribly

File: 1489484332275.jpg (32KB, 340x339px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 340x339px

>eastern europe

>not prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape

>>2511219
It depends on what you mean with "colonizing territory" but there are Anatolian Turkish minorities left in various places in the Balkans, even after plenty of population exchanges, war and exile. They did colonize strategic areas of the territory they expanded to to better control it.

>>2511216
>why isn't anybody addressing racial pseudo facts in my shitposting? is it because they're true and no one wants to admit it?

no, it's because nobody is interested in trying to have a discussion with an obvious moron who's clearly made up his mind on the topic and just wants to stir up shit

both of the functional predicates in OP are beyond retarded, there's nothing even worth addressing. trying to compare the processes of both colonization and decolonization in the former Ottoman Empire versus sub-Saharan Africa is a meaningless exercise here.

>>2511231
> eastern europe
> illiteracy
EE here, perfectly comfortable with three languages. Are you retarded?

>>2511257
He's completely right, one just needs to learn something about our current understanding of behavioral genetics to appreciate that.

By the way, one could as easily claim "you've made up your mind on this". It's a non-argument.

We'll keep hearing about colonialism forever, of course even though it's provably not a real factor in those disparities.

>>2510993

I concur.

>>2511306
>colonialism is provably not a real factor in the current situation in Africa
>our current understanding of behavioral genetics proves that Africans are just stupid

bring out the big list of links, my guy

>>2511353
I don't need to, this thread is a dumpster fire, even if OP's post was inflammatory in the first place.

Read something about the heritability of personality characteristics though and look at crime rates of various immigrants in EU countries (since African countries have no trustworthy crime data).

>>2511353
Get ready for those 3 or 4 papers that one white supremacist in minnesota group did

>>2511390
>do my research for me
>but by the way, check out how the latest immigrant populations are disproportionately criminal, unlike all those previous immigrant populations

you're part of the reason it's a shitpit

>>2511390
Read it, it's inconclusive garbage like most (even modern) genetics is.

You have a pop-sci at best understanding of genetics if you actually believe that finally "proves niggers are subhuman" or whatever. Back to /pol/ now.

>>2511216
The premise of the question itself is flawed. "If X are retarded, how come Y aren't?", when Y are in fact also retarded. I never denied that Sub-Saharan Africans have all those problems with crime etc.
The problem with people like OP is they can't see the wood for the trees. Claiming that blacks have so many social problems in Africa and the US simply because they have black skin just doesn't make any sense to me. It makes more sense to me to factor in all the socioeconomic, historical and cultural factors at play.

In a nutshell, if you treat people like shit for hundreds of years of course they're gonna end up fucked up. But if the reason you were treating them like shit was simply for the colour of their skin, you can't turn around and say they're only fucked up because of their skin and not how you treated them. That's some serious mental gymnastics. You're just trying to justify a means by which to continue treating them poorly and/or returning more concretely to a system of social stratification with whites on top and blacks on the bottom.

So we're just going to ignore the fact that for a very long time teaching black slaves in America was a serious crime? That slaves were malnourished on purpose? That alot of black people were imprisoned or executed by mobs for trumpted up crimes? We're just going to ignore those points?

File: Noice__Cigarette_Wink_.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>2510993

>>2511050
Underrated thread

>>2511431
I didn't ask you to do my research for me. I already know what the research shows about behavior and its relationship to genetics. You don't. And I'm talking about recent immigrants of similar socioeconomic status from various parts of the world.

>>2511434
It's very conclusive but you can't understand it.

I also mentioned nothing about "subhumans". It's a fact that human populations differ a lot on various characteristics due to genetics, though.

>>2511444
>when Y are in fact also retarded

It isn't when Y are actually much less "retarded" and both have gone through colonialism. I've actually looked deeply into immigrant and national crime rates and didn't stick to memes.

>simply because they have black skin

Why does everyone keep talking about skin? Genetics doesn't concern just skin, you know, it also concerns personality characteristics and the like. Oh, nevermind, people are just clueless and repeat the usual nonsense.

>>2511486
>I don't hate niggers cos they're black, I hate them cos they act like niggers
Great argument

>>2510986
>I've never travelled outside my basement and I get all my information about the outside world from /pol/; the post

>>2511501
>guy X is shorter than guy Y
>why do you hate guy X

No one wrote anything about "hate". Stop projecting.

>>2511512
Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that someone who devotes his time and energy to denigrating the black race on imageboards isn't a racist.

>>2511486
>I didn't ask you to do my research for me. I already know what the research shows about behavior and its relationship to genetics. You don't. And I'm talking about recent immigrants of similar socioeconomic status from various parts of the world.
>I don't have to explain why I'm right, I already know I'm right and if your opinions were as well-researched as mine then you'd already agree with me.

>It's very conclusive but you can't understand it.
>And if you did do my research and still disagree, it's because you didn't understand the data. Trust me. The facts are all there, they're just being suppressed by the liberal scientific journals.

>I also mentioned nothing about "subhumans". It's a fact that human populations differ a lot on various characteristics due to genetics, though.
>I never said the word "subhumans", I just classified certain groups of people and suggested that some of those groups have an inherent predisposition towards overwhelmingly negative or destructive traits.

>It isn't when Y are actually much less "retarded" and both have gone through colonialism. I've actually looked deeply into immigrant and national crime rates and didn't stick to memes.
>Listen bud, colonialism = colonialism in all contexts, doesn't matter who did it, where they did it, or how they did it. I should know; I've visited a lot of websites posted on 4chan.org

>Why does everyone keep talking about skin? Genetics doesn't concern just skin, you know, it also concerns personality characteristics and the like. Oh, nevermind, people are just clueless and repeat the usual nonsense.
>Listen, I'm not saying black people are stupid and violent because they're black. I'm saying black people are stupid and violent because it's inevitable given their genes and the shape of their skulls.

Yeah dude. This thread wouldn't be so shitty if everyone were just more like you. Then we could post some WE WUZ KANGZ memes and talk about alternate histories where Germany wins WW2.

>>2511486
It's universally academically accepted that the human brain is capable of dealing with the same tasks just as efficiently whether it belongs to a man or a woman or a person with whatever colour.
So yes, it only makes sense to assume that all these statistics and factors and crime rates are attributed to the blatant history of oppression that blacks have faced.
We refer to blacks and latinos and chinks as "races" but in reality blacks and whites belong to the same race; that is the human one.

