Name me a single example of a double standard from White identatarians (people who are called "White supremacists") with regards to race. I can name you about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race.
I can name you about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race.
And you fail.
shareWhy do I fail you imbecile? The OP claimed that he can name about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race so I challenged him. It's a fair question. I guess that your total worship of Trump has destroyed what little brain you have left. You are so stupid that it hurts me. Too bad for you that stupidity is not curable.
shareBut the OP is asking a question indirectly on a message board. The thing to do would be to humor the question being asked and go from there. I think that's why Corbell said "you fail"
That's how I interpreted it.
There you go again. Making excuses for others who worship Trump. You are very stupid and I'm sure your family is embarrassed of you. The OP is very direct in his post. The OP claimed that he can name about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race so I challenged him. What's indirect about that?
shareIt is very reasonable to ask for ONE double standard that "white idententarians" have.
Are you admitting that you cannot do it?
What does Trump have to do with it? Full blown TDS on display. If your TDS were monkeypox, you'd have no ass left at all.
share1. Blacks have a right to identity and pride, Whites don't. In fact, they have to feel ashamed of being White.
2. Blacks have a right to exclusive organizations, Whites don't.
3. Blacks have a right to their safe spaces, Whites don't
4. If Black and brown countries have a nativist immigration policies, it's OK, if Whites do it, it's a moral outrage
5. White history should be rewritten to be full of minorities eve if it's pseudohistorical. Black and browns have a right to their exclusive history
6. Blacks/browns have a right to genetic survival ie. openly advocate for their people to marry within their race. If Whites do it, it's a moral outrage
7. Blacks should get ahead in college admissions and hiring before Whites, even if merit and thus fairness and even society's interest says otherwise.
8. What is considered racism and bigotry should be different for Whites and Blacks. Ie. the line of what is racism should be lower for Whites and much higher for Blacks. Some even say Blacks cannot be racist.
9. White people should have guilt for their bad historic behavior, Black and brown people shouldn't have guilt for their bad historic behavior even if in some cases they behaved worse.
10. White should NOT be capitalized. Blacks SHOULD be capitalized.
11. Problems of Black and brown people should be blamed on Whites (CRT). Problems of Whites should also be blamed on Whites. Nothing should be blamed on Blacks even when it's obvious only they can fix them.
12. Blacks and browns should be given credit for their historical achievements (even when they’re very small). Whites shouldn’t be given credit for their historical achievements.(because that would be “White supremacy”)
I could probably list even more... Now it's up to you to show me those on the far right (so called "White supremacists")
It looks like you spent hours creating this list but I didn't read one word of your silly little rant. 🤣 You're racism and stupidity is palpable. By 2045 whites will become a minority in the US and whites 18 and younger are already a minority. That's got to piss you off!
share> Asks me to name an example of what I asked in my challenge.
> I list literally a dozen.
> "I won't bother reading your list. You are racist"
Could your reply even be any more pathetic?
I only asked you to create your list just so you would waste your time typing it out. I never intended to read it. How many hours did you waste on your insipid list? Then again you're pretty stupid so maybe you just copied and pasted your list from somewhere else.
shareAll I see is a bunch of childish insults because I owned you. IF you don't read the list of don't respond that much better for me, because you admit you lost. I didn't waste time typing it because OTHER people will read it.
shareYou are just another stupid anonymous user on a public message board. Exactly how do you own me? I see I trigger you so here, have a tissue. I bet you are angry after spending hours writing your racist list I ignored. Sure, others will read it but not me. Since you wrote that list to me you just wasted your time. Sorry for you! 🤣
shareI see another childish ad hominem and no arguments. Yawn.
I owned you because you asked me to list examples and after I did, you ignored them and started name calling. Typical behavior of someone who loses an argument.
Oh no! You believe I lost an argument on a public message board by an anonymous user so who cares? Did you win a prize?
shareNo prizes but it makes you look more ridiculous than you already do.
shareAgain, this is a public message board with anonymous users so what you think about me doesn't matter because you are a moron. Maybe you are trying to win a prize too.
shareSo why are you on these boards? It’s most certainly not to change any minds and again all I see are mostly insults from you. You’re just an unoriginal troll.
shareChrist, he owned you terribly. Be a man and admit it, because these puerile schoolyard replies are fucking embarrassing.
shareIt's all good Bro... the trolls here don't realize the point of the debate isn't to defeat an opponent, but to convince those listening/reading to come to your side....IE: The Lurkers.
You just destroyed him, and I'm sure some lurkers have been swayed by it....always remember that when fighting the good fight. 👊
" By 2045 whites will become a minority in the US and whites 18 and younger are already a minority. That's got to piss you off!"
Only because Whites are deliberately being lied to about race and not told example of what I listed above. If Americans knew the truth, it would be the other way around.
Really, the whole statistic is only true if you combine all other ethnicities and races to manufacture the purportedly emerging “majority.” It’s nonsense to suggest those groups form some monolithic block united to become a new majority.
What’s most interesting is how black people who proffer the statistic don’t recognize the situation presents a far more serious problem for their own demographic than whites. Take Indian-Americans for example. They rapidly became the second largest immigrant group in the U.S. over just a 10 year period. As the number of Indian-origin residents in the U.S. has swelled north of 5 million, the demographic will very soon overtake native African-Americans in size and influence. While some black people want to celebrate the declining white majority, they fail to appreciate it’s a result of massive immigration from a part of the world where people do not have two centuries of history with, concern for, or sensitivity for the black experience in America. Do blacks really believe that Indian-Americas will deploy their rising economic, political, and social influence in a way that favors black people?
This is why your opinions are instantly disregarded. He just owned you, take the L.
shareThanks for confirming yet again that you're the piece of shit we know you are. Perfectly obvious that you halfwit cunts never want to actually have an exchange of ideas. No substance, no class, not even worth the keystrokes this response required.
shareIf Whites continue to get persecuted (like they are now) as they become a minority eventually they will fight back and it will just end in ethnic cleansing of minorities.
sharePick one of these things and let's discuss. I promise i won't ignore what you say
shareKeelai didn't even attempt to argue these aren't double standards. He just attempted to justify them using his far left (and false) narrative and assumptions. He also didn't even give one example of a double standard by so called "White supremacists". I can debate his left wing narrative on race in America and why it's a lie, but this is waste of time as the debate will just drag on forever. For now I just wanted liberals to give me an example of a double standard by the far right. So what do you want to do? Debate weather or not these are indeed double standards, give me example of double standards on my side or debate the historical narrative on race?
share1. Blacks have a right to identity and pride, Whites don't. In fact, they have to feel ashamed of being White.
2. Blacks have a right to exclusive organizations, Whites don't.
Do they explicitly exclude Blacks? No. Could a Black person sue them for exclusion if they did? Yes. Yet reverse organizations exclusively for Blacks are allowed.
share"1. Blacks have a right to identity and pride, Whites don't. In fact, they have to feel ashamed of being White"
Are you ashamed of being White?
What is the pride you feel of being White?
"Are you ashamed of being White?"
According to the left, I should be.
Are you, though. If not, this is strawman. Nobody wants you to be ashamed.
If you do feel ashamed, then you need to ask yourself why.
So you don't deny that the left wants me to be ashamed for being White, but it's still somehow a strawman when I claim the left wants Whites to be ashamed for being White?
I am not ashamed because I am from Europe, thankfully here we don't have such White guilt as in US.
You should be ashamed about not being able to read. Nobody wants you to be ashamed. You say you aren't ashamed. Then what are you yammering about?
shareYes they do. Are you living under a rock? The left wants White to feel bad about being White so that they will be more tolerant towards Blacks. Why do you think the left went crazy when someone simply wrote "it's OK to be White"?
shareYet you don't feel ashamed. Can you know any white people who feel ashamed to be white because they have anti-racist or DEI training?
shareGo watch any clip of White people kneeling during BLM riots or any clip of White people kissing Black people's shoes on public streets or White people recreating themselves as slaves with "So sorry" painted on their faces.
Even if no White person would feel guilty, that would not negate the fact that the left wants White people to feel guilty. The left wants Whites to feel guilty, but no right winger wants Blacks to feel guilty so it's an example of a double standard.
So, you don't know anyone who is ashamed of being white.
shareI know one guy despite living in a country that has been subject to much less White guilt than USA. If I lived in America or England, I'm sure I would know more.
Also even if did not anyone, how does that negate the clips of Whites clearly expressing White guilt? Are those staged?
Even if no White person in the world would feel guilty for being White, that would not negate the fact that the left wants them to fee guilty and privileged. My original post was about principles from the left and right.
So one guy you know. And some mythical people on an unidentified video who aren't here to explain what was going on.
You don't know what you are talking about.
So you are saying all those videos of Whites kissing Black people's feet are fake? And you have said nothing in response to my third paragraph.
shareI have no idea what videos you are watching
shareNo, they're not fake - but they're not exactly representative of what most people think. Or most leftists. Or most liberals. Or whoever.
shareI never said most people believe this. I just listed this as an example of double standards from the left. m
shareDouble standards from weirdos who aren't here. No-one here defends that type of public self-flagellation. It's cringe and stupid.
shareMy argument here doesn't depend on the extremity of action (such as kissing feet). Liberals in general want Whites to feel guilty for being White or at least their past behavior hundreds of years ago. No far right figure wants Blacks to feel guilty for their past behavior such as slavery and nearly driving Pygmies into extinction. The double standard remains.
shareI'll await data that most liberals think this.
I certainly don't think this.
Here are some examples of beliefs of liberals and the sources for them;
Liberals are more willing to murder someone for the greater good if that person has a white sounding name rather than a black sounding one.
http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf
Liberals think black people being genetically superior to white people with respect to intelligence is more plausible than the reverse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326144740_Low-status_groups_as_a_domain_of_liberal_bias?fbclid=IwAR29ijTH0WZQ1-XRpLtvhJpUrOMKWrKrXZ8ET2IAUBf2qgYf8iJDCdB4pMQ
Hearing about white privilege caused liberals to feel less sympathy for poor white people.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-22926-001?doi=1
Liberals feel non-whites should not pay more for home insurance due to living in a high-risk area but as neutral about whether white people should.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.6275&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Liberals would support censoring research showing white genetic superiority with respect to intelligence more than they would support censoring evidence of black superiority.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333677484_A_Cross-cultural_Analysis_of_Censorship_on_Campuses
White liberals are the only group who on net prefer other racial groups to their own.
https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1100501799260311553
>Liberals are more willing to murder someone for the greater good if that person has a white sounding name rather than a black sounding one.
http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf
This has nothing to do specifically with your claim that most liberals "in general" want white people to feel guilty for being white.
Also, it's a minority position: "We also asked participants in the community sample if they would give different judgments had the victim been of a different race. The overwhelming majority (92% of participants) said they would not, and responses to this counterfactual question did not vary by scenario, χ2 < .05, or by participants’ political orientation, r = .10, p = .40. When asked directly, most participants stated that race was irrelevant to their moral judgments."
>Liberals think black people being genetically superior to white people with respect to intelligence is more plausible than the reverse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326144740_Low-status_groups_as_a_domain_of_liberal_bias?fbclid=IwAR29ijTH0WZQ1-XRpLtvhJpUrOMKWrKrXZ8ET2IAUBf2qgYf8iJDCdB4pMQ
Not peer-reviewed, and walled off.
Need specific numbers.
>Hearing about white privilege caused liberals to feel less sympathy for poor white people.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-22926-001?doi=1
Again, need specific numbers. And this speaks to the bad practice of preaching "white privilege" and not to your initial claim.
>Liberals feel non-whites should not pay more for home insurance due to living in a high-risk area but as neutral about whether white people should.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.6275&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Dead link.
>Liberals would support censoring research showing white genetic superiority with respect to intelligence more than they would support censoring evidence of black superiority.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333677484_A_Cross-cultural_Analysis_of_Censorship_on_Campuses
What % of liberals in this study, overall called for censorship?
>https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1074524252638982144.html
Seems to be the source here.
It's specifically referring to a subsample of white liberals: White democrats and liberals who give the 'strengthens the country' response are significantly more likely to register a pro-outgroup bias
So you're saying liberals don't have an anti White bias?
shareI'm suggesting that these don't seem to suggest that a *majority* do. They're just more likely to compared to other political groups. That doesn't necessarily comprise a majority.
shareBut they on average have biases against Whites. And since liberals dominate the culture (media, entertainment, academia) the culture itself is biased against Whites.
shareNo, they don't. You can say that 5% of people have a bias, and in some studies, liberals might represent a 15% bias. That's the level of numbers we're talking about.
Conservatives have always been fucking garbage at entertainment since post-ww2.
Here is data on in group bias among liberals and conservatives. Liberals have anti White biases.
https://i.postimg.cc/90NrfCs9/20240107-182355.png
Conservatives have always been fucking garbage at entertainment since post-ww2.
>https://i.postimg.cc/90NrfCs9/20240107-182355.png
And it's not a majority of the "very liberal".
>So what? That just confirms my point that since liberals dominate entertainment they drive entire culture
It's not liberals/progressives/leftists fault that conservatives are crap at music, tv/film, etc.
What do you mean not majority? On average even moderately liberal have anti White bias. Very liberals even more so. My point has been made.
It's not liberals/progressives/leftists fault that conservatives are crap at music, tv/film, etc.
>What do you mean not majority? On average even moderately liberal have anti White bias. Very liberals even more so. My point has been made.
If 10% of a group of people think X, it's not a majority. 90% do not.
If 30% of group of people think X, it's not a majority. 70% do not.
That's basically the data you're providing regarding liberal thought processes here. They be more likely to think X, but it's still a minority.
>You also have to take into consideration cancel culture in entertainment. In any case the point that the culture is dominated by liberals who are anti White stands.
Cancel culture since the 1950s? Entertainment has been dominated by liberals since at least the end of WW2.
That's basically the data you're providing regarding liberal thought processes here. They be more likely to think X, but it's still a minority.