There's no substantial biological differences between us to classify blacks as another race, hence claiming that they are intrinsically less intelligent just goes on to show that you need to either restrict yourself to /pol/ or leave it once and for all.

>>2511548
I didn't denigrate anyone, unlike many other posters in this thread. Why not direct all this nonsense towards them, then? Maybe you have a certain agenda.

>>2511563
Why are you so proud of knowing nothing of behavioral genetics? By the way, papers are already coming out with robust associations of certain alleles with certain personality characteristics and IQ and let's say, the genetic potential of certain populations is exactly as you'd expect.

And yes, populations will have differences in certain characteristics that go well beyond skin color. If you find this a reason to hate a whole group of people, it's your prerogative.

I suggest not keeping your head in the sand much longer, these facts will eventually become commonly accepted as they are more and more conclusively proven and people who think you're bound to hate someone if you believe that will be in an uncomfortable position.

>>2511570
>in reality blacks and whites belong to the same race; that is the human one

Oh ok, you were just baiting.

Read some of Gottfredson's and Plomin's papers on these issues if you're genuinely interested, though.

What if I'm a liberal who believes that black people are genetically disabled?

If you really believe that black people are "stupid," or more "stupid" than white people, why do you think that gives you the right to look down upon them and abuse them? Is that how you treat mentally disabled people? Faggot.

>>2510986
Serb here.

OP, while we may do well on those metrics we were and continue to be undeniably fucked by Ottoman rule.

We never went through the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, and our literary and artistic contributions for five fucking centuries are close to none.

The Ottoman legacy is one of the absolute worst form of (non-totalitarian) government: a society that expects the government to do anything and everything, a lack of democratic culture, clientelism and political machines as deeply entrenched parts of the system, and monstrously corrupt local government (far more so than the national one, in fact, I know several politicians on all levels and I've been told point blank "I prefer to stay on the municipality level because there's a lot less oversight and I can take more"). All of these come from the idiotic Ottoman practice of decentralized autocracy - the Sultan wasn't a constitutional monarch by any means, but due to the size of the empire he delegated a lot of power to provincial governors who often pursued their own agendas.

Not to mention the fact that the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo wouldn't exist without them.

Yes, we aren't illiterate now, but that's 100% due to education-heavy socialist policies. In the early 20th century literacy was practically at medieval levels.

So, OP, please don't use the Balkans as an example of how you can bounce back from centuries of imperialism, because we still haven't managed to. And likely never will.

>>2510993
Greece is safer than the UK imo, I've hiked across the Peloponnese and did a summer at the British School in Athens.

70% of Greek jails are foreigners.

>>2511257
>both of the functional predicates in OP are beyond retarded, there's nothing even worth addressing. trying to compare the processes of both colonization and decolonization in the former Ottoman Empire versus sub-Saharan Africa is a meaningless exercise here.

If you actually want to get into the distinctions, the Europeans left way, way more infrastructure and capital equipment in SSA than the Turds did in the Balkans. Remember that the Turds actually allowed lands to go OUT of cultivation that had been in cultivation in the Byzantine period.

>>2511119
Then they're literally the Africa of Europe.

>>2511434
>Read it, it's inconclusive garbage like most (even modern) genetics is.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/

Heritability of g is well established.

>>2511457
>that for a very long time teaching black slaves in America was a serious crime?

And you people have the audacity to complain about beigeman's nonsensical assertions.

What's next:

>"SSAs actually had a really humane form of slavery! That's why you can't say there is moral equivalence between Eurofags and Africans! What? Primary sources? What are those?"

>>2511629
It's astonishing to me you have Turks who unironically believe the Christian subject peoples of the Empire "betrayed" them and owed them loyalty in the first place.

Really. Turks unironically believe this.

>>2511613
>Is that how you treat mentally disabled people? Faggot.

You already treat them that way. If a black person comes on public transport and starts acting obnoxious it's just expected of him. If a black person can string a sentence together without resorting to ebonics, libs will say he's "smart". If he can get a research degree, he's the greatest genius since Newton (Black Science Man).

>>2511672
See, I'm the one who's been arguing all this time against the posters who know very little about genetics, heritability and how people of different backgrounds seem to behave in the same countries and my thought process is rarely like that.

When it comes to individuals, I treat them as individuals and don't let my prejudices take over too much.

But facts are still facts, they can't be waved away with shitposting and making inane, sarcastic arguments.

>>2511570

History/gender studies everyone

>>2511306
>>2511390
>>2511486

The reason no one is taking you seriously in this thread is that you've taken some outdated, flavor-of-the-month theories from nature.com and extrapolated them to say that OP is correct in asserting that people of African descent are "dumb" and "prone to illiteracy, drug use, violence, and rape". You're justifying this leap using classic hallmarks of pseudo-science like crime statistics and national IQ. If the Roman's had magazines with articles about behavioral genetics in them, what do you think they'd be saying about Germania people?

It's pure techne. You've asserted the primacy of one discipline and hand-waved or cherry-picked the rest so you can arrive where you want to arrive.

>>2510993
Poverty and WE WUZ ism are problems, the other ones aren't, check the statistics. Also illiteracy was a big thing in the early 20th century, it isn't now.
Also, curiously they're heavy smokers.

>>2511687
Individuals are part of groups. If enough individuals of group X move to my nation to be demographically significant, they invariably alter the body politic and start to influence it in ways that are not advantageous to group Y (the natives). See: Muslims of South Asian and Maghrebi descent in Western Europe.

>>2511693
>You've asserted the primacy of one discipline

Humans are bipedal apes. There's nothing "sacred" about our lives, we're not born with "inalienable rights", we're just bipedal apes with a few more amino acids in the places it counts (e.g. communication related alleles). As a result, the study of what forms us into who we are is going to place a huge emphasis on both genes and environment. The problem is, like most shitlibs, you de facto discount the former whenever it comes to topics that are politically uncomfortable for you.

Anyone else notice shitlibs were happy to accept gays are fags because of "genes" but engage in the exact same sort of genetic denialism to deny the heritability of things they don't want to be genetic like aggression and intelligence?

>>2511693
Well, maybe the people of Germania at that point in time were kinda dumb, we'll never find out. Selection never stops. We're talking about the present where there's good data about all this.

Again, read some Plomin and Gottfredson, it's cutting-edge and robust, the opposite of your "outdated, flavor-of-the-month" ascriptions.

I don't care if people who know nothing about this don't take me seriously, though they should since these ideas will become commonly accepted in a generation.

>>2511664
Every country has idiotic nationalists. Serbian ones are meme-famous.

I must admit, even viewed through the lens of nationalism which is ridiculous, the Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish state, Royal Ottoman Turkish was practically unintelligible to Turks, and they didn't see themselves as a nation-state. Ffs Ataturk rebelled AGAINST the empire. Turkey waged a war of independence against the Sultan.

Ottoman Empire was as much modern-Turkish as Stuart England was Scottish.

But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state. The "Sick Man of Europe" for over a century. They produced no inventions, no innovations, no major achievements in any field whatsoever. No real infrastructure, either.

They were just good at conquering territory and keeping it under for a while.

When you have the fucking devsirme system where parents mutilated their children so they wouldn't be taken from them how can you possibly think the Christian populations owed you anything?

The Ottomans took our ancestors' independence, lives, religions (for those who converted), culture, and gave literally nothing back, ruling through fear and abuse.

To demand any sort of loyalty is beyond ridiculous.

>>2511693
>If the Roman's had magazines with articles about behavioral genetics in them, what do you think they'd be saying about Germania people?

Let's be real anon, Germans to this day are sub-humans prone to violence, genocide and rape.

>>2511710
>But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state.

That's my point. Regardless of what you think of the way the Ottomans treated their subject christian peoples, the actual quality of governance was fucking Liberia-tier.

>>2511705
>we're not born with inalienable rights
Good job on failing literally the first mark of being American.

If you legitimately believe that there are no inherent rights for sentient beings, you're either an edgy teenager, horribly brainwashed or mentally ill.

Feel free to respond, I won't give you a (you) back.

>>2511719
I agree with you, I just wanted to expound for the benefit of any posters reading who might not be aware how horrible the Ottomans were.

There was more religious toleration than in contemporary Western Europe, and that's the only good thing they ever did.

>>2511722
>Doesn't believe in a God
>Scoffs at religion
>"But yeah, some sort of metaphysical force invested all of us slightly more evolved apes with these things called "unalienable rights"

Why is western "atheism" basically just "let's just create a surrogate religion out of liberalism"?

>>2511710
>I must admit, even viewed through the lens of nationalism which is ridiculous, the Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish state, Royal Ottoman Turkish was practically unintelligible to Turks, and they didn't see themselves as a nation-state. Ffs Ataturk rebelled AGAINST the empire. Turkey waged a war of independence against the Sultan.

True.

>But putting all of that aside it was objectively, by any metric, a horribly-run state. The "Sick Man of Europe" for over a century. They produced no inventions, no innovations, no major achievements in any field whatsoever. No real infrastructure, either.

They managed to keep an incredibly multi-cultural society running under laws which were pretty damn fair to Christians, Muslims and Jews for a long-ass time. Things only tarted falling apart when the Jannissaries became less strictly regulated.

>When you have the fucking devsirme system where parents mutilated their children so they wouldn't be taken from them how can you possibly think the Christian populations owed you anything?

You also had parents fighting to get their kids /into/ that system since it was a direct line to something which was basically nobility.

I'm not even Turksh or Muslim, but the Ottomans were a damn fine state until things started to degenerate. Probably one of the best examples of pluralism done right in history.

>>2510986
>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid is because of colonialism and slavery.
Slavery had place in ancient Roman Empire, and modern Europeans are their descendants

>>2511731
>I'm not even Turksh or Muslim

Are you a leftist/liberal?

>Probably one of the best examples of pluralism done right in history.

lol, do you realize just how many massacres Ottoman history is punctuated by? They managed to make the Greeks hate them so much that the ones in the Ionian Islands would thank God that they lived under VENETIAN rule (Greece/Byzantium's old enemy).

>under laws which were pretty damn fair to Christians, Muslims and Jews for a long-ass time.

They were "fair" to Jews because Jews ran the slaving racket in the Ottoman Empire that operated in the Crimea/Eastern Europe.

They weren't particularly fair on the Christians. One part of the Shariah that was periodically upheld was the one that prohibited repairing of a church that had fallen into disrepair. Others include not allowing Christians to ride horses and so on. The entire system of the Shariah was built around the systematic humiliation of subject non-Muslim peoples, which makes sense as Islam is a slightly more universalistic Talmudic Judaism.

>>2511705
>If enough individuals of group X move to my nation to be demographically significant, they invariably alter the body politic and start to influence it in ways that are not advantageous to group Y (the natives).

Sure but that's a different story, I was just saying that believing in differences doesn't necessarily mean prejudice towards individuals.

>>2511730
Because the Founding Fathers weren't atheist, they were Christian or Deist.

Modern philosophy has more than enough logical justification for the concept of inalienable right.

My personal favorite is the one of convenience - unless we all agree to treat each other with a certain level of respect regardless of anything else, we're literally animals. If society doesn't respect someone's right to life, liberty or property there's nothing to stop someone from taking it away from someone else.

You'd quickly end up in a Hobbesian dystopia. Hope you're the strongest guy around, don't mind living in constant fear, and don't need any amenities of civilization whatsoever.

Even if it's a lie, it's an incredibly useful one.

File: tmp_13468-1489207864485-216366403.png (1MB, 1100x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1100x1200px

>>2511050
Gotta post more images, but we're getting close.

File: 1489112919503.jpg (318KB, 1591x892px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1591x892px

>>2510993
>>2511027
>>2511003

Ditched your trip I see, Sultan Mehmed-whateverthatis.

>>2511756
>Modern philosophy has more than enough logical justification for the concept of inalienable right.

No it doesn't. Outside of half-baked consequentialist circular reasoning, it is literally impossible to pretend that human beings are imbued with some sort of inalienable "right" unless you actually believe in a Godhead.

You are dumb. Liberalism is dumb. Liberalism is literally just FEELS > REALZ and you are proving it right now.

>My personal favorite is the one of convenience - unless we all agree to treat each other with a certain level of respect regardless of anything else, we're literally animals.

Plenty of people don't believe in the golden rule, and plenty of people do, and even more people believe in it - but only really apply it to members of their own group.