Entertainment has been dominated by liberals since at least the end of WW2.
>So you actually have data on what percentage of liberals think this way? Let's have it?
Your own data backs this up. You've not provided anything that says a *majority* of liberals think a specific way.
>Which data says majority of liberals don't have anti White biases?
Your own data says that a minority of liberals have an 'anti-white bias'. It's simply that the minority is a bit more than the minority of people that hold this in general.
>Also I don't see many "moderate" liberals speak out aginst anti Whiteness from their colleagues which makes them complicit.
I don't see conservatives talking about against Nick Fuentes, or the garbage shit that Candace Owens says. Does that make them complicit?
>My point percisely.
So you think 'wokeness' has controlled things in entertainment since post-WW2?
There are hardly any even lesser known contemporary conservative musicians, entertainers outside of particular styles like country.
Your own data backs this up. You've not provided anything that says a *majority* of liberals think a specific way.
Your own data says that a minority of liberals have an 'anti-white bias'
I don't see conservatives talking about against Nick Fuentes, or the garbage shit that Candace Owens says. Does that make them complicit?
So you think 'wokeness' has controlled things in entertainment since post-WW2?
>No it doesn't. My data just shows averages.
Yes, Liberals are more likely to think X, but that doesn't mean a majority of them think X.
>No it doesn't. It says on average liberals have anti White biases.
No, it doesn't. It says they are more likely to have such a bias. Not that its a majority of them.
>They do it all the time. Besides, main beliefs by WN are not worthy of condemnation. I don't like Funtes beliefs about forcing Christianity, but regarding race he does not have any double standards.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nick-fuentes-jews-executed-1234925748/
Mass executions?
And I am speaking generally. When has he been collectively condemned? When has Candice Owen been condemned for baselessly accusing all politicians of being gay?
>It wasn't called wokeness back then but liberals controlled the culture since the 60s.
And why do you think this is?
On an individual level.
"Minstrel" isn't a culture.
Redneck is a culture. It also doesn't deliberately disparage all white people, as being a redneck is a subculture prominently populated by white people.
The comparison here would be making fun of hip-hop urban subculture, or something. Not minstrel performances.
Have you actually read any documentation against your position whatsoever?
Yes, Liberals are more likely to think X, but that doesn't mean a majority of them think X.
It says they are more likely to have such a bias. Not that its a majority of them.
Mass executions?
>You brought up minstrel. Black have their own culture which is easily argubable to be worse than White culture. If it's a burden on others, parody and condemnation is warranted
There isn't a single black culture.
>If the bias is so severe as the data shows and majority don't have them, that means the minority who do have to be even more severe validating my argument about AGGREGATE differences. And you still haven't showed me data that majority of liberals don't have anti White biased.
Your own data doesn't show the majority having an anti-white bias. Your own data is the argument against it.
>My personal thoughts? High IQ leftist Jews who who took control of institutions (Hollywood, media, education) partly due to their IQs partly due to high motivation and nepotism. Their influence in the media shaped the culture after TV became dominant in every household. Jews on average tend to have anti White biases due to what happened to them in Europe and I believe they tend to support leftism out of their own ethnic interest. Just my personal thoughts, I am not saying this is certain.
So "just trust me bro" levels of reasoning.
>Perfidious. Meaning those that behave bad. I disagree anyone should be executed, but I still see no double standards when it comes RACE in America. Jews are White.
During one of his most recent rants, Fuentes said in part, “There is an occult element at the highest levels of society, and specifically among the Jews.”
He railed against what he called “evil doers” and “people who worship false gods.”
He said, “Those people, when we take power, they need to be given the death penalty. Straight up. … Absolutely annihilated.”
He said, “This is God’s country. This is Jesus’s country. This is not the domain of atheists or devil worshipers or perfidious Jews … .”
He wants me dead. Thoughts on that?
There isn't a single black culture.
Your own data doesn't show the majority having an anti-white bias. Your own data is the argument against it.
So "just trust me bro" levels of reasoning.
During one of his most recent rants, Fuentes said in part, “There is an occult element at the highest levels of society, and specifically among the Jews.”
He wants me dead. Thoughts on that?
>There kind of is.
No, there isn't. You think black people in Jamaica have the same culture as Kenyans?
>Then show me your data majority don't.
What? You made the claim that the majority of liberals hold an anti-white biase. You then proceeded to provide data that did not show that at all.
>Oh come on man. Good reasons to think this. And you asked me for my opinion. Never said I could prove it 100%
You can't demonstrate it at all. It's thinly-veiled anti-semitism. Literally just "The Joooos".
>Never said you have to like Fuentes. Where is there a double standard when it come to race in America?
My point was to ask who calls him out for his calls for mass-murder?
No, there isn't. You think black people in Jamaica have the same culture as Kenyans?
What? You made the claim that the majority of liberals hold an anti-white biases.
You can't demonstrate it at all. It's thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Literally just "The Joooos".
My point was to ask who calls him out for his calls for mass-murder?
>In America and UK there kind of is.
No reason to believe this. You could argue by this logic that white brits and americans "have the same culture".
>No, I said ON AVERGE they do.
And your data does not show this.
>You asked me for MY OPINION and I gave it to you. How is saying that Jews have high IQs and have substantially changed the culture "anti Semitism"? How is admitting an effect of an ethnic group on culture irrational and unfair to that ethnic group? They themselves talk about how they changed the culture.
Give me a link of a Jew, who apparently now speaks for all Jews, boasts about how they infiltrated and controlled entertainment post-1950s to change western culture. And in what way.
>Just about everyone. Basically no respected mainstream conservative defends him. Even the supposed White nationalist JD Vance labelled him an incel troll.
Do you know of any mainstream conservatives that would defend, or have defended any of the white nationalist writers you seem to derive your ideology from?
No reason to believe this. You could argue by this logic that white Brits and Americans "have the same culture".
And your data does not show this.
Give me a link of a Jew, who apparently now speaks for all Jews, boasts about how they infiltrated and controlled entertainment post-1950s to change western culture.
Do you know of any mainstream conservatives that would defend, or have defended any of the white nationalist writers you seem to derive your ideology from?
>I didn't say UK and US Blacks are culturally the same, I said Blacks in the US have their own unique culture. And probably in the UK as well
Sort of. There is not a single African-American culture, nor a single African-British culture.
And plenty don't necessarily identify with said prominent cultures.
>Ummm yes it does.
No, it does not. It shows that a minority of Liberal whites hold prejudice against their own race, but it's still a minority. It may be higher than the amount of non-liberal whites, but it's still a minority.
>It would be stupid of them to brag considering they're a small minority, so one would think there weren't any examples, but still...
Again, this is a presupposition from your end that they are bragging, but simply that they are too smart to implicate themselves in such a way.
>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-19-oe-stein19-story.html
Hollywood being disproportionately Jewish historically (which includes tons of secular jews: Do you think a secular jew, on account of their heritage has inherent malevolent motives and thatt they all think and act in lockstep)?
Jewish people have always historically been driven into being entrepeneurs, entering business and in entertainment. Them being directors and writers and actors etc isn't evidence of any malevolent motive to deliberately alter western culture.
>https://forward.com/opinion/185543/jews-shape-american-culture-more-than-ever-even/
This says nothing like you think it does. It's talking about how Jews now are highly secularised.
"No, it does not. It shows that a minority of Liberal whites hold prejudice against their own race, but it's still a minority. It may be higher than the amount of non-liberal whites, but it's still a minority."
Nope, the data shows that BOTH "very liberal" as well as "liberal" have on average anti White biases. It doesn't say anything about percentages of within each group. Since both those groups ON AVERAGE have anti White biases , it's probably not a minority view unless those that do have biases have such extreme anti White views that they would shift the overall for their group which isn't likely. Their views would have to be really extreme for this to be the case.
Again, this is a presupposition from your end that they are bragging, but simply that they are too smart to implicate themselves in such a way.
Hollywood being disproportionately Jewish historically (which includes tons of secular jews: Do you think a secular jew, on account of their heritage has inherent malevolent motives and thatt they all think and act in lockstep)?
>Nope, the data shows that BOTH "very liberal" as well as "liberal" have on average anti White biases.
No it does not. You can't read. You keep insisting this, I'll just keep replying similarly.
>It doesn't say anything about percentages of within each group. Since both those groups ON AVERAGE have anti White biases
The data you linked very much did refer to percentages.
>So it's irrational to assume that a small minority who has been historically persecuted everywhere they lived would not be so stupid to publically brag about their power?
You also assume they have specific power, and clarity of motive (all Jews think and want the same thing). You've not backed any of this up.
>Secular Jews still see themselves as ethnically Jewish and have a strong Jewish ethnic identity and survival values. Secular or religious makes little difference.
Any evidence for this whatsoever? And how does the strong "Jewish ethnic identity and survival values" somehow impact the type of content a screenwriter would want to make?
>So an article published by one of the nation's most prestigious newspaper about a Jew bragging about how his people control the culture through entertainment is not good evidence for you that they as a people might have a vested interest in Western culture and to change it in a particular direction?
Your article from Forward says no such thing. Quote it where the author there brags about controlling entertainment.
Where are the percentages in the link i've posted?
No I just rationally think they are ethno centric like one would expect from their religion and history.
Yes opinion polls on Jews show a strong Jewish identity even secular ones.
And how does the strong "Jewish ethnic identity and survival values" somehow impact the type of content a screenwriter would want to make?
>Where are the percentages in the link i've posted?
Provide your links again. They didn't stipulate that a majority of liberals think X regarding this.
>No I just rationally think they are ethno centric like one would expect from their religion and history.
And what does being "ethnocentric" when it comes to being a Jew look like exactly? Most Jews in the US entertainment industry aren't religious. What would their content look like exactly?
>Is this a serious question or sarcasm?
Serious question. The oft-repeated charge is that they're making 'woke' content. What would 'woke' content have to do with "Jewish ethnic identity and survival values"?
They show averages which suggests that majority think that or at least a strong minority. If only a small minority of liberals held anti White views, it wouldn't drag down the total average of entire categories.
Hollywood promotes leftist policies on social issues (refugees, White guilt, Whites are bad and incompetent, Blacks are smart, moral and competent. Feminism is good). All those things are in Jewish ethnic interest. Jews feel safer the more "diverse" America is because they will "sick out" less
>They show averages which suggests that majority think that or at least a strong minority.
A "strong minority" is otherwise known as a plurality, genius. That was my point. It's NOT a majority and no data you've provided demonstrated it was.
>Hollywood promotes leftist policies on social issues (refugees, White guilt, Whites are bad and incompetent, Blacks are smart, moral and competent.
Any actual evidence for this? This is just a mythos now. I've watched many shows where black people are antagonists, villainous or anti-heroes.
>Feminism is good).
What's your working definition of feminism that Hollywood allegedly promotes?
>All those things are in Jewish ethnic interest.
How so?
>Jews feel safer the more "diverse" America is because they will "sick out" less
Why would they stick out more in a less diverse America? Most Jews just look like white americans.
"All those things are in Jewish ethnic interest.
How so?"
Because Jews feel threatened by strong White ethnic groups given their history. Also, by getting rid of Whites, they are eliminating competition for their power. Other races aren't intellectually challenging to them.
"Jews feel safer the more "diverse" America is because they will "sick out" less
Why would they stick out more in a less diverse America? Most Jews just look like white Americans."
You don't have to distinguish a Jew from a non Jew physically to know that there are Jews.
And why do you think this is?
DEI consultants want White people to feel ashamed.
share"I can name you about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race. "
Still patiently waiting for you to name them...
See my reply to robocat
shareYou're completely self-unaware!
That's typical of most whites who haven't learned to broaden their viewpoint and reassess and unlearn their own enculturation.
1. ALL institutions are controlled by whites and run with white standards and values and reinforce white identity & pride. Anyone not white is "other" & ashamed of NOT being White. White Jesus, white ETs, flesh color = white skin, white = generic/standard, etc.
2. White institutions excluded Blacks so they created their own.
3. Whites excluded Blacks from schools, jobs, housing... creating white-only jobs, neighborhoods, schools, etc..
4. U.S. is a settler-colonialist project w/immigration population. Not a white country!
5. History excluded minorities. Only pseudohistory w/whites only taught.
6. Whites raped black slaves for centuries.
7. White racism: job discrimination; unequal tax distribution = poorly funded unequal schools; poorly funded black areas, poorly funded healthcare... White racism denies blacks a fair & equitable shot at universities
8. Bigotry, prejudice & racism are not the same. Racism is bigotry with power behind it. Whites control ALL institutions, therefore can discriminate against ALL blacks w/ sweeping broad policies & laws. A black bigot can only affect one or a few whites.
9. White people SHOULD have guilt for their bad historic behavior, AND CHANGE! "Black and brown people... they behaved worse." You'll have to specify what's worse than genocide, land theft, kidnapping, slavery, persecution, lynching, Jim Crow...
10. White is a race. Black is a race & ethnic group.
11. No, Blacks can't fix white racism. Only whites can fix that since whites control ALL institutions.
12. White historical achievements are emphasized while Blacks and browns are omitted which explains your ignorance.
I'll add that your "victimhood" is typical racist behavior.
>9. White people SHOULD have guilt for their bad historic behavior, AND CHANGE! "Black and brown people... they behaved worse." You'll have to specify what's worse than genocide, land theft, kidnapping, slavery, persecution, lynching, Jim Crow...
I'm not responsible for the actions of my ancestors.
>10. White is a race. Black is a race & ethnic group.
What? What is your term of reference for both these terms?
9. You're responsible for perpetrating their bigotry and racism. Sociopaths and psychopaths don't feel guilt.
10. Rev. Jesse Jackson encouraged everyone to use the term African-American in 1988. I actually remember the news broadcast with his interview suggesting the change. The term caught on.
https://newafricanmagazine.com/3168/
Prior to that interview, Black was used simultaneously as an ethnic group term for black people with historical roots in the U.S. as well as for the entire race.