These people are going to carry on behaving as such regardless of what the laws say. What you are describing at this point is interpersonal ethics and has nothing to do with the initial point anyway.

>Even if it's a lie, it's an incredibly useful one.

Yes. It's incredibly useful to have a legal framework that makes it virtually impossible for EU27 countries to deport people, even when they murder and rape someone.

>>2511731
>You also had parents fighting to get their kids /into/ that system since it was a direct line to something which was basically nobility.
True, but it was likely much rare than the opposite.

There's a reason every Christian country that was under the Ottoman yoke utterly despised them and fought tooth and nail for their freedom.

Look at their songs, folk traditions and sayings about Turks.

I said they were good at keeping territory (for a while at least), that's true. But that's a far cry from "one of the best examples of pluralism".

Saying that just means you haven't actually bothered to research how the people of the region actually felt. It's nice being able to sit in a comfy chair somewhere, thousands of miles and many years apart and speculate, but the people involved HATED it. It's like those people now who say the slaves sure did love working for massa. Yes, that's why they fled at every possible opportunity. Because they were enjoying it so much.

Whenever Austria went to war with the Ottomans, the Balkan Orthodox flocked to their side. The reason Vojvodina is majority Serb even though it was historically Hungarian is because twice in our history Austria managed to wrest control of Serbia form the Ottomans. Both times, when the Ottomans returned, tens of thousands fled.

The Orthodox hated Catholics before the Ottomans came, but once they actually fell under Ottoman rule they quickly changed tack. Austrian Serbs were very loyal to Vienna because they knew the alternative. There were no rebellions against Vienna in Serbian-majority parts.

There were many rebellions against the Porte.

>>2511820
No empires really believe in "pluralism". The entire term is another one of those bullshit enlightenment memes like Rousseau's "General Will".

Consider this. For a contemporary governmental system to be as pluralistic as possible, you'd need to imagine a state where one branch/department is led by a fascist, one by a monarchist, one by a Marxist-Leninist, one by a social democrat etc.

Nobody REALLY believes in pluralism. They believe in a pseudo-pluralism on their own terms, as in "here's my personal overton window of what is acceptable, and here are the boundaries for what constitutes pluralistic thought". It's like when libs say they like "moderates", or say that America "needs to have a conservation about such and such", what they really mean is "me and people who think broadly similar to me need to have a conservation about such and such"

>>2511809
>You are dumb
no u
Great argument, idiotic faggot.

>Liberalism is dumb
Maybe, but far less so than /pol/tardation, which is so far off from internal coherence it doesn't even merit refuting.

>Yes. It's incredibly useful to have a legal framework that makes it virtually impossible for EU27 countries to deport people, even when they murder and rape someone.
Literally has nothing to do with what I said but you're so buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way that you can't even present an actual argument beyond "nuh uh".

Go ahead, try. I know you'll fail because far-right thought has always been strongly correlated with low intelligence, but let's give it a whirl. Maybe you're not one of the idiots.

Looking at your post, though, highly unlikely.

>>2511839
I agree completely. I assumed the other anon (based on the context) was talking about religious pluralism, and argued on that merit.

Full ideological pluralism has never been present in any society on any level.

>>2511809
>Liberalism is literally just FEELS>REALZ and you are proving it right now.

>Implying our feelings don't shape our reality

If you believe that your feelings don't shape your reality then don't you believe that you are somehow unique in intelligence amongst other species (animals) and that makes you special somehow? You think that you somehow possess the objective unique universal truth while simultaneously not being the product of some almighty herp derp deity? How does that work?

You take pride in yourself being so "cold-hearted" and "factual", but in """"reality"""" you seem like an entitled, privileged little bitch

>>2511852
>far-right thought has always been strongly correlated with low intelligence

It's actually true that social conservatism seems to correlate with lower IQ and both IQ and conservativism/liberalism are highly heritable.

Maybe we'll finally get you to accept similar findings elsewhere.

>>2510986
Colonialism and slavery lowers intelligence by harming state formation and therefore provision of nutrition, healthcare, education, and other social goods, as well as eradicating pre-existing social welfare structures.

State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions rather than just exploit them, as well as pre-existing national identities and deep restructuring and integration into the world market following the world wars.

>>2511852
>Great argument, idiotic faggot.

You never made an argument, you're an atheist who handwaved away the fact you believe in something retarded like "unalienable human rights" with a reference to "modern philosophy" (who exactly?)

>Maybe, but far less so than /pol/tardation, which is so far off from internal coherence it doesn't even merit refuting.

I'm not aware of a political ideology called "/pol/tardation".

>over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated

You think it's a lie that it's incredibly difficult to actually deport people from states that adhere to the Acquis Communintaire and ECHR? I have an LLB faggot, you really don't want to debate me on this topic.

>because far-right thought

Yes, yes. Anything to the right of People like Martin Schulz and Angela Merkel is far right. It's not like literally every single country outside of Western Europe and North America is "nazi" by an objective appraisal of what liberals think of domestic western politics.

>>2511862
Glad you understand. Enlightenment philosophy is largely horrible.

>>2511879
Don't look at me, I'm not arguing against genetic intelligence. I'm actually open to it.

I don't really get why the poster automatically assumed I was liberal because I don't subscribe to some Neo-reactionary bullshit.

>>2511884
>State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions rather than just exploit them
All those balkan slaves sure were intergrated. kys.

>>2511629
>
The Ottoman legacy is one of the absolute worst form of (non-totalitarian) government: a society that expects the government to do anything and everything, a lack of democratic culture, clientelism and political machines as deeply entrenched parts of the system, and monstrously corrupt local government (far more so than the national one, in fact, I know several politicians on all levels and I've been told point blank "I prefer to stay on the municipality level because there's a lot less oversight and I can take more"). All of these come from the idiotic Ottoman practice of decentralized autocracy - the Sultan wasn't a constitutional monarch by any means, but due to the size of the empire he delegated a lot of power to provincial governors who often pursued their own agendas.

Fuck this is so true for all of Eastern Europe basically.

t. another EEian

>>2510986
But they are

>>2511871
>Implying our feelings don't shape our reality

They don't. Your willing of race not to be real or meaningful has no effect upon the virtual entirety of the non-western world being staunch racialists, either implicitly or explicitly. Nor does it change anything about human nature itself.

>privileged

Back to Plebbit son. You are completely rectum ravaged if you're using postmodern bullshit terms like this unironically.

>You think that you somehow possess the objective unique universal truth

No, that's liberalism. I believe that different peoples (Chinese, Gulf Arabs, Europeans) believe in different things and that broad, universalist ideologies like liberalism are retarded as a result.

>>2511884
>State formation in the Balkans was aided by colonial policies to integrate colonial possessions

What?

Again, the capital stock of the various Balkan states upon independence was lower than the capital stock of most African states (e.g. The Ivory Coast) upon decolonization. The latter had modern farms, had infrastructure, had capital equipment etc.

>>2510986
>According to liberals the reason blacks are stupid
Life into this world do not give advantages to smart people. A lot of riches are idiots. It's a marvel that humans evolved from monkeys.

>>2511895
Fair enough, I was influenced by one of your previous posts. I agree with you on that, I'm far more on the liberal side of things too.

>>2510986
The entire Greek nation was not turned into field slaves you dumb shit

>>2511809
>You are dumb. Liberalism is dumb. Liberalism is literally just FEELS > REALZ and you are proving it right now.

Liberalism is such a wide term that can be applied to so many subjects I have no idea how can you unironically claim that it is dumb.

>>2511893
I'm the same anon, you idiot.

You're so fucking retarded you can't even recognize my argument (they weren't pluralistic when they should have been).

Jesus Christ you might literally be the stupidest person on this website.

Literally every single thing you assumed about me, literally every single one, is fals. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a liberal, I'm not against the Enlightenment.

You're the most incompetent poster I've seen in months, if not longer.

I made an argument. You selectively ignored it, then called me dumb for saying there are tons of philosophical strains that justify inalienable right. And then you just say "nuh uh" and pretend that's an argument.

>I'm not aware of a political ideology called "/pol/tardation".
This is, I assume, what your retarded brain thinks passes for humor. If not, another proof you're either mentally challenged (can't recognize rudimentary wordplay) or actively avoiding defending your stance because you don't know how to. An idiot, either way.

>trying to paint me as arguing that anything right of Angela Merkel is far-right (again, without any evidence whatsoever) for saying you're far-right
>End your post with "Enlightenment philosophy is largely horrible"
I'm laughing my ass off at the incompent-and-stupid combo you got going there.


>deporting people
You're the one who started this discussion. I said no such thing. I said you and those like you are "buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way". You keep proving my point with every statement you make.

>LLB
I pity the university that granted you one. You write and think like a middle schooler.

>>2511927
Liberalism orientates around two axioms generally:

1. Making things more equal makes them better.
2. More individual freedom is morally good.

Both axioms are wrong.

>>2510986
Those countries all garbage thou.

>>2511629

Serb Diaspora here, from the times I've visited Serbia this so true. Its only thanks to Yugoslavia that we don't suck completely desu.

>>2511932
>for saying there are tons of philosophical strains that justify inalienable right

Let's hear it then, if there's no God or no metaphysical realm whatsoever, what or who imbues humans with said inalienable rights, and how are they made inalienable?

>"buttblasted over events that are either factually incorrect or wildly exaggerated and don't impact you personally either way"

What specifically is exaggerated or factually incorrect about stating that it is incredibly hard, comparatively speaking, to deport people within the European legal framework?

The rest of your post is just huffing and puffing.

>>2511934

>all Garbage

Retarded Amerifat spotted.

>>2511934
The point is that they aren't as garbage as blackland, despite colonialism. And how garbage some of them are actually underestimates how much more criminal blacklanders are even in the least garbage societies like the USA.

>>2511909
>Nor does it change anything about human nature itself.
It changes the way you perceive it, baka

>Back to Plebbit son.

Does it really offend you that much to accept that you're privileged? Or do you really think that you have the same opportunities with black people that are born in the ghetto? So you're saying that if your parents are rich that plays no part at all in your upbringing?

Privilege is treated as axiomatic by most academics and prestigious societal analysts but you can deny it if it hurts (You) and (You)r feelings, anon.

Kisses, daddy

It may come off as surprise to a lot of people ITT, but most Balkan countries have lower crime rates than US. You are four times less likely to be killed in, say, Serbia or Bulgaria than in US.

>>2511050
According to /pol/, the reason states are able to secure their borders and retain some semblance of national identity in times of political political tumult is because they've been historically able to build walls and deny entrance to undesirables.

So how come the Berlin Wall wasn't able prevent the collapse of East Germany and the eventual reunification of East and West under liberal capitalism?

>>2512033
I try to tell people.

We have a lot of petty crime, though. Gypsies steal copper off of wires and manhole covers.

You scare them off once, they generally don't come back there.

>>2511994
>It changes the way you perceive it, baka

Which is to say, nothing. My willing of black people to be less violent is not going to change their baseline cortisol levels.

>to accept that you're privileged?

I'm not even American or Western European, if that's what you're getting at. And I don't see where you're getting this idea of niggers as salt of the earth type figures from, the ghetto is a shithole precisely because of niggers, not in spite of them.

>Privilege is treated as axiomatic by most academics and prestigious societal analysts

And Lysenkoism was treated as fact in the SU for decades, so what?

>>2512040
>So how come the Berlin Wall wasn't able prevent the collapse of East Germany and the eventual reunification of East and West under liberal capitalism?

The Berlin Wall was to keep people from fleeing OUT. The walls the Hungarians and others have built is to prevent people from coming in.

Not a hard distinction senpai.

>>2511899
>>2511909
Atul Kohli writes a lot about this, especially in the context of Japan in Korea. The argument is complex, but essentially the Japanese (the Ottomans somewhat similarly) invested in their colonies much more deeply than later European colonizers because they intended to permanently incorporate these colonies into their economic core (i.e. subsume or replace local populations and use their labour for development). Britain and France conversely invested little in infrastructure, state apparatus, or human capital in their colonies beyond what was necessary for resource extraction.

Kohli argues, I think successfully, that the capital stock is less relevant because the capital stock of Korea was even lower post-WWII, but they largely rebounded due to the human capital and institutional memory resulting from colonialism, not due to capital stock. The proof of this is that most capital investment was in northern Korea, which developed more extractively due to its greater natural resources, while southern korea, due to its lesser resource gifts, required more investment in local structures of governance and skilled workers. This is why even the Balkans, and the rest of Europe, with their destroyed capital stock could so quickly rebuild them (not to mention reparations and ideological aid, Marshall or Comecon)

>>2512094
>Kohli
Literally took a class with him last semester. Never expected to see a WWS professor mentioned on 4chan.