9. What bigotry and racism have I perpetuated?
10. Not all black people in the USA could be fairly considered African-American. African-American is just a cultural term. It's no more of inherent value than "Irish-American".
So black is still just used for the entire race then.
10. African-American = ethnic group
Irish-American = ethnic group
Black is used for both race and ethnic group. Ethnic groups are capitalized.
9. LOL!!
Btw, the way institutional racism works is even if you're not a bigot, you still profit from racism as a white person.
For instance, racist zoning laws dumped polluting and toxic industries into black areas, therefore your white area is cleaner, you're healthier and will live longer than a black person. Blacks have higher asthma rates because of these discriminatory zoning laws.
White schools, neighborhoods, healthcare access receive more funds, therefore you benefit as a white person.
You're less likely to be pulled over by cops for driving a nice car and beaten to death since white lives are valued more. If you are arrested, you'll receive a lighter sentence than a black person committing the same crime. There is white-skin privilege.
I consider your ignorance of the above few examples to be proof of your racism and bigotry.
>Black is used for both race and ethnic group. Ethnic groups are capitalized.
So therefore white can be used for both race and ethnic group in the same way you seem to think its fine for black to be used for both.
9. That's not an answer. I didn't ask how I benefit from institutional racism - that's a different topic altogether (the extent of which can be debated). I asked what bigotry and racism have I perpetuated?
>I consider your ignorance of the above few examples to be proof of your racism and bigotry.
When did I suggest any ignorance of that stuff?
10. White is only used for race. WASP, Anglo-American, Anglo-Saxon, Irish-American, Irish, Italian, Italian-American, etc.. are used for ethnic groups.
Totally different history. Whites know their country of origin, last names and family histories. That knowledge was taken from African-Americans during their ancestors' slavery. Stop trying to claim victimization when it doesn't apply to you.
9. You clearly have zero understanding of racism and bigotry. Again, that's a commonality among racists and bigots.
Racism and bigotry don't need to be consciously intended. As a matter of fact, most are done unintentionally. Furthermore, you're benefitting from institutional racism, therefore you are part of the problem whether you want to admit it or not.
Your attempt to disassociate yourself from racism and bigotry is also common behavior of bigots and racists.
Most stereotype bigots and racists as extremes like KKK and evil. Nope. Most are regular folks, even nice, unaware of their own behavior.
Your problem is being self-unaware. You need to move pass your enculturation.
>10. White is only used for race. WASP, Anglo-American, Anglo-Saxon, Irish-American, Irish, Italian, Italian-American, etc.. are used for ethnic groups.
But "white" could be used for ethnic groups in the same way you're saying that black is used for ethnic groups.
>Totally different history. Whites know their country of origin, last names and family histories. That knowledge was taken from African-Americans during their ancestors' slavery. Stop trying to claim victimization when it doesn't apply to you.
There are a lot of black americans that do not descend from an African country. What are they?
9. You still have not explained what racism and bigoted positions that I hold.
>Racism and bigotry don't need to be consciously intended. As a matter of fact, most are done unintentionally. Furthermore, you're benefitting from institutional racism, therefore you are part of the problem whether you want to admit it or not.
If institutional racism does exist, and exists to the extent that you're claiming, how is it you expect a white person to somehow not benefit from them so they can't be held culpable?
>Your attempt to disassociate yourself from racism and bigotry is also common behavior of bigots and racists.
So simply saying "I'm not racist" is in itself evidence of racism? What? This is unfalsifiable.
And your position is also deeply Americabrained. You do realise I'm British, right? Your American-based positions here hold no direct relevance to my own upbringing, culture etc.
10. White has NEVER been used as an ethnic group. Case closed!
"There are a lot of black americans that do not descend from an African country. What are they?"
You peaked my curiosity. To whom are you referring?
"... not benefit from them so they can't be held culpable?"
We don't want to benefit from racism. We want to end it!
As a Brit, you benefitted from centuries of colonialism, too.
ROTFLMAO! Britain is notorious for its racism. You know... colonialism! And Britain is 100% responsible for starting the Palestinian/Israel fiasco which the U.S. is continuing. Basically, a racist settler-colonizer project to rid a land of its Indigenous population and replace it with Europeans. Didn't you guys have race riots attacking innocent Muslims and immigrants last week? And most of the people who died in that high rise fire were people of color. Substandard housing ok for them?
"no direct relevance to my own upbringing, culture"
Then, you clearly don't know American history or culture since the original slavers came from Britain's aristocracy hoping to recreate their lifestyle in the U.S. with slaves instead of peasants. Many of the common laws, culture, prejudices, ruling-class (WASP), etc. came from Britain.
>10. White has NEVER been used as an ethnic group. Case closed!
I'm not sure this is true at all.
>You peaked my curiosity. To whom are you referring?
Black people who live in the USA whose ancestry derives from the Caribbean.
>As a Brit, you benefitted from centuries of colonialism, too.
Okay. So? What do you want me to do about it now?
> Didn't you guys have race riots attacking innocent Muslims and immigrants last week?
Yes. And most of them have been given harsh sentences. What's your point?
>And most of the people who died in that high rise fire were people of color. Substandard housing ok for them?
Are you talking about Grenfell? That was based in London. Had that fire took place in Leeds or Sheffield, the demographics of those who died would've been very different.
>Then, you clearly don't know American history or culture since the original slavers came from Britain's aristocracy hoping to recreate their lifestyle in the U.S. with slaves instead of peasants. Many of the common laws, culture, prejudices, ruling-class (WASP), etc. came from Britain.
No. I did know this. I'm just unsure of its contemporary relevance.
The only thing that could make this better would be to discover that Skavau and Keelai are one and the same.
shareThen, you clearly don't know American history or culture since the original slavers came from Britain's aristocracy
Let's not overlook the racial/ethnic background of the (((slave traders))) either, Keelai. Help me out, though. Were they your alleged "white Jews" or were they of the non-white variety? If you really want to be helpful you could fire up Vizio and make a flow chart. Thank you in advance.
LOL! You're an Islamophobe AND anti-Semite!
Most slavers were "Christian". Most African-Americans have WASPy last names.
Large companies ran the slave trade- "Christian"
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/franklin-and-armfield/
You're an Islamophobe AND anti-Semite!
LOL, you got me there!
And Jewish involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is well documented.
"Most slavers were "Christian". Most African-Americans have WASPy last names."
So do most Germans in America. Johann Schmidt became John Smith.
Non sequitur.
African-Americans have WASPy slave last names = Christian slave owners.
Germans were not slaves in the U.S., therefore they never had slave names. Name changes during Naturalization have nothing to do with the topic.
No it's not. If Germans changed their names to Anglo despite not being slaves, how does Black Anglo names prove Anglos were the only slave owners. I'm not saying Anglos weren't slave owners (they were historically the founding group in America and an overwhelming majority up to a certain point in time), but many Jews were also slave owners, yet you don't see Blacks with Jewish names. Plenty of Jews also have Anglo names because they changed them.
share1: White identity is suppressed, not reinforced. What planet do you live in?
2. No White identatarian has a problem with Blacks having their own institutions. White institutions are forbidden.
3. So What? How does that debunk the double standard of modern society that Whites safe spaces aren't allowed but Black one are?
4. Believe what you want about US. This argument isn't US specific, how about UK, Sweden or France? Liberia's constitution limits citizenship to only Blacks. Mexico had an explicit law aimed at preserving ethnic makeup until very recently. Liberals never complained about it. The same with Israel and Japan. But if Trump wants to stop illegal immigration he's the new Hitler. It's bad only when Whites do it. Insane double standards
5. Even if your narrative was true, history doesn't justify double standards today. Liberals literally made a movie about a Black Cleopatra even though she was Greek. Name me one right winger who wants Shaka Zulu or Munsa Musa to be portrayed as White.
6. Even if your one sided narrative was true (which it isn't since Blacks have always raped more White women than the other way around) it wouldn't debunk my argument about double standards. I see plenty of Black and Hispanic only dating sites and nobody complains, but if someone makes a White one, there's outrage.
7. Blacks don't do worse due to poor schools. Data debunks this and even if they did, it wouldn't debunk the argument that today liberals want less qualified Blacks to get ahead of more qualified Whites and Asians. No right winger proposes the opposite. The point stands.
8. Just because one ethnic group has more total power due to having larger numbers doesn't mean standards for what is considered bigotry should be different for different ethnic groups. Blacks have more power relative to their numbers and their merit.
Your comment is filled with lies and racist propaganda. You're worse than Tramp.
1. Why is God represented as white? ETs? Beauty standards? Band-aids flesh color? Adam and Eve although they're African?
2. Name national institutions not controlled by whites?
3. There are plenty of ethnic-white spaces like Irish groups, Italian groups, etc. Isn't your KKK and neo-Nazi Party safe spaces for you?
4. Tramp said he only wants to stop nonwhite immigration. He's a racist.
5. Racists literally made movies with white Egyptians and Judeans, although they were black and brown. Cowboys represented as white although 1/3 were black or Mexican and the original cowboys were Indigeneous. Still plenty of racist whitewashing in movies: https://movieweb.com/hollywood-whitewashing-casting-examples-worst/ Why aren't you complaining?
6. White men raped black and Indigeneous women for centuries throughout America. Why are you proj ecting?
7. Explain who poorly funded, overcrowded public schools are equal to well-funded small-sized private schools?
8. Rich white males are at the top of the hierarchy. Explain how white male billionaires and multi-millionaires are a majority? Explain how they have no power?
First of all calling things "racist" and "KKK" is not an argument.
1. Because Whites are a historic majority and this is a historic White country. How is Jesus portrayed in Korea? Ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? Morgan Freeman doesn't look White to me.
2. If an ethnic group is an overwhelming majority of the population (especially for adult population) they are going to be majority of the people who run the institutions. Especially since the largest minorities have almost a standard deviation lower IQs than them. Blacks have ever imaginable ethnic organization from association
of Black cardiologists to Black student unions to congressional Black caucuses. For Whites this is seen as an outrage and illegal. Double standard.
3 And if an Irish American organization excludes a Black person who is partially Irish it would be an outrage. Imagine if only Mexican or Guatemalan organizations were allowed but not Hispanic ones. Imagine if only Cherokee and Navajo organizations were allowed but not Native American ones. Whites are a meta ethnicity and in an increasingly "diverse" America, European ethnicities are going to matter less and collective Whites ones more. A majority brown America isn't going to see someone half Polish half German by their ethnicity, but as White. Also most Whites have plenty of European ethnic backgrounds so it doesn't make sense they identify with their ethnic background but by their race. The left doesn't talk about English-American privilege, but White privilege. A White American can shed his German heritage, but not his White one.
4. No he didn't. He never proposed stopping non Whites immigrate. Even his RAISE ACT only proposed cutting immigration in half and imposing merit based as opposed to family reunification policy. His main agenda was stopping illegal immigration and that was enough for the media to call him Hitler.
Calling things "racist" and "KKK" is an accurate description.
1. Whites are a historic minority and didn't exist before 8,000 years ago, therefore your answer is wrong.
2. Nonsense. All institutions of government, business, communications, transportation, etc. were and are controlled by white men. Statistically, there are more white women. Again, your answer is wrong
3. Whites create segregation laws and institutions. Women segregate along gender. Ethnic groups I know allow everyone. Your answer is wrong.
4. "As 2018 got underway, Donald Trump hosted a White House meeting with a group of senators and referred to Haiti and African nations as “s---hole countries.” The Republican added that he’d like to see the United States welcome more people from countries such as Norway."
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-makes-unsubtle-call-immigration-nice-countries-rcna146865 You're wrong again!
It only sounds "racist" and "KKK" to your far left ass
1. They built American society. They founded America and they are a people. Jesus is portrayed as Korean in Korea, yet you don't have a problem with that. But when Whites portray Jesus or God as White, you whine. No White so called "racist" has a problem with God or Jesus being portrayed as Black in Africa. You just have double standards against Whites.
2. That's not a reply to my argument. I explained why Whites are overrepresented, you failed to show how that is not a valid reply.
3. No ethnic groups don't allow everyone. Jewish organizations are for Jews. Hispanic ones for Hispanics and so on. Only Whites aren't allowed theirs.
4. Calling Spade a Spade is not a double standard. Tell me of a Trump plan where he proposed immigration policy only for Whites. One comment isn't an official proposition. He was also called Hitler way before 2018 when he made that comment.
5. Egyptians looked like Arabs when they weren't under the sun. Not far different from Whites. Also it wasn't political, but practical. There weren't many Egyptian actors in Hollywood 50 years ago. There still aren't. Cleopatra swap was on the other hand 100% political.
6. Name me a historic war where men didn't rape women of the enemy tribe. That was during conquest ethic, not today. Blacks today rape much much more than Whites. They rape in peace which is a better indication of inherent violence propensities.
7. Again data shows school quality doesn't matter. It's not the school, it's the student. Also why should White people fund Black schools? Who is stopping Blacks from funding their own schools? As far as I'm concerned they can have their own country and schools how ever they want them. Also this is not a counter argument of my main point which is that the left wants less capable Blacks ahead of more capable Whites. No prominent White person wants the opposite. Today a rich Black kid with worse test scores gets ahead of a poor White. This is what the left calls justice.
8. Ever heard of race and IQ? How many of those Whites are Jews who are only 2% of the population? The same reason. IQ.
5. Arabs have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt. Egyptians painted themselves with brown skin. The Akhenaten era was the least stylized and most realistic art period. They have full lips, broad noses and textured hair. Ancient Egyptians were racially and ethnically mixed with darker Africans living mainly in Upper Egypt and lighter Asiatic people in Lower Egypt. There were also a large number of Nubians in and near Egypt who also ruled during certain periods and still live in Egypt now. Their culture was mainly black African when you compare artifacts, culture, burial, etc. Furthermore, the skeletons and skulls are clearly Black. (I studied anatomy in university). Cleopatra was likely racially mixed like her sister. No one knows what Cleo looked like since there are no contemporary images. (Coins are nonsensical since they're highly stylized instead of representative). You're wrong.