>>2512114
A Princeton professor being mentioned isn't so surprising. UPhoenix would be.

Unless of course you are surprised that someone on 4chan actually was actually familiar enough with the literature to bring him up.

>>2511959
Are you claiming it is not?
>>2511967
Well thats valid argument. My family visited balkans a lot so it is just the stuff they say. I lived in eastren europe and it was kinda bad. I assume Balkans are worse than poland etc. Actually greece isnt bad. Thou I dunno about post-economic crisis greece.

I met with lots africans and asians. One of my good friend was actually african. I realized it is not so much about IQ but how is your mentality towards events. That seems unpopular opinion here.

>>2512210

I was noting your grammar is terrible despite being a native English speaker and that the Balkans, while being much poorer, have vastly lower crime rates then the US.

I want Americans to leave my board.

>>2512330
Not american thou.

>>2511820
>There's a reason every Christian country that was under the Ottoman yoke utterly despised them and fought tooth and nail for their freedom.
Wasn't that reason just nationalism that dredged up folklore that was by then outdated? I'm pretty sure the blood tax only existed for a short while and was practically gone by the time the Balkans started their major rebellions that led to statehood.

>>2511820
>There were no rebellions against Vienna in Serbian-majority parts.

Except the one that got the Archduke killed you mean.

Pretty sure it's just the extremely shitty public schools.

>>2512385
I think people in the Balkans feel the Turks get a free pass. Like Western Europeans constantly belittle and traduce their own histories and make themselves out to be monsters, while at the same time praising Islam and wonderful and peaceful and the various Caliphates as these shining lights of civilization.

To us that's odd. It's doublethink.

>>2512082
>The Berlin Wall was to keep people from fleeing OUT.
According to the people who didn't build it, sure. The Moscow line was that the wall was meant to keep the West out.

>>2512082
>>2512408

I think you guys may have missed the point of the post.

Or you're wholeheartedly subscribing to the spiritual intent, in which case I'm very proud of you both.

>>2510993
Fpbp

>>2512401
Personally, I think it's more that Balkan nationalism is mired in outdated 19th century history where the 'foreign, eastern horde' were absolutist monsters while the glorious nation with its long tradition of plucky resistance to tyranny can do no wrong, only revenge itself against crimes, and while most academic history has tried to move on from that worldview to be less biased, the few extremists who have an anti-nationalist bias triggers them to the point where all critical history is now suspect.

>>2512437
So don't you think we should in turn re-evaluate the view of Europeans in general as these uniquely morally evil people in relation to the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, the americas etc?

I mean if you can take a detached view of Turks, regardless of the Bulgarian Horrors, the massacres of the Greeks, the ethnic cleansing of the non-Turks from Anatolia etc, why not adopt a similarly detached tone with regards to Columbus for example?

How about the notion of American Blacks, or Jews, as perennial victims? Shouldn't that be challenged? Doesn't seem like it given the American entertainment industry's output over the past 5-10 years.

>>2512392
A handful of teenage anarchists is not a rebellion.

Regardless, I was talking about the period of the Austro-Turkish wars (16-18th century, more or less), not modern history.

>>2512449
What makes you think we don't have a detached view of the good and evil of European colonial history? Most people don't give a damn one way or another, and the only ones that feel negatively one way or another make up a tiny fringe promoting a fringe political movement or expressing an artistic vision that appeals to a small audience.

>>2512466
Take a look at any US film with race and history as themes made in the past 10-15 years and tell me the narrative isn't binary as fuck in its internal morality track.

>>2511899
>All those balkan slaves sure were intergrated
They literally were.

>>2512475
Give me a particular example instead, and we'll go over what it does or doesn't mean in detail. I think you misunderstand what US films actually are, and believe them to be some kind of expression of either state propaganda or academia.

File: 1409847529159.png (87KB, 869x483px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 869x483px

>>2512495
You're already a true believer, there's no point. If you can watch blatant pseudohistory like Hidden Figures and not conclude there's an overarching racial metanarrative there about whites oppressing and mistreating blacks, and blacks being vastly more noble, I don't really know what to say to you.

The elevation of a race of semi-sapient ape-men to Jesus Christ esque figures is precisely because Americans believe in a simulacrum of history that never existed, informed entirely by films like Mississippi Burning.

>>2512456
>A handful of teenage anarchists is not a rebellion.
No, but the war that followed certainly was.

And it's hard to compare without including modern history because the Hapsburgs only occupied Serbia for maybe 25 years altogether before the 19th century.

>>2512385
>>2512437
>nationalism
>when you had rebellions in the 16th century
Wew lad, good to hear it's the Balkans that invented nationalism.

No.

The 20th century Yugoslav wars evoked imagery of Ottoman suffering to serve nationalist purpose (against Bosniaks, who were pejoratively known as little Turks).

Throughout the four centuries or so, there was frequent armed resistance, guerilla warfare (look up hajduks), and as I mentioned, this wasn't out of some desire for Serbs to be an independent kingdom ruled by Serbs or whatever. They just didn't want the frequently brutal Ottomans to rule over them.

Again, the best way to know whether or not the Ottomans being bad is an exaggeration is to look at what the people living under them believed. Not their descendants, but themselves. Give them that much agency at least.

I'll repeat - When Austria went to war (I purposefully don't refer to Russia to avoid 'Orthodox brotherhood' handwaving) Serb fighters volunteered alongside Austrian armies. Both time the Austrians took over Serbia they were greeted as liberators, even though the local populace almost certainly knew they wouldn't be independent anyway. Both times the Austrians retreated and Serbia fell into Ottoman hands a huge percent of the population left everything behind to flee to safety. They much preferred an absolutist German monarch who offered them very little in the way of civil rights than the supposedly 'pluralist' Ottoman Sultan. Think, if vast swaths of the populations made that calculus multiple times they must really have hated the Ottomans.

Read up on the multiple (Armenian, Greek, etc.) genocides the Ottomans committed. Read up on the senseless mass murder of Serbian 'nobility' by local governors.

Look at epic poetry from the period. Look at folklore, look at oral tradition, all of whom speak of valiant resistance against Ottoman misdeeds. They speak much louder than ivory tower revisionists.