6. You're justifying rape. Discussion is slavery and colonialism. Rapists mainly white and male: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY18.pdf
You're wrong, again.
7. No link. Brown vs Board of Education testimony proved your answer is nonsense decades ago. You're wrong.
8. All test are culturally biased and attached to wealth, good school, tutoring, etc.. There are no racial differences in IQ. Read books! "The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea " by anthropologist Robert Wald Sussman. Scientific racism was debunked decades ago. You're wrong again.
5. I never said they were Arabs, I said they looked like Arabs. They weren't Black. At least most of them. Also you never replied to my argument about the difference between practical racial casting and political.
6. No, i'm putting in a proper context given what our disagreement is about. White includes Hispanic. Whites are majority of the population so this isn't per capita. Interracial rape is overwhelming Black on White. The revers is vanishingly small.
7. Brown was a political decision based on doll studies which hid what the data about those dolls actually showed. Besides this has nothing to to with my original point. Left wants less capable Blacks accepted ahead of more capable Whites. Even if poor Black performance was proven to be 100% due to past exclusion (which the data contradicts) it would still be a double standard. My point stands.
8. The culture bias argument has been so debunked it's even been dropped by the left. Black kids from rich families score lower on SAT than White kids from poor families. Your politically motivated leftist books prove nothing but the fact society is afraid to admit the truth. Even if Black and White IQ gap was 100% due to toxic Black culture it would still explain overrepresentation of Whites among billionaires and it would be Black people's fault for perpetuating the toxic culture in their community.
9. Whites were first to come up the idea to end slavery. They banned slavery in all of Africa and the rest of the world which had to be ruled by Whites to end it which says a lot about non Whites. Arabs practiced worse slavery than Whites, yet there is no Arab slavery guilt today. Africa had slavery for centuries before Europeans arrived, Black Bantus in Africa nearly exterminated Pygmies and Bushmen and took their land and even today treat them like animals. No guilt. Whites are held to higher standards than non Whites when it comes to past behavior.
10. In America White is also an ethnic group since most Whites have MANY ethnic backgrounds. White is kind of a meta ethnicity just like Native American or Australian aborigines who also are divided into tribes and are seen as a people by the left. If you capitalize Slav or Arab who are also meta ethnicity, then you should capitalize White.
11. Whites did everything and more. Problems of Blacks today are not due to "racism" but due to Black culture, single motherhood if not Black genetics. Even if you believe toxic Black behavior today is due to past racism, it's still up to Blacks to fix it. Nobody else can make Blacks do their homework and stop having children out of wedlock.
12. Modern science came from Europe, industrial revolution came from Europe, technological revolution came from Europe, modern economy came from Europe, democracy came from Europe, women's rights came from Europe, worker's rights came from Europe. Look at Wikipedia article on White people. It just says they're a social construct that is unfairly privileged. Not a word about all these achievements. Meanwhile the article on Blacks if full of their minor achievements. Google search for White inventors gives images of Blacks.
9. Is this KKK talking points?
10. What are you rambling about?
11. More KKK talking points?
12. More KKK ideology from you? You're proving that you never learned any history since practically every important development came from Asia, Africa and Americas.
For instance, Democracy came from Native-Americans who influenced the Founding Fathers.
"More than 600 years before the United States existed, America’s original inhabitants were already practicing a form of democracy that Ben Franklin and other founders would later borrow from.
Much of the framework of the U.S. Constitution came from the way 12th century Indigenous people governed, a fact the U.S. Senate did not acknowledge until 1988."
https://www.history.com/news/iroquois-confederacy-influence-us-constitution
https://atlantaciviccircle.org/2021/11/17/native-americas-influence-on-american-democracy/
https://www.pbs.org/native-america/blog/how-the-iroquois-great-law-of-peace-shaped-us-democracy
"Congress pass a 1988 resolution formally acknowledging the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the U.S. Constitution."
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf
Black Africans were shipped here, cheek by jowl in chains, in their tens of thousands, year after year, across the Atlantic to work, while the sun shone and after, without pay for centuries, their children consigned to the same fate.
Do you have a similar racial example for us, going 'the other way' ?
Of course, history and centuries of abuse don't leave a mark, and should be studiously ignored in the interests of 'fairness'.
What is your point? Everyone had slaves. My point is people who are today called "White supremacists" don't have ANY double standards, while the left has at least a dozen.
shareMy point is that you don't have a slave in the last ten generations, or lived thru the post-civil-war suppression based upon race, if you are white. It's not that complicated.
The double standard is pretending that we all have the same approximate history, background, privilege, opportunities.
There is no evidence slavery has anything to do with Black poverty today. In fact the evidence says otherwise. What makes you think we all deserve the same opportunities? Whites and Blacks are not people with different skin color. They are different ethnic groups. And today Blacks have in many ways more opportunities than Whites (DEI, affirmative action, government favors to Black owned businesses...)
share"There is no evidence slavery has anything to do with Black poverty today."
Of course, there is!!! It denied blacks generational wealth. If your forefathers worked literally centuries without one paycheck, then you're going to be much poorer than families allowed to accumulate wealth and pass it on to their children.
Furthermore, another century of Jim Crow denied blacks opportunities in jobs, education, etc. which kept them poorer.
The #1 group to benefit from affirmative action is white women!
Application of DEI and affirmative action won't succeed because of the severity of past racism which is ongoing, self-sustaining and embedded within all institutions.
The poorest group are Native-Americans whose land was stolen. Imagine if whites bought the land. They wouldn't be the poorest group anymore. Also, the government should pay back wages to the descendants of slaves.
So which blacks in the United States have had all these strikes against them? Can you please specify names and addresses? If you can't, the very question reparations is pointless.
shareNo this has been debunked. How do we know that? By looking at Blacks who were freed before emancipation proclamation. After 2 generations, these two groups did not statistically differ in terms of educational and economic success. Also other studies show that the speed at which of Blacks fades though generations shows that it is extremely unlikely slavery still has effect after 160 years. Also data clearly shows that wealth gaps and unemployment gaps between Blacks and Whites haven't decreased, but actual increased over the last decades, the opposite you would expect if slavery was the cause of Black poverty.
No, White women don't benefit more from affirmative action. This has been debunked:
https://youtu.be/O-QFebX3uok
Do some more research. Plenty of Europeans were slaves. Many were slaves in the United States. And many were slaves before the Africans were purchased in Africa and brought to the New World.
shareThe depth of your ignorance is note-worthy. I have no desire to 'debate' with you.
Do some research on the difference between 'indentured servitude' and chattel slavery, and then bug off - you are annoyingly confrontational, in historical 'view' the creature of malignant disinformation mongers...
https://njsbf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Theme-One-Background-Info-1.pdf
You're a dunce, have clearly learned nothing in your school years or thereafter, and yet like to trumpet your ignorance.
Go away.
Ad hominem renders anything you say illogical.
[deleted]
Excusing Maga crowds who beat up police, damaged the Capitol and threatened lives of lawmakers on 1/6/21 by pointing to protests by BLM people protesting police brutality and lack of accountability in the justice system in dealing with violent cops - as if they are somehow related. Furthermore, minimizing the violence of 1/6 while exaggerating damage during BLM protests (e.g. they burned our cities to the ground), most of which was caused by white supremacist right wing agitators.
shareFist of all this was not my point at all. I'm not a blind Trumptard or a MAGA cultist, But since you brought this up, I have to respond to some of your so called "points"
Trump and thus Jan 6 wouldn't have happened if America was all White. Populist politicians get elected when there is a shadow resentment against elite in the country ie where there is a perception that ruling class isn't connected to the ordinary citizen and his grievances. Wonder why there is no Trump in Canada?
There is no pattern of police brutality against Black people, only general police brutality, but that is expectable given the crime rates and stress/threat police are subjected to in America compared to say a country like Iceland or Finland who are - low and behold - much less diverse and thus more safe.
BLM riots were objectively worse than Jan 6. both in terms of time lasted, casualties and damage caused. Jan 6 was caused by a few angry political partisans desperate at the system which neglected them for 40 years and at most if you want a mistake by one person - Trump who didn't do enough to tell them to stop. BLM riots were caused by deliberate lies on behalf of the media and education in America who has spewed lies about Blacks being victims of police for decades and and lies of them being victims of society in general. Even if BLM grievances were legit (which they weren't) it would still be irresponsible for the media to incite them given the potential damage they tend to cause materially and loss of life.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
shareBLM riots were objectively worse than Jan 6. both in terms of time lasted, casualties and damage caused.
>Trump and thus Jan 6 wouldn't have happened if America was all White. Populist politicians get elected when there is a shadow resentment against elite in the country ie where there is a perception that ruling class isn't connected to the ordinary citizen and his grievances. Wonder why there is no Trump in Canada?
Canada has a very different political system than the USA. A Trump would find it much harder just on that basis, but also Canada has racial issues just like the USA and many people there are upset about the 'ruling class', as it were, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
Trump was a backlash against demographic replacement/tolerance to illegal immigration and political correctness which mainly comes from race. If America was all White, this backlash never would have happened. Name a Western almost all White country with populist politicians winning elections that are called Hitler. Wonder why Canada and Uk, two other mainly Anglo countries have universal healthcare? Because they are less Black. And don't trust me, this is the opinion of top economists who analyzed the cause of difference between Europe and America in social safety nets. You lefties who complain about harsh capitalism in US but support diversity are hypocrites.
shareCanada isn't all white either.
>Wonder why Canada and Uk, two other mainly Anglo countries have universal healthcare? Because they are less Black. And don't trust me, this is the opinion of top economists who analyzed the cause of difference between Europe and America in social safety nets. You lefties who complain about harsh capitalism in US but support diversity are hypocrites.
Canada has roughly the same proportion of white people as the USA does.
And can you name me these "top economists" that claim this please?
Canada used to be historically WAY Whiter than US particularly less Black. Only in recent years has it opened borders to other people and even today it's immigration policy is merit based meaning the minorities in Canada don't behave as Blacks and Hispanics do in the US.
Economists are Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacredote. The paper is called Why doesn't the US have a European style Welfare state. It is by Harvard institute of economic research. They conclude about half of the variable is due to ethnic makeup of the US, other half due to other factors.
>Canada used to be historically WAY Whiter than US particularly less Black. Only in recent years has it opened borders to other people and even today it's immigration policy is merit based meaning the minorities in Canada don't behave as Blacks and Hispanics do in the US.
Canada was 76% white in 2011. USA was 72% white in 2010. The differences over 10 years ago were not vast.
10 years? I'm talking historically dude. What was Black population in Canada compared to US from nation's birth to today?
share*crickets*
Now watch some pathetic excuse-making…
Back to your continued stalking. This is a reply from me from 12 days ago.
Can I *crickets* you when you don't reply to me or others? Which is common. Is it okay for you to abandon arguments?
What is it I should be arguing there? His argument is also flawed because India, a far more populated and racially diverse country than the USA happens to have public healthcare options.
This is a such a great point. People often wonder how I can be far left on economic issues while holding far right views on cultural matters. The truth is, there’s no contradiction. I support a strong welfare system because I believe in its benefits, but I also think it can only be effective in a White, racially homogeneous, high-trust society. In other words, my economic socialism and my cultural conservatism complement each other perfectly because the success of my socialist policies hinges on the social cohesion found in such a society.
"Trump and thus Jan 6 wouldn't have happened if America was all White."
If you want "all whites", then return to Europe. I suggest Poland or Ukraine. America is originally a region inhabited by brown people. Furthermore, Hispanics and Black people had settled in America in the 1500s long before other Europeans.
Black people "settled" in America before Europeans? So, presumably, they aren't entitled to the wealth transfer you incessantly push?*
* How much of your ill-gotten wealth are you voluntarily giving away today?
"The first Africans from Spain were known as ladinos, or hispanicized Africans, and were soldiers, servants, settlers, and slaves. They began to arrive in the Americas as early as the 15th century, many as auxiliaries to the Spanish and Portuguese explorers."
https://www.nps.gov/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/spanishamb.htm
"1513: Africans arrive in Florida with Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León, the first European to lay claim to Florida.
September 8, 1565: St. Augustine is founded nearly a half century before Jamestown by Don Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, who arrived from Spain with 800 colonists including approximately 50 Africans, both free and enslaved. The Africans brought by Menéndez become an integral part of America’s first colony."
https://www.nps.gov/casa/learn/historyculture/african-americans-in-st-augustine-1565-1821.htm
So, no reparations for them.
And you haven't answered the question. When are you voluntarily atoning for your ill-gotten wealth?
I am from Europe. I would have nothing against all White Americans returning to Europe provided brown people in Europe return to Morocco and Pakistan. If this happened, American Blacks and Hispanics would follow them just like they follow them now everywhere Whites go.
shareWhite European people settled in America five centuries before black Africans first saw America soil! Vikings traveled to America in the 10th century.
share2020 BLM/Antifa Sumer of Love Riots have entered the chat...
shareRIP
David Dorn
>Name me a single example of a double standard from White identatarians (people who are called "White supremacists") with regards to race. I can name you about a dozen examples of double standards the left has with regards to race.
One simple example here I can think of is the opposition to affirmative action and DEI-based hiring practices. I understand and agree with many complaints on this from them.
But a lot of those same people take umbrage with the civil rights in the USA as restrictions on private businesses and think that employers should be allowed to fire people for any reason, or a business should be able to refuse service for any reason. To my mind, if you're going to permit that legally - then you can't really object to a business hiring someone *for any reason* legally. Which in practice is what DEI policies from private companies are: race-based hiring.
You are consisting DEI with Affirmative action. It's not equivalent although DEI policies may result in more minority hiring.
shareAffirmative Action and DEI are systems of Institutional Sexism & Racism...which we have all been told are bad.
shareThere's not a single remaining example of institutional racism in the U.S.A. that favors white men. It all goes the other way. I only hope that a century hence my progeny are raking in their justly due reparations.
shareNo "far right" or White identatarian openly advocates that a less qualified White person should get a job or university admission ahead of a more qualified Black person. The opposite is obviously the foundation of left wing ideology. My point stands.
shareI've seen people on here say specifically that employment and service prejudice against white people is wrong and should not be allowed by law, but that it should however be acceptable to refuse jobs or service to black people.
shareI haven't seen that anywhere. Today in America it's illegal to discriminate against Blacks, but not against Whites (generally). I am a White identatarian and I believe as long as America is multiracial that hiring policy should be strictly merit based. If you have an example of some prominent "far right" figure saying Whites should be openly favored even controlling for merit, please list it.
shareTwo users on here: maixiu and curiousmind have directly said that to me on here.
shareAre you sure you didn't misunderstand what they meant? What is their reasoning? Also I asked from prominent White identatarians, not some losers on moviechat forum.
shareNo. Both of them identify openly as actual racists.
And I don't know, I've never debated with a prominent white identitarian on this. Who are some examples?
Nobody identifies as a "racist". The latter is a smear term just like "heretic" or "infidel". I am personally opposed to artificial favoritism to Whites and I've never heard any prominent figure in the identatarian movement advocate this despite being in the movement for a decade. You lose credibility in opposing Black favoritism this way. However I believe that every ethnic group has a right to intergroup preference and if Whites chose to favor their own they would have a right to provided they don't deny Blacks the right to secede and have their own communities/countries. But as long as Whites and Blacks live together, we shouldn't advocate any favoritism.
shareYes they do. The users I am referring to openly identify as it on here.
And what is the "white identitarian" movement in your mind exactly?
Maybe ironically just as many gay men say they are f****ts. Society calls them that so they accept it. But I doubt they accept the moral premise that their views are immoral which this term implies.
A rightful reaction to unfairness to Whites in our society.
No, they are not saying it ironically.
You're new here. I am not.
Also on a separate note, do you believe it is possible to be racist, to hold racist attitudes and then deny being racist?
The term racist is like a term "heretic". What you've said is "Do you think it's possible to be a heretic, but then deny that you're a heretic?". It's a totally irrelevant question, because people you are debating don't believe in the premises that a term like "heretic" or "racist" is even a legitimate thing. If you think I or someone else is being unfair to Blacks, say "You're being unfair to Blacks and here's why". Don't use thought stoppers like "racism".
shareSo if someone doesn't believe that being racist is a legitimate thing, that means nothing they say could be characterised as being racist?
shareIf I was an Islamic fundamentalist and accused you of being an "Infidel", would you be interested in debating me? Probably not. But if I sad, "Your views are unfair to Islam and Muslims" suddenly you would become curious and ask me "why?". The term "racist" does nothing but appeal to the Overton window which is a logical fallacy. Tell me how am I being unfair to Blacks.
share"Infidel" is a loaded term rooted in religious presuppositions about the world. Racism is not.
I didn't call you a racist. Nor did I necessarily say that calling someone you suspect is a racist of being a racist is necessarily a good conversational tactic. I asked you if it is possible to hold racist attitudes (ie: belief that one race is superior to another, generalisations against other races) whilst denying that one is a racist.
""Infidel" is a loaded term rooted in religious presuppositions about the world. Racism is not."
It is. The only difference is that different people are in power in America than in Muslim countries. People that tailor the window of acceptable positions. In Muslim countries, "infidel" is the same as "racist"
I'm still waiting for your answer.
shareOf course it's possible that people who hold views about race outside of Overton window deny that they hold them because they don't want to be punished by society for holding them. Just like people in the Soviet Union denied being "counter revolutionaries" because they didn't want to be sent to the Gulag. What people think privately and say publicly are two different things (which is a good argument that our mainstream culture towards race is far from ideal). That does not prove their views are wrong any more than atheists in Muslim countries are being proven wrong for being called "infidels".
shareOkay then. That's all.
Nick Fuentes, I believe has denied being a racist. But he obviously fucking is lol.
Now you answer my questions:
1. How am I (or Nick Fuentes) unfair to Blacks?
2. It it possible to be a "racist" without being unfair to Blacks, and if yes, what is wrong with being a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks?
1. I didn't say you were.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nick-fuentes-jews-executed-1234925748/
2. Yes, you can be racist against other groups.
>and if yes, what is wrong with being a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks?
What? Are you of the opinion that people think only racism to black people matters?
We are talking about Blacks. You didn't answer the question. How are so called "racists" unfair to Blacks?
shareDepends on the specific person.
shareSeems to me you are deflecting. This is an extremely simple question and if "racism" is really as evil as the left makes it to be, there should be plenty of examples. Also you didn't answer my second question: You said one can still be a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks. What is wrong with being a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks?
share>Seems to me you are deflecting. This is an extremely simple question and if "racism" is really as evil as the left makes it to be, there should be plenty of examples.
What would you accept as racist comments towards black people?
>You said one can still be a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks. What is wrong with being a "racist" if one isn't unfair to Blacks?
I happen to think making unpleasant comments about someone, or proposing discriminatory policy because of their racial background is wrong regardless of the person's race.
"What would you accept as racist comments towards black people?"
I don't think "racism" should be a word. Irrational views towards race and unfair to a given race. Not any word calling views heresy.
"I happen to think making unpleasant comments about someone, or proposing discriminatory policy because of their racial background is wrong regardless of the person's race."
That is unfairness. (depending on the situation). You said it's possible to be a "racist" without being unfair.
>I don't think "racism" should be a word. Irrational views towards race and unfair to a given race. Not any word calling views heresy.
That's nice. You're in a big minority here and you just simply have to deal with it. I'm not interested in an utterly pointless debate about semantics.
Whether we call it "unfair" or "racism" doesn't matter at all.
>You said it's possible to be a "racist" without being unfair.
No, I said it was possible to be a racist without being a racist to black people.
That's not a counter argument to my point. Semantics is what matters because words subconsciously guide human thought processes without people realizing. It matters a lot if we call it "racism" or "unfair", because if you call views "unfair" you have to show how they are indeed unfair. When you call them "racist" all you have to do is appeal to the Overton window and automatically win. It's a catch 22.
shareYou aren't arguing that prejudice against someone on the basis of their ethnic background doesn't exist, you're arguing that we should use "racist" to shorthand refer to someone who does it.
"Racism" is simply a descriptive term that refers to someone who holds those terms. You've already agreed in principle that it is possible to hold discriminatory and prejudicial views against people because of their racial background. Ergo we call people who do this.. racist.
But you haven't responded to my main argument why we shouldn't use the term "racism". By using it, we can stigmatize views that are not unfair (and thus immoral) which can have devastating consequences. A good example is immigration policy in Western countries which are destroying the West.
No sane person would argue that a Serb cannot be irrationally hateful towards a Croat or a Japanese towards a Chinese. That is not an argument that there aren't important differences between groups and that we should pretend that there are non even if doing so is detrimental.
>But you haven't responded to my main argument why we shouldn't use the term "racism". By using it, we can stigmatize views that are not unfair (and thus immoral) which can have devastating consequences.
What views are stigmatised by using the term "racism"? You haven't even provided a single example of a viewpoint that is stigmatised in this way.
People can be unfairly called racist. That does not mean other people cannot be called racist fairly. As I said: the term is descriptive. It's shorthand. You are essentially complaining about how language works. It's bizarre.
By your logic any descriptive term that could be used as a way to shame or misrepresent someone's position should be discarded with: Communist, fascist, liberal, conservative, reactionary, etc.
[deleted]
What views are stigmatized by using the term "racism"? You haven't even provided a single example of a viewpoint that is stigmatized in this way.
People can be unfairly called racist. That does not mean other people cannot be called racist fairly. As I said: the term is descriptive. It's shorthand. You are essentially complaining about how language works. It's bizarre.
>Yes I have. Immigration. But I have an even better one. How about test scores. Those are also being called racist today.
I have never called anyone racist purely for objecting to immigration rates. Sure, some have, but at the same time that doesn't inherently devalue the "racist" descriptor.
>Examples you gave are different. Real communists don't deny that they're communists and don't have a problem with this term. The same with fascists. They also have clearer definition. On the other hand nobody calls himself "racist" because the term implies unfairness. The term racist is just like the term "degenerate". It doesn't have a clear definition meaning it can be used on almost anything (that's why math today is called racist) and implies someone is being immoral without having to show why or how he's immoral.
I also used the term fascist, reactionary, conservative etc. Plenty of people take issue with being described in such a way despite holding positions that would fairly make them describable as such.
And "communism" is absolutely lobbed out absurdly and unfairly regardless of many communists openly endorsing it as a valid descriptor for them. Kamala Harris is obviously not a communist but is called one repeatedly.
I've already given you a definition of racism.
I have never called anyone racist purely for objecting to immigration rates. Sure, some have, but at the same time that doesn't inherently devalue the "racist" descriptor.
I also used the term fascist, reactionary, conservative etc. Plenty of people take issue with being described in such a way despite holding positions that would fairly make them describable as such.
>It is widely accepted not just among the left but in our general culture that favoring certain ethnic groups over others in immigration is "racist".
Favouring a particular ethnic group might be considered racist (and I would argue it can be easily based on racist presuppositions), but simply reducing the overall number is not considered racist.
> When a word gets away with labeling something unfair when it isn't, the word is inherently deceptive and should stop being used.
No. By this logic many wards should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.
All you're doing here is saying that you disagree with why people are called racist.
>I said no true communist or fascist takes issue with being labelled as such. Kamala is a socialist or a social democrat, but gets called Communist by the right just like Trump is a conservative but gets called a fascist or Nazi by the left. Ever wondered why the term "racialist" doesn't have the same stigma as the term "racist"? It essentially means the same thing. I would have no problem calling myself a racialist, but I do have a problem calling myself a "racist". The former doesn't imply unfairness the latter does. I can easily defend my views on race from being unfair, but I can't defend them from the label "racist" because all that is needed to justify the latter is the Overton window appeal (which is a logical fallacy, but people don't know that) .
Why is "racialist" somehow acceptable to you, but not "racist"? Why not just embrace racism?
Favoring a particular ethnic group might be considered racist (and I would argue it can be easily based on racist presuppositions), but simply reducing the overall number is not considered racist.
No. By this logic many wards should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.
All you're doing here is saying that you disagree with why people are called racist.
Why is "racialist" somehow acceptable to you, but not "racist"? Why not just embrace racism?
David, Skavau will lie and try to bombard you with insincere questions about the patently obvious in the hope of exhausting you.
At the same time he will try to dodge all of your sincere questions.
He will also keep strawmanning your position to waste your time having to correct him.
He’s a degenerate hard left ideologue with a bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and zero substance.
Just a heads up.
>David, Skavau will lie and try to bombard you with insincere questions about the patently obvious in the hope of exhausting you.
And what lies are these? This is yet more projection from one of the most dishonest hateful liars on the forum.
David is the person asking bizarre questions about the utility of the term "racism". In this conversation /he/ is the person asking questions, not me.
You clearly read zero of this back and fourth.
>He will also keep strawmanning your position to waste your time having to correct him.
The strawman of which you won't be able to name.
>He’s a degenerate hard left ideologue with a bag of dirty rhetorical tricks.
You have never ever been able to explain how I am "hard left".
So far as I can ascertain, your definition of "hard left" is simply "anyone who disagrees with me". You're that ideological, that narcissistic.
I'm the person being referenced. You are correct: I reject the legitimacy of the term 'racist.' However, I've chosen to embrace the label because I'm tired of being on the defensive and pretending to care.
The reason I'm labeled a racist is that I am a race realist. The data is undeniable—blacks have lower IQs and consistently fail to create functioning societies. Even when given a stable society, they eventually destroy it when left to their own devices. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, but leftists either make excuses or outright deny it, gaslighting anyone who points it out.
I also support segregation. If we must live in the same country, segregation is necessary. Ideally, though, I believe we shouldn't be in the same country at all. After much thought, I’ve concluded that multicultural societies cannot work. They will never achieve the level of social cohesion needed for a high-trust society.
For these reasons, among others, I support the mass deportation of non-Whites from the West. If this doesn't happen soon, it will inevitably lead to ethnic cleansing as Whites become minorities in their own countries and continue to be persecuted as they are now.
It's because of these views that I'm called a racist. I no longer care, so I accept the label. I am a racist, a White supremacist, a sexist, a homophobe, a transphobe, and every other 'phobe' and '-ist' out there.
And how are white people being persecuted now in the west?
And what happens to all the mixed people in the west?
There are countless examples across Twitter and in the media—feel free to investigate for yourself. I'm too lazy to do the research for you. I find it rather questionable that you're unaware of the numerous instances where White people have been targeted in the West. Even your own government in the U.K. has been complicit, as seen during the recent riots. Individuals were arrested simply for posting content that supported White people—content that was harmless, yet was branded as hate speech.
> And what happens to all the mixed people in the west?
They have to leave. Deported. Mud Sharks and Coal burners have to go too.
I'm aware of the many different issues (and many that impact non-white people too negatively), but governments are not implementing legislation directly designed to persecute white people.
>Even your own government in the U.K. has been complicit, as seen during the recent riots.
You mean arresting people for rioting?
>Individuals were arrested simply for posting content that supported White people—content that was harmless, yet was branded as hate speech.
Examples please. Because many of these claims are outright lies.
>They have to leave. Deported. Mud Sharks and Coal burners have to go too.
And to where will they go? What constitutes being too mixed to not be white? How far back are you going here?
And there's no support for this. Remember how I told you that you would be seen as evil as an Iranian Mullah in the UK.
>And to where will they go?
To hell.
>What constitutes being too mixed to not be white? How far back are you going here?
If they don't look White they have to go.
>And there's no support for this. Remember how I told you that you would be seen as evil as an Iranian Mullah in the UK.