The Balkans suffered greatly under Ottoman rule.

>>2512525
But Serbs lived in Habsburg territories for much longer than that, including large parts of Croatia and Vojvodina (the Military Frontier).

Those were always fiercely loyal to the Habsburg Emperor, and sided with him during the Hungarian rebellion.

That's my point. If this was just some form of "Serbs hated foreign rule" they wouldn't have been loyal subjects en masse of another foreign Emperor, also of a different religion (reminder that in the 17th century different denominations hated each other).

No, they hated the Ottomans.

>>2512449
>So don't you think we should in turn re-evaluate the view of Europeans in general as these uniquely morally evil people in relation to the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, the americas etc?

The wounds are still too fresh. Even so, American blacks and American black media aren't really concerned with slavery, they're concerned with how blacks are treated today and how they've been treated in the recent past. Slavery is something white people are obsessed with because it happened so long ago that they can detach themselves from it by either condemning it or glossing over it.

>>2512520
Your image is misleading. Most people who think like that are aware of the double standard.

They just think evil whitey deserves it.

>>2512551
>The wounds are still too fresh.

And the wounds in East Africa and the Horn regarding the more voluminous and deadly Arab Slave Trade are...?

I think your elevation of Transatlantic Slavery to some morally sui generis thing isn't actually academic at all. It's based more on the simulacrum I described earlier. Almost every American or Westerner, even a non-westerner, is informed about American History from American entertainment - and American entertainment repeats this basic narrative over and over.

It's similar to how the meme about Muslims beginning the Renaissance in Europe was repeated so widely by liberal westerners that people like Anjem Choudary started parroting it to shut liberals up too.

The problem all goes back to ethnomasochism and group polarization.

>>2512520

Are you suggesting that American blacks weren't mistreated, or that this movie was somehow a narrative about the evils of whites as a whole? Like I said, I don't think you understand that these movies are character driven, and it has nothing to do with pushing some idea that blacks were oppressed because America has been in agreement for decades that blacks were, in fact, oppressed, and that the story was more about sexism in the end.

>The elevation of a race of semi-sapient ape-men to Jesus Christ esque figures is precisely because Americans believe in a simulacrum of history that never existed, informed entirely by films like Mississippi Burning.
I'm not sure which one of us is the 'true believer' at this point.

>>2512581
>or that this movie was somehow a narrative about the evils of whites as a whole

No, of course not, not even the most sledgehammer-esque German agitprop about Jews was that lacking in subtlety.

But if whenever you create a movie where race and history are thematic elements and the overarching idea is that whites are largely bad, or white characters are the antagonists, and non-white characters/black characters are somehow more noble, unjustly treated and so on - then the end result is the same.

>I'm not sure which one of us is the 'true believer' at this point.

It is a simulacrum. The idea of the ante-bellum South as some sort of apex of moral evil is a simulacrum. It is a phantasm. A comedy. A blackmail.

The very idea of European slavery as a unique moral evil above all others came about precisely because the west is ironically incredibly eurocentric when examining morally questionable historical events in the first place. It wasn't like a bunch of historians sat down and ranked events on a scale of objective moral evil from the Mongol invasions to the Turkish ethnic cleansing of Anatolia on a scale of 1 to 10 and whites came out on top.

Like I said, it's a simulacrum informed almost entirely by movies and TV.

>>2512529

You missed the point. I wasn't saying there was no hatred of the Ottomans. I'm saying the narrative about Ottoman rule is one that was distilled by 19th century nationalism and then frozen in time to the point where any challenge to it becomes an attack on national memory.

>>2512542
But that only proves my point even further: the Serbs did hate foreign rule, and sided with the Austrians to get rid of the Ottomans because in that timeframe Serbia was under Ottoman rule. Once Serbia finally experienced Austrian-Hungarian rule, it didn't take very long for the same song and dance routine to start again.

>>2512622
But that happened everywhere the Ottomans went. The flood of first scholars, and then merchants and other moneyed people away from them happened everywhere. Wherever the Turks went, people fled.

Is it really hard to accept that the Turks maybe were just markedly more brutal than say, the Venetians?

Greeks used to view Italians are untrustworthy, especially Venetians, but ordinary Cypriots fought alongside the Venetians in their defense of the island all the same, despite being of different Christian sects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin

>>2512615
It just sounds like you're not fond of exploring any history that accurately points out an injustice if it happens to not conform to your own politics. Should the story have not been told? Was it inaccurate in some way? Are race and gender politics not important enough in America to warrant such a movie? What does it have to do with the Antebellum South?

Frankly the only movie that is one-sided in its portrayal of Blacks as Jesus figures and Whites as evil Nazis in recent memory was 'Birth of a Nation.' The rest are almost always about Blacks and Whites of conscience sharing a personal bond of friendship despite societal injustices that are beyond their control.

>>2512622
>Once Serbia finally experienced Austrian-Hungarian rule
"Finally" after 2 centuries. Serbs were in Austrian Empire since late 1600's and they began rebelling in late 1800's.

>>2512692
>>2512642
>Is it really hard to accept that the Turks maybe were just markedly more brutal than say, the Venetians?
I never claimed otherwise. The point is a diaspora population that throws their lot in with another imperial power in order to achieve a political objective like the liberation of an occupied homeland is not the same thing as a nation currently under occupation itself. I would compare apples to apples here, and the original point I made about nationalism

>>2512689
>that accurately points out an injustice

Firstly, there's no accuracy involved in it if you actually believe these films portray the reality of antebellum South life.

Secondly: You're acting like it, as in, the production of these films, is some whimsical thing.

It's systematic. The fact whenever themes of race and history intertwine we end up with the same old metanarrative with a few characters changed around and perhaps a change of scenery, well, that isn't by accident.

>The rest are almost always about Blacks and Whites of conscience sharing a personal bond of friendship despite societal injustices that are beyond their control.

You are misreading it. The white is good in spite of his race, the black is good because of his. Blackness itself, as a racialized concept, is enthroned as noble precisely because it is portrayed as perennial victim. Whiteness is portrayed as wicked and bad, and something that individual whites must fight, through outgroup altruism.

>>2510986
These areas saw heavy investment of Western capital and education to integrate them into Europe's economy, to the point of becoming members of various economic unions with Western states.

>>2512736
Manifestly untrue on just about every count.