First, I don't care. Second, I believe things will change, and support will continue to grow. Third, I don't trust your judgment. I don't think you're truly aware of what's happening in your own country or how people actually feel. I suspect there's far more support than you realize, but it's hidden from plain view. So, there's no data. But if you're only willing to believe mainstream data, then you'll remain blind to what's really unfolding around you.
>To hell.
So you have no actual answer.
>First, I don't care. Second, I believe things will change, and support will continue to grow.
Based on what? The UK is prominently concerned specifically about the corrosive influence of Islam. Your emphasis on black people has little relevance here.
> Third, I don't trust your judgment. I don't think you're truly aware of what's happening in your own country or how people actually feel.
And you claim this based on what? You have no data. You know nothing about here.
You hate the western world.
I await examples of these arrests you're talking about.
>There is nothing unfair favoring certain ethnic groups over others because no country owes any ethnic group the right to immigrate.
And no country, no western democracy is controlled by a specific ethnic group. When you reject the right of a specific ethnic group to settle or work in your country you are effectively saying that ethnic group has immutable characteristics that are negative. It absolutely is rooted in racial prejudice.
>Also even just reducing overall numbers is considered racist by the left, so you are wrong.
No. The left is not a uniform bloc that all thinks the same thing. You are wrong.
>Everything is considered "racist" today because the term isn't clearly defined. If we used the term "unfair" this couldn't happen.
And everything is considered "unfair" and thus by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.
>I don't know what you mean by ward in this context. English is not my fist language.
I meant *words*. Typo: By this logic many wards should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.
And the irony here, you're dictating to English people how they should use their language.
>Essentially yes, but my point is that as long as a term like "racism" exists, perfectly fair and moral positions will be able to be labelled as unfair because it is a term without a specific definition.
I don't know why you're focusing so much specifically on the term "racism". With or without it people would be viewed negatively. "Racism" is just a shorthand descriptor people use to describe someone who they believe has racial prejudice.
> The term "racist" implies that taking race into consideration when deciding policy and attitude is always irrational and unfair when it isn't.
No, it doesn't. It has negative connotations of use, but that's because racial prejudice in western society is generally frowned upon.
> I don't deny that people can have irrational prejudice against others because of their ethnicity, but a term "racist" shouldn't be used.
Gunna be honest mate, it's not your language. It's apparently your second language. Yet you're presuming to dictate to english-speaking natives how our language is and has developed and what words are used.
Racism is the term used to refer to people who have prejudice against others because of their ethnic background. A term will always exist for it regardless of it being 'racist' or something else.
>A better term would be something like "unwarranted tribalism".
That would be xenophobia.
> This way you could still condem someone for being irrational and unfair, but you would still have to show how his tribalism is indeed unwarranted in a given situation. For example there was recently an incident when a White woman was condemned as "racist" when she refused to let an unknown Black man in her building in the middle of the night when he said he lost his key. This is totally crazy.
No, that is 100% fundamentally racist. Her response was rooted in racial stereotypes.
It absolutely is rooted in racial prejudice.
The left is not a uniform bloc that all thinks the same thing. You are wrong.
And everything is considered "unfair" and thus by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.
By this logic many words should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.
you're dictating to English people how they should use their language.
"Racism" is just a shorthand descriptor people use to describe someone who they believe has racial prejudice.
>It isn't "prejudice" if the data shows some ethnic groups do better than others. It's posjudice. If the data shows differences it's actually unfair to citizens to import bad behaving ethinc groups. Even if all ethnic groups behaved equally, no country owes anyone the right to immigrate so preventing them isn't unfair.
>It is considered "racist" by the large chunk of the left if not majority. My argument that the term "racist" is a thought stopper does not depend on all leftist thinking the same.
It's considered racist by most of contemporary society to reject the application of someone purely because of their racial background.
>What? No, not everything is considered unfair. When you actually make the claim that something is unfair, you have to show how it's unfair. You stimulate critical thinking. By saying "racist" or taboo you just appeal to the manipulated Overton window.
I will rephrase: Some people will call things unfair that you do not think are unfair. Ergo by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.
>It isn't just the the word "racist" is used inaccurately. The entire word is unjustified since it implies that taking race into consideration is always unjustified in every situation. It also implies that there are no differences between he raeces. Both those are wrong. Please give me examples of other words being used inaccurately and we can discuss if the analogy is fair.
It doesn't at all. You are reading meanings into a word that aren't there.
"Woke", "degenerate" (as you've pointed out), "liberal", "communist", "fascist", "neoliberal", "reactionary", "conservative", "militant".
>The word "racist" is also a word in my language.
And you're still dictating to english people about their language.
>So test scores have racial prejudice? They are called "racist" How about AI?
No, that's data. We're talking about people who express prejudical ideas about someone purely because of their race.
It's considered racist by most of contemporary society to reject the application of someone purely because of their racial background.
I will rephrase: Some people will call things unfair that you do not think are unfair. Ergo by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.
It doesn't at all. You are reading meanings into a word that aren't there.
And you're still dictating to english people about their language.
No, that's data. We're talking about people who express prejudicial ideas about someone purely because of their race.
>Exactly. If they call them unfair when I disagree, I can dispute it. When they call it "racist" I can't dispute it since its seen as "racist" by society. They automatically win. I'm baffled that you still pretend you don't see the problem with this term.
Yes you can. You can dispute anything you're accused of. They don't "automatically win".
>I still haven't heard an argument from you what would be the problem of saying "unwarranted tribalist" instead of racist. I've explained the benefits of doing so and you haven't argued what would be the downsides.
Because it's not the common term of reference. Languages are built on consensus on what words mean. "Unwarranted tribalist" doesn't have such, and nor does it even get to the nub of identifying specific forms of prejudice.
>Yes, both of those (test scores and AI) ARE called racist despite the fact they are neutral. Still don't see the problem with term "racism"?
I don't recall calling test scores or AI racist (unless its specifically designed to be prejudice rather than incidentally so).
Yes you can. You can dispute anything you're accused of. They don't "automatically win".
Because it's not the common term of reference. Languages are built on consensus on what words mean. "Unwarranted tribalist" doesn't have such, and nor does it even get to the nub of identifying specific forms of prejudice.
I don't recall calling test scores or AI racist
>Denying something like a child is not an argument. I cannot defend national immigration origin quotas for example from being "racist" since they are seen as "racist" by mainstream society just like I can't defend my views from being "blasphemy" from an Islamist. But I can defend them from being irrational and unfair.
There's no reason to believe this at all. Anyone can defend themselves for anything.
Yes you can. You can tell the Islamist to go fuck themselves and that you don't care about 'blasphemy'. Similarly, you can tell someone who might call you racist that you disagree. You can dispute any allegation.
>When you label your accusation "unfair" instead of racist, it puts it in the entirely different light and the conversation goes in the entirely different direction. Word we use matter because they subconsciously direct our thought processes without us even realizing it.
If "racist" didn't exist as a term, another term would be used instead that would inherit all of the negative connotations of "racist". You cannot get away from this.
>This is not an argument about why "unwarranted tribalist" is not a good term. Give me an example of a legit grievance that could not be condemned using "unwarranted tribalist".
"Unwarranted tribalist" is just a wordy way of saying "bigoted". It's an umbrella term. And again, in an alternative reality being labeled "unwarranted tribalist" could be just the same, just as impactful now as being called a racist.
>Consensus comes from people who have power in society and they have their own agendas and prejudices. Before the 1960s the consensus was there was no "racism".
Yes, there was. People used the word 'racist' differently. But the phenomenon of discrimination against people because of their race existed. How people use words, and the extent in which those words are used changes over time. Congrats.
>Who's talking about you? I'm talking about the left which dominates the culture.
Okay. So argue against it when people do that. I have no idea how tilting at windmills and trying to make an oft-used word non-existent is somehow going to achieve that.
There's no reason to believe this at all. Anyone can defend themselves for anything.
You can tell the Islamist to go fuck themselves and that you don't care about 'blasphemy'. Similarly, you can tell someone who might call you racist that you disagree. You can dispute any allegation.
If "racist" didn't exist as a term, another term would be used instead that would inherit all of the negative connotations of "racist". You cannot get away from this.
"Unwarranted tribalist" is just a wordy way of saying "bigoted". It's an umbrella term. And again, in an alternative reality being labeled "unwarranted tribalist" could be just the same, just as impactful now as being called a racist.
Yes, there was. People used the word 'racist' differently. But the phenomenon of discrimination against people because of their race existed. How people use words, and the extent in which those words are used changes over time..
>I literally see no argument except denial
There's no argument needed to be made. You didn't justify the premise. If someone calls you racist, you can object just like you can anything else. The power that the allegation of racism has depends on where wider society is in relation to whatever you did or said.
>Telling someone to F.O is not winning an argument. You can disagree, but as long as the audience respects the term "racist" you will be seen as losing the argument.
Someone has not automatically won an argument just because they call you "blasphemous" or racist. Hell, in what world do you think anyone gives a fuck about blasphemy outside of Islam exactly?
>No, it won't because with more precise and specific terms like "irrational", "unfair" and "unwarranted tribalism" it's easier to defend oneself. I gave you examples yet you refuse to address them.
There's no reason to believe this. You just made assertions. And again, you can't just dictate replacement terminology.
>No. I gave you examples of situations where accusations "unwarranted tribalist" would not fly. With "racism" they fly, because all the term needs to justify itself is some kind of racial discrimination regardless if it's justified or not.
There are many times where "racist" doesn't fly either, or has limited impact. The same goes for any term. But if 'racism' didn't exist, the scope for 'unwarranted tribalist' would increase.
>No, the Overton window what is considered immoral when it comes to race was radically different 60 years ago than today.
Right. And this impacts language. We as a culture and society have changed. So what?
>Today leftist call every White who doesn't feel guilty for being White "racist". This couldn't happen if we used "unwarranted tribalist".
No, they don't. No reason to believe that all leftists do this. No reason to believe it's a common thing at all. And are you of the opinion that if the term 'racist' didn't exist then somehow the impulse to shame people for their ethnic heritage from certain people would not exist?
The power that the allegation of racism has depends on where wider society is in relation to whatever you did or said.
Someone has not automatically won an argument just because they call you "blasphemous" or racist.
There's no reason to believe this. You just made assertions. And again, you can't just dictate replacement terminology.
There are many times where "racist" doesn't fly either, or has limited impact. .
But if 'racism' didn't exist, the scope for 'unwarranted tribalist' would increase.
Right. And this impacts language. We as a culture and society have changed. So what?
No, they don't. No reason to believe that all leftists do this. No reason to believe it's a common thing at all.
>And what I'm saying is that the power of the word racist comes from the fact that it isn't precisely defined. "Unwarranted tribalist" is more precise and wouldn't have this ambiguity and thus abuse.
There's no reason to believe that "unwarranted tribalist" could not fall into the same trappings that you believe racist falls into. People could easily accuse someone of being an "unwarranted tribalist" for the same reasons they accuse people of being racist now.
>He is as long as "blasphemy" or "racism" is respected word and what you are arguing is considered "racist" or "blasphemous" in society.
Blasphemy isn't a respected word. It is based around religious presuppositions. It's well understood, but no-one cares about it.
>I gave you examples. You really think math and test scores could be considered "unwarrantedly tribalistic" by almost anyone?
I haven't seen anyone call data "racist". You have provided zero evidence that people actually do this.
>It would fly even less if we used more precise and less subjective terms.
No reason to believe "unwarranted tribalist" is somehow more precise than racist, nor inherently less subjective. I'd argue it is much broader than racist, as it could be used to denote unjustified (or perceived unjustified) objection to a variety of characteristics beyond race.
>You just asserted that without evidence. I don't think such a specific term could be used so widely.
And I have no reason to believe it wouldn't. Ergo, we are at an impasse.
>So even you admit that practical use of "racism" expanded over time yet you still can't see the problem with the term?
No, because society was genuinely much more prejudiced against people based on their race in the 1950s.
>Leftist who control the media academia think so. My argument doesn't depend on all leftist thinking the same.
[citation needed]
"There's no reason to believe that "unwarranted tribalist" could not fall into the same trappings that you believe racist falls into. People could easily accuse someone of being an "unwarranted tribalist" for the same reasons they accuse people of being racist now."
I don't think so.
"Blasphemy isn't a respected word. It is based around religious presuppositions. It's well understood, but no-one cares about it."
It is respected in Islamic world just like racism is respected in Western world. It's exactly the same.
"I haven't seen anyone call data "racist". You have provided zero evidence that people actually do this."
Search yourself for racist AI or racist test scores. It's a common talking point from the left.
"No reason to believe "unwarranted tribalist" is somehow more precise than racist, nor inherently less subjective. I'd argue it is much broader than racist, as it could be used to denote unjustified (or perceived unjustified) objection to a variety of characteristics beyond race."
I would say it's less subjective.
"No, because society was genuinely much more prejudiced against people based on their race in the 1950s."
That's not the point. The practical definition changed which shows you the ambiguity of the term.
"[citation needed]"
I guess you don't read the news
>I don't think so.
So your argument here is essentially "just trust me bro".
>It is respected in Islamic world just like racism is respected in Western world. It's exactly the same.
We don't live in the Islamic world.
>Search yourself for racist AI or racist test scores. It's a common talking point from the left.
I'll comment on direct examples. Some of the left might argue that tests are designed in some way to disenfranchise or be harder for people of specific socioeconomic backgrounds, but that's not quite the same thing.
>I would say it's less subjective.
"Just trust me bro"
>That's not the point. The practical definition changed which shows you the ambiguity of the term.
No, we simply consider some attitudes then racist now. Many descriptive terms have developed over the years.
>I guess you don't read the news
So no argument then. Waiting for all these definitions.
"So your argument here is essentially "just trust me bro"."
No, I'm just tired of arguing with you. We're going in circles.
"We don't live in the Islamic world."
That's not the point. "Blasphemy" in Islam is the same as "racism" in West.
"I'll comment on direct examples. Some of the left might argue that tests are designed in some way to disenfranchise or be harder for people of specific socioeconomic backgrounds, but that's not quite the same thing."
Even if they were, it sill wouldn't make them deliberately prejudiced. If it's just SES, why call them racist, but not SES-ist?
"Just trust me bro"
Your argument as well. It seems we're both tired by now
"No, we simply consider some attitudes then racist now. Many descriptive terms have developed over the years."
No, Blacks failed despite given not only equality but privileges. Instead of admitting they might not be equal, liberals doubled down and expanded their definition of "racism".
"So no argument then. Waiting for all these definitions."
I gave you in previous reply.
>That's not the point. "Blasphemy" in Islam is the same as "racism" in West.
Sure. But blasphemy actually isn't that subjective. We just don't care about it in the west. It's a poor example.
>Even if they were, it sill wouldn't make them deliberately prejudiced. If it's just SES, why call them racist, but not SES-ist?
Because specific racist groups are overrepresented in particular classes.
>No, Blacks failed despite given not only equality but privileges. Instead of admitting they might not be equal, liberals doubled down and expanded their definition of "racism".
Sorry, are you of the opinion that black people, collectively, should "admit" that they're somehow not equal?
And despite unfair practices like affirmative action, black people are still disproportionately born into poverty in the USA.
Sure. But blasphemy actually isn't that subjective. We just don't care about it in the west. It's a poor example.
Because specific racist groups are overrepresented in particular classes.
Sorry, are you of the opinion that black people, collectively, should "admit" that they're somehow not equal?
And despite unfair practices like affirmative action, black people are still disproportionately born into poverty in the USA.
>It's not a poor example. "Racism" in the West is just as taboo as "blasphemy" in Islam. "Blasphemy" is used to silence critics of Islam and "racism" is use to silence critics of multiracialism, demographic replacement and unproven racial equality.
But neither are massively subjective. That's my point.
And whether or not "racism" suddenly dropped out of usage in English or not would not stop people "silencing critics" in the way you say that they currently do.
>What are you referring to? Any evidence that people who hate Blacks wrote tests?
Sorry, that was an error: Specific *racial groups* are overrepresented in particular classes. Specific racial groups are more likely born into poverty.
>Society should admit that the failure to reach equality 60 years after civil rights and affirmative action is due to Blacks not Whites. This is obvious.
That's not what I asked you: Are you saying black people, collectively, should 'admit' that they are not equal to white people?
>Bingo!
"Bingo" what? Poverty is one of the biggest predictors of criminality.
But neither are massively subjective. That's my point.
And whether or not "racism" suddenly dropped out of usage in English or not would not stop people "silencing critics" in the way you say that they currently do.
Specific racial groups are more likely born into poverty.
That's not what I asked you: Are you saying black people, collectively, should 'admit' that they are not equal to white people?
"Bingo" what? Poverty is one of the biggest predictors of criminality.
>How is racism not subjective if you yourself conceded that the definition of it changed severely over time?
No, prejudical behaviour considered normal, acceptable slowly eroded to not being considered so. Such as blackface, for instance. It was already racist.
>Yes but that does not mean tests are biased against Blacks. That would be like saying tests are biased in favor of Jews and Indians since Jews and Indians are rich. Nobody is saying that.
Yes, I made a typing error. What I meant was that black people being more inclined to poverty and worse educational outcome makes it more likely they'll fall into a life of crime.
>Equal in what respect? They should admit their failure to reach equality is due to themselves.
You still haven't answered. Are you suggesting black people, as a bloc (as if someone is able to speak for them uniformly) should "admit" that they are a problem?
>No, race is.
In most societies, specific races are more likely to be represented at the lower end of the poverty pyramid.
Such as blackface, for instance. It was already racist.
black people being more inclined to poverty and worse educational outcome makes it more likely they'll fall into a life of crime.
Are you suggesting black people, as a bloc (as if someone is able to speak for them uniformly) should "admit" that they are a problem?
In most societies, specific races are more likely to be represented at the lower end of the poverty pyramid.
>No it wasn't. It is considered "racist" today by you raised in modern culture. What is "racist" is relative. If this was the 1970s or 1960s it is doubtful weather you would consider black face "racist".
It was a (is a) caricature of black people denigrating them down to a sideshow and drawing upon stereotypes about them. It is very much rooted in racial presuppositions and assertions about them.
>Nobody was saying all White people were "racist" several decades ago. Today it is a common talking point of the leftists.
I assume you'll have actual data about this.
>Blacks commit more crime even controlling for poverty, and even if they didn't it wouldn't prove that both their poverty and crime isn't' caused by their genes.
Still waiting for data on this. And how would the absence of such data somehow mean that their genes must cause their supposed inclination towards crime?
>Yes, they should admit their culture is the problem like mainstream Black conservatives admit it.
What mainstream black conservatives admit that its due to their GENES. Some complain about contemporary culture. That's not the same thing.
>Exactly, there is basically no society where all ethnic groups perform at the same level. Yet according ot the left, racial inequality in America should be seen as an outrage.
The left, as a bloc, if you're being generalised see many forms of inequality as an outrage - not just racial.
It is very much rooted in racial presuppositions and assertions about them.
I assume you'll have actual data about this.
Still waiting for data on this.
And how would the absence of such data somehow mean that their genes must cause their supposed inclination towards crime?
What mainstream black conservatives admit that its due to their GENES. Some complain about contemporary culture. That's not the same thing.
The left, as a bloc, if you're being generalised see many forms of inequality as an outrage - not just racial.
>How do you know it's presuppositions and not actual truth about them? In any case you haven't responded to my argument that "racist" is a subjective term.
Exactly what truth does minstrel makeup show about black people?
>https://i.postimg.cc/JzDHpkCw/20231109-194451-1.jpg
That's not evidence of racism being used to call all white people such. Just that its used more in literature.
>Black conservatives don't talk about genes. They only talk about culture. IM0 both are true, but the culture thing should be admitted by Blacks because it's more obviously true, the genes thing is harder to prove.
Right, and you are insisting that admit they are genetically inferior. As if someone can somehow talk on behalf of a race anyway.
Exactly what truth does minstrel makeup show about black people?
Right, and you are insisting that admit they are genetically inferior
>That they tend to be less intelligent, more impulsive, have more frequent mood swings, more violent, more unrestrained, more sexually promiscuous, lazier...etc. Those "stereotypes" arose for a reason (why weren't Chinese stereotyped that way?) and were never disproven.
How does one 'disprove' such claims? They're completely unfalsifiable. Especially concepts such as impulsivity, mood-swings, promisciousity, laziness.
Are you suggesting minstrel performances should become socially acceptable again, and it should socially acceptable to demean black people like that?
https://asm.org/articles/2023/may/addressing-scientific-racism-and-eugenics-in-the-c
By the way, have you looked at any criticisms, and there are many of the phenomenon of scientific racism?
>I never said that. I said the genetic hypothesis should not be suppressed like it is now and should be seriously considered.
Who are these white nationalists that claim this regarding East Asians?
How does one 'disprove' such claims? They're completely unfalsifiable. Especially concepts such as impulsivity, mood-swings, promisciousity, laziness.
Are you suggesting minstrel performances should become socially acceptable again, and it should socially acceptable to demean black people like that?
By the way, have you looked at any criticisms, and there are many of the phenomenon of scientific racism?
Who are these white nationalists that claim this regarding East Asians?
>One can measure psychological traits, psychologists do it all the time. Promiscuity is measured by sexual partners, laziness by volunteer work, etc
On an individual level.
And all sorts of metrics go into the examples you raised there. Do you have any data anyway?
>If a given ethnic group in society behave significantly worse, then the other groups have every right to dislike that and to call out that behavior by making fun of it. Liberals make fun of redneck culture all the time even though it's arguably less problematic than Black culture.
"Minstrel" isn't a culture. Redneck is a culture. It also doesn't deliberately disparage all white people, as being a redneck is a subculture prominently populated by white people. The comparison here would be making fun of hip-hop urban subculture, or something. Not minstrel performances.
>"Scientific racism" is just a smear term for racial science liberals don't like. They don't like the truth so they come up with a term to discredit entire field of science. Modern egalitarian society HAS TO LIE about race differences because it dreads it's political consequences. The same way people critical of Lysenkosim in the Soviet Union were persecuted.
That's not what I asked you. Have you actually read any documentation against your position whatsoever?
On an individual level.
"Minstrel" isn't a culture.
Redneck is a culture. It also doesn't deliberately disparage all white people, as being a redneck is a subculture prominently populated by white people.
The comparison here would be making fun of hip-hop urban subculture, or something. Not minstrel performances.
Have you actually read any documentation against your position whatsoever?
>What? So you can only measure a trait on an individual level but can't on an ethnic one? I guess we can't have any average height data by ethnicity or race.
Shrinks don't psychanalyse people's height. They make judgements and recommendations about individuals they are counselling and trying to help.
>It does all Southerners and rural Whites.
All southerners are rednecks?
>You brought up minstrel. I agree making fun of Black urban gansta culture should be OK, but today it's considered "racist"
People shit on and criticise urban gangster culture all the time.
>Yes, I've heard all their arguments. None of them are good enough. Have you read all the arguments of race realists?
I haven't spent any substantial time looking for or against any of this.
Shrinks don't psychanalyse people's height. They make judgements and recommendations about individuals they are counselling and trying to help.
All southerners are rednecks?
People shit on and criticise urban gangster culture all the time.
I haven't spent any substantial time looking for or against any of this.
Ignore Skava’s latest low-blow of insulting your English, David. Your English writing is leagues better than Skavau’s and your arguments actually make sense, unlike his.
And explain to me his arguments, if you're remotely capable. I suspect you are not.
shareEat shit. Read them yourself.
shareI've read them. I know you're too stupid to actually articulate anything about my positions.
And I didn't insult his english, I suggested he was trying to dictate to english people how we should use words, and also imposing his own interpretation of a words meaning onto its actual usage.
No, it doesn't. It has negative connotations of use, but that's because racial prejudice in western society is generally frowned upon.
It's apparently your second language.
Racism is the term used to refer to people who have prejudice against others because of their ethnic background. A term will always exist for it regardless of it being 'racist' or something else.
That would be xenophobia
No, that is 100% fundamentally racist. Her response was rooted in racial stereotypes.
>I've already shown how perfectly rational postjudice is labelled "racist". A taxi driver isn't "prejudiced" to pick up a Black customer if he is correct to assume Blacks are more likely to mug him. Yet he's called racist. If - as I propose - instead of racist he would be called "irrational", the argument wouldn't fly if the data shows Blacks are more dangerous.
A taxi driver who did that would find his right to be a taxi driver under threat. It's incredibly important that all people in any society have general access to public services: banking, internet, housing, jobs, shops etc.
>So you used this ad hominem fallacy twice in your reply instead of addressing my argument. Suppose I never said English is not my first language? What would your response be?
I'm more noting your presumption that we should change our language to suit your ideals.
>No, xenophobia is the fear of the other or unknown. "Unwarranted tribalist" is a perfect word for someone irrationally favoring his ethnic group over others and being prejudiced.
"Xenophobia is the fear or dislike of anything that is perceived as foreign or strange. It can be based on the perception that there is a conflict between an in-group and something else."
Xenophobia is often the umbrella term. I see no reason why an "unwarranted tribalist" is not just a racist if their prejudice is rooted in the heritage of the other person.
>No, It would be prejudice if her belief that Blacks are more dangerous wasn't supported by facts. Her safety and the safety of the building's residents are more important than inconveniencing someone. Also she would probably do the same to a White man, but in that case she never would be condemned despite just as well inconveniencing someone.
So should it be justifiable for every business, every service provider, every job, everything offering housing to specifically reject access to their service based on the person's race? Should that be enshrined in law?
A taxi driver who did that would find his right to be a taxi driver under threat. It's incredibly important that all people in any society have general access to public services: banking, internet, housing, jobs, shops etc.
I'm more noting your presumption that we should change our language to suit your ideals.
I see no reason why an "unwarranted tribalist" is not just a racist if their prejudice is rooted in the heritage of the other person.
So should it be justifiable for every business, every service provider, every job, everything offering housing to specifically reject access to their service based on the person's race? Should that be enshrined in law?
There is nothing unwarranted in a White person being on the side of his ethnic group if they are under attack. Yet a White is called "racist" for being on the side of his group
They are under ideological and demographic attack from hypoctical White liberals and other ethnic groups who explicitly push their ethnic interests.
shareethnic groups who explicitly push their ethnic interests.
I am not shy. All others besides Whites. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims...etc. When all others do it, it's healthy ethnic pride, when Whites do it it's "racism".
shareAll others besides Whitesshare
Naturally. But a little 'ethnic pride', and 'not celebrating' racial difference it seems, quickly goes a long way. Sometimes (eg for people like curiousMind101, just lately, on this site) it goes to "Until every non-White is purged from Europe and every race mixer is taken off the street" .
Slippery slope fallacy. Yawn.
Even if this concern was legit, this doesn't mean Whites don't have a right to pride and identity just as others. If Whites don't acquire one, they will eventually disappear and the West will turn into mixture of Pakistan and Guatemala.
Slippery slope fallacy
this doesn't mean Whites don't have a right to pride and identity just as others.
If Whites don't acquire one, they will eventually disappear and the West will turn into mixture of Pakistan and Guatemala.
Not really since I am not projecting what will happen I was quoting what has actually just been said as an example of where, for some, they end up.
The trouble is this reasonableness often dresses up something worse. Something I don't celebrate.
What was it you were just saying about the slippery slope fallacy? This is just Replacement theory, a white supremacist conspiracy trope. "Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of "replacist" elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview." Something I don't celebrate either.
Just because one individual on one internet wrote something extreme, doesn't mean society in general will lead to this.
So you are OK with unfair double standard against Whites?