>>2512728
>Firstly, there's no accuracy involved in it if you actually believe these films portray the reality of antebellum South life.
I don't see how I believe that since Hidden Figures has nothing to do with the Antebellum. It's set in the 1960s, not 1860s.

>Secondly: You're acting like it, as in, the production of these films, is some whimsical thing.
Where have I ever suggested such a thing? The production of these films comes from large scale art that investors support based on their calculations for yearly profitability, balancing issues in current interests with safe, feel-good narratives to attract as many audience members as possible for the investment made.

>It's systematic. The fact whenever themes of race and history intertwine we end up with the same old metanarrative with a few characters changed around and perhaps a change of scenery, well, that isn't by accident.
Not it isn't, but it's not because of some concerted political effort but because the narrative is economically tried and tested to be profitable and without controversy that will affect the bottom line.

>You are misreading it. The white is good in spite of his race, the black is good because of his. Blackness itself, as a racialized concept, is enthroned as noble precisely because it is portrayed as perennial victim. Whiteness is portrayed as wicked and bad, and something that individual whites must fight, through outgroup altruism.
That's a unique view of these movies. Have you seen Hidden Figures? Describe for me a scene in which a white character is good in spite of their race, and a black character is good because of theirs, because that never happened.

>>2512728
>You are misreading it. The white is good in spite of his race, the black is good because of his. Blackness itself, as a racialized concept, is enthroned as noble precisely because it is portrayed as perennial victim. Whiteness is portrayed as wicked and bad, and something that individual whites must fight, through outgroup altruism.

tbqh dude it sounds like you're ascribing a lot to something that isn't actually there. I don't mean to imply anything about you or your own perceptions, either.

I genuinely believe you should spend a little less time on 4chan though.

>>2511047
t. Arpad Guttmann-Zsidostein

>>2511231
>illiteracy
>violence
>rape
Wrong on all three accounts.

>>2511062
Because you're a nigger yourself, of course you wouldn't feel good in Serbia.

>>2512622
>>2512715
I see what you're saying, and broadly agree, but I think you're missing my point as well. Yes, the 19th century ossified these beliefs, absolutely. But it did not invent them. What Serbs believe today about the Ottomans is similar to what they believed during Ottoman rule. I don't really see any point in bringing in nationalism when discussing Ottoman rule itself. Its consequences? Absolutely - 20th century Serbian and Yugoslav politics were rife with callbacks and parallels to Ottoman rule, and it was used as justification for some very heinous acts. But I fail to see the argumentative value of bringing up later nationalist urges, much less conflating resistance with anachronistic nationalism.

I'm arguing that the contemporary hatred of the Porte was justified, and attempts by Western historians to whitewash the Ottomans are ludicrous and insulting.

re: 2512542
It really doesn't. Please don't take this the wrong way, but your thesis belabors a lack of detailed understanding of the region. Unless you're from there or a very specialized historian, that's understandable.

The Serbs sided with the Austrians to get rid of the Ottomans, yes. I would never argue otherwise. What I argue is that there was no comparable level of resistance to Austrian rule in places with Serb majority (this is plain historical fact). Serbia and Serbs experienced Habsburg rule in the late 17th century, and yet independent Serbia was an Austrian ally until 1903 (long after the Ottoman threat passed, and the split only happened because a coup-led dynasty change pulled us into the Entente), and Serbs in Habsburg territories were loyal up until almost WWI, even during times when other minorities revolted.

Tl;dr: Serbs weren't predisposed to hate foreign rule more than any of the many other minor peoples living in large empires at the time. They just really hated the Ottomans because they were that terrible. Their behavior under Austrian rule proves this pretty well.

>>2510986
What the first post said. Does all that Slavic prostitution ring a bell? As for niggers that's mostly a problem in the West. Africa's problems are due to a lack of development and it doesn't really have much to do with drugs and crime unless you're talking about corruption which is universal. Also Euros are responsible for the largest self exterminations through war the world has ever seen.

>>2511013

>>2510986
>Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians
Well they're not exactly fantastic countries today are they.

Colonialism didn't make anyone stupid but it left some countries worse off than others.

But not Africa, if Africa wasn't colonised they'd literally still be iron age tribes.

>>2512931
>Well they're not exactly fantastic countries today are they.

I don't get comments like this.

No, they're not. But sub-saharan africa makes places like Greece look like paradise on earth. That's the point.

>>2512915
>Does all that Slavic prostitution ring a bell?
How is that related to anything OP said?

>>2512989
Prostitution is often associated with drugs, violence, and rape as well being a crime in many places.

>>2513009
Prostitution rings in Eastern Europe are a result of Albanian and Jewish mobsters setting up bogus employment agencies telling young dumb girls they're gonna work as cleaning ladies and aupairs abroad, only to force them into whoredom upon arrival.

It doesn't actually happen *IN* Eastern Europe, it happens in Britain, France, Netherlands etc.

>>2513035
Yes, this is the reason Belarus has taken steps to close down unlicensed modeling agencies.

Unfortunately it's more difficult for the other EE countries are they are cucked by liberal democracy, the worst form of government every engineered by man (including all of the others).

>>2513067
Belarus seems pretty based for such a small and poor country.

File: 1487679168510.png (301KB, 476x354px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 476x354px

>>2513195
Only European state not to have fallen for the derpmocracy meme.

We need them to stay free, they will be the last white ethnostate for the rest of us to flee to when the shit skins have destroyed the rest of europe. We can play our reconquista from there.

>>2510993
/thread

>>2512796
>>2512803
It may not be as sinister as he makes it sound but he defiantly has a point. All cultural production (be it Hollywood, university lectures, shitposting on 4chan etc.) will reproduce political bias and ideologies. Culture is political and the less obviously political it is the greater its power in affecting the opinion of a population. When you have something like Hollywood, that is comprised of far more left wing people than the population as a whole, left wing narratives will be produced far more and become normalized. Hidden figures has a very clear political message. You can say the message is good. You can say political messages should be allowed. But you can't say its not political.

>>2511039
Are the unintentional homicide rates high in the Balkans? Good police work.

>>2510986
>If an extremely complicated series of events and factors caused certain outcomes in one place, why didn't an almost completely different series of events and factors cause the exact same thing thousands of miles away?

>>2513345
>Idiot American who doesn't know crime rates are much higher in the US than in those countries