You are OK with Whites becoming a hated minority in the lands of their ancestors which is an inevitable consequence of left wing views on race.
lying Wokey-pedia. They HAVE TO lie about this to prevent White uprising and the potential discrimination against minorities admitting the truth might lead to.
Indeed. But all I was doing was pointing to where those who "do not celebrate" non white races can end up, with an example from these boards.
Your OP was to do with personal double standards, seeking individual examples.
No question I note here, so this is a strawman. Also, as you wisely note just above just because one individual on one internet wrote something extreme, doesn't mean society in general will lead to this. See how the slippery slope fallacy works?
Now the tone is far more aggressively rhetorical, of the conspiracy sphere (including the aforementioned Replacement Theory trope) and wildly predicting race war (something recalling Charles Manson).
I see no problem with high numbers of Whites advocating repatriation
no ethnic gorup has an inherent right to live with another ethnic group.
I asked for political double standards of WN in general, not example..
It's not slippery slope because it's happening. The left teaches minorities to hate Whites. CRT, White guilt, White privilege, sytemic racism...etc. All lies.
How is a concern about all this irrational and conspiratorial?
But when couched in terms of hatred and intimidation it is a different matter. Not everyone 'does not celebrate' immigration in a nice way, while forced repatriation is something else again.
And vice verse.
I asked for political double standards of WN in general, not example..
You are entitled to your hyperbolic opinions. But institutional racism exists. In the UK at least, it has been admitted by the organisations concerned.
Because that is how the concerns are often expressed. Indeed, you have used Replacement Theory, which is a conspiracy at least twice now, while you claim of (unspecified) 'Leftists' all sorts of malign plans; and, dare I say it, but some of your fears and hostility seem irrational.
So called "hatred" ie. resentment is a consequence. The only thing wrong with hate is if it's a result of someone being misinformed or misled.
what does "vice versa mean"
My full quote was "I asked for political double standards of WN in general, not example of every personal hypocrisy of every WN."
If you import millions of members of different ethnic groups and teach then that the original ethnic group oppresses them, it teaches hatred. Then the left has the audacity to complain about hate after teaching Blacks to hate Whites.
Name me an example of "institutional racism" against non Whites.
You have not answered any of my question above.
And you have not answered how is concern about this not rational.
Distinguish for me so called "hate" and legit resentment resulting from bad behavior and how does what you desribe "hate" fall into the latter as opposed to the former. Riots in the UK were a resiult not of decades of mass immigration and ignoring the distatisfaction of the working class natives by the elite. They were completely justified.(unlike the George Floyd/BLM ones)
But is there any area of the USA you are barred from living
Capital insurrection
the hate seems to be coming all from one side.
Just did here, and elsewhere.
Hate based on a non-scientific concept is not rational. Sorry
Distinguish for me so called "hate" and legit resentment resulting from bad behavior
Riots in the UK were a resiult (sic) not of decades of mass immigration and ignoring the distatisfaction (sic) of the working class natives by the elite.
But is there any area of the USA you are barred from living?
Neither I not any White person would have much problem with being barred from living in majority Black places of the country.
Capital trespassing is not a double standard of one's political beliefs
A recent report in the UK found no institutional racism:
Are Whites becoming a minority? Is there any plan to stop immigration once it reaches a certain percentage?
How many examples of affluent
and integrated Black/Muslim communities in Europe can you name
The courts when sentencing make no such distinction and so neither do I.
as already mention this means that alleged black hatred towards whites, often condemned by you and your ilk can be partially excused.
Thank you.
Evasion noted.
It is if one claims to be a patriot, supports the police and the rule of law.
not what the head of British police says.
You need to explain why it is a good thing to discriminate against poor minorities and deny them the freedoms other groups take for granted.
So you admit you can make no such distinction yet you accuse me of "hate"?
Whites currently aren't a burden on Blacks.
If they were [UK riots] not a result of decades of mass immigration with no permission of the public
What evasion?
The right to storm the capitol is not a general political stance of any of "far right" influencers like David Duke or Jared Taylor
"not what the head of British police says."
What was the study and data behind his opinion?
You have yourself suggested that hate can merely be 'resentment'. I simply noted that this excuse goes down badly in the legal system.
White discrimination and privilege has been a burden on blacks since evermore.
it is widely accepted how reliant the UK is for immigrants to fill low paid jobs and in the social care sector and NH.
"Existing evidence shows that public opinion is divided when it comes to migration.
is there any area of the USA you are barred from living?"
They claim to be patriots and support the police, the constitution and rule of law.
As already shown the UN also makes similar claims as have other bodies such as Barnardos etc.
I advocate political resentment expressed thought the ballot box
"White discrimination and privilege has been a burden on blacks since evermore." No, it hasn't
Blacks would have demanded separation.
Discrimination against Blacks was a result of their behavior
"it is widely accepted how reliant the UK is for immigrants " No it's not "widely accepted".
Not read much social history eh?
I think they just wanted freedom and equality.
I see. Blacks were enslaved because of their bad behaviour? LOL
The UK's labor force is 1.5% larger due to higher immigration, which has contributed £40 billion to the GDP and £18 billion to tax revenues.
The position that Whites "oppressed" Blacks historically is based on the false premise Whites owed Blacks inclusion.
Wanting "equality" is a euphemism for wanting to leech off someone else
Nobody deserves "equality" with anyone.
They were never "enslaved" by Whites. Whites BOUTHGT (sic) them from other Blacks who enslaved them.
Had the latter not happened, they would have never been slaves.Evidence for this claim?
This is only one side of the coin which doesn't take into account the COST of immigrants.
That sort of inclusion? And do you not agree that whites have often oppressed blacks?
So you don't want to be equal?
That's not what the Founding Fathers thought.
whites were the principals, away from first capture, in the slave trade.
Evidence for this claim?
Ethnic exclusion is not oppression...
All ethnic groups throughout history that believed they were oppressed sought to ESCAPE their alleged oppressors
Blacks and browns in Western countries are the only examples which whine about oppression but don't want to get away from their alleged oppressorsee my words just above. And on this board we are often told that whites are apparently the ones oppressed, being 'second class citizens in their own country' etc etc. So, off you go.
"So you don't want to be equal?" No
Yet those founding fathers (as well as almost everyone up until about 1965) agreed with me.
It seems to me you misinterpret what they meant with "equality"
It's funny how leftist prescribe to moral relativism with current behavior of Islamist societies and indigenous tribes, but with long past behavior of Whites in a totally different world, suddenly all that goes out the window.
Whites didn't capture slaves, they bought existing ones captured by Blacks.
Not even if excluded from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Or change the system, in the US say with Lincoln's help. This is just a version of the 'why don't your lot just back home where you came from?' threat.
And on this board we are often told that whites are apparently the ones oppressed, being 'second class citizens in their own country' etc etc. So, off you go.
Contentious this and just shows how dated your views have become
I just read what they wrote in the constitution.
Those who condemn the overwhelming role of whites in the slave trade (away from capture) also condemn the current repression of Islamic theocracies, especially against women.I know, since I did just recently on this very board.
A distinction acknowledged all
along but which does not excuse the guilt and culpability for the white-dominance in the trade
Who today is against brown people having their own countries pusuing (sic) their happiness there?
How is losing your homeland..
. if society wasn't being lied to about race...
"what they wrote in the constitution." Obvviously (sic) out of context
No, actually plenty (if not most) of leftist excuse Islamist behavior and call condemnation "Islamophobia".That's because often it is, as I have seen a lot on message boards myself.
moral relativism to indigenous tribes.
It does if it was legal back then and wasn't seen as immoral by almost anyone.
Misdirection noted.
One of the oldest racist comments
We are back to Replacement Theory and one of its variants, i see lol
That 'all men are created equal' is out of context? What's the context?
That's because often it is, as I have seen a lot on message boards myself.
This is just moral relativism, such as you condemn,
Which prominent WN opposes Blacks being free from oppression in their own countries?
re "Go back to your own country" You can call it "racist", but how is it inherently immoral?Racism is discrimination, based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Sending someone 'back home' is similarly immoral since it is inevitably based on the same reasons. That you can't tell the similarity is telling.
THEY complain about being oppressed. II have yet to see any one but whites complaining here about their loss of presumed privileges here and protesting about their supposed persecution.
[they're] a burden to youas shown several times, many surveys show the financial effect of immigration is to the positive.
OK so White people are not on the demographic path to becoming a minority in Western countries?As said before not everyone is so exercised about 'Replacement' or demographic change. Or 'racial purity', come to that.
So you think people who wrote that believed there are no differences between the races?
So you admit I they do as I said.I believe that hatred towards any group should be called out. However one should recognise too that there are vexed and grey areas. It is that discrimination based on hatred and ideas of 'racial superiority' which are at the least acceptable end of the scale.
I am just pointing out double standards of leftists. Moral relativism for everyone except Whites.I am white; see my views just above.
Apartheid support was practical not idealistic since there have been no propositions for land separation. I can favor apartheid over disastrous Black rule (and even many Blacks themselves do), that doesn't mean I would favor apartheid over actually splitting the country and giving Blacks self rule. Also why are you changing the topic to past political positions instead of present ones which was logically implied in my OP?
Why are you changing what I said when you quote me? I said go back home in the context of them whining about unproven oppression after being given privileges in our countries. If I settle your house, behave like shit and then on top whine about you oppressing me, "then what are you doing here?" is a perfectly valid reply.
White grievances (becoming a minority without being asked, having all main institutions blame them, economic and crime cost...) are all valid unlike minority ones who get to live countries other people built at their expense, get privileges (DEI, AA) and still whine. Name me an example of undeserved "White privilege". I can name you plenty of examples of undeserved Black and brown privileges.
not everyone is so exercised about 'Replacement' or demographic change.
Another dodge.
I can favor apartheid over disastrous Black rule
that doesn't mean I would favor apartheid over actually splitting the country and giving Blacks self rule.
Also why are you changing the topic to past political positions instead of present ones which was logically implied in my OP?
I said go back home in the context of them whining
White grievances (becoming a minority without being asked, having all main institutions blame them, economic and crime cost...) are all valid unlike minority ones who get to live countries other people built at their expense, get privileges (DEI, AA) and still whine.
Name me an example of undeserved "White privilege".
Seems to me you are angry at perfectly valid concerns stemming from bad behavior if it comes from so called protected groups.
As I read your month-long back-and-forth with David, I've noticed that underneath all your sophisticated rhetoric and intellectual posturing lies the same tired Woke brain rot. Strip away the pretentious language, and all you've got are the same recycled 'anti-racist' talking points about White privilege, systemic racism, White fragility, and White supremacy. It's the same nonsense we've all heard a thousand times. No matter how you try to frame your arguments, they ultimately reduce to a shallow, formulaic narrative designed to shame and silence any White people who dare to question the prevailing discourse on race relations.
shareultimately reduce to a shallow, formulaic narrative designed to shame and silence any White people
It was merely an observation. This lengthy exchange between you and David has given me a clearer understanding of what you're all about, and I must admit, it's rather disappointing.
Were there 16 replies? I didn’t count. Yet, you’re the one who consistently chimes in on my posts, and I make it a point to respond to everyone as best as I can.
clearer understanding of what you're all about, and I must admit, it's rather disappointing.
on my posts, and I make it a point to respond to everyone as best as I can.
No since I favor SEPARATION instead of White rule. Again taking a statement out of context so that you can avoid the argument.
Where have I argued against the self determination of any other group? It's not hair splitting it it's one or the other.
Again I am not defending Proud Boys (I know little about them). They aren't explicitly White identatarian. They might be "fascists" and "anti Semites", but not White nationalists like Duke or Taylor - who I was taking about.
They came here voluntarily, they aren't satisfied and whine (even after all the privileges we give them but that's besides the point). In what universe is "Either be grateful and respect us or go back" not a valid reply?
I didn't say link me someone's opinion on the subject, I said list me an example of UNDESERVED White privilege. All those things I hear from articles like this are a result of behavior of different ethnic groups. Meaning they are deserved.
Let me ask you... can there be White privilege in an all White society? Obviously not. Now if there can't, what would Whites lose if they were to separate from non Whites? If you can't name one tangible important thing Whites would lose, then how can there be undeserved White privilege?
But then any example I could give I am sure would not be acceptable.
No since I favor SEPARATION instead of White rule.You are likely to be disappointed. Segregation (and apartheid) went out a while ago. But why don't you separate yourself from those large swathes of fellow citizens you don't care for? Might be easier..
Where have I argued against the self determination of any other group?You mean like the determination of immigrants to start new lives and communities in another country?
Proud Boys (I know little about them). They aren't explicitly White identatarian.If you know little then how do you know that? Trump: “I condemn all white supremacists, I condemn the Proud Boys."
In what universe is "Either be grateful and respect us or go back" not a valid reply?Where it is an impractical and racist trope.
I said list me an example of UNDESERVED White privilege. All those things I hear from articles like this are a result of behavior of different ethnic groups. Meaning they are deserved.For a white supremacist, every privilege is 'deserved'; for those not so lucky the judgment is different. I gave you the view of those who suffer through it and is all I can do in such subjective matters.
what would Whites lose if they were to separate from non Whites? If you can't name one tangible important thing Whites would lose, then how can there be undeserved White privilege?
If you could list Whites have a right to X, but Blacks don't, then that would be an acceptable example. What is it?
"You mean like the determination of immigrants to start new lives and communities in another country?"
How is preventing them from taking over other people's countries (and giving them their own) taking their self determination?
Again completely ignoring the argument. I was never talking about the Proud Boys, but mainstream White nationalists like David Duke, Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson etc.
"For a white supremacist, every privilege is 'deserved"
No, that was not my argument. Read it again.
"They would lose all the benefits of equality and diversity".
How many TANGABLE benefits of so called diversity can you name? No idealism please. Those jobs could be easily (and what we know about IQ) even better be done by Whites.
Voter ID is not voted suppression. Blacks can get voted IDs just as easily as Whites. Name me an example of what basic right do Whites have, but Blacks don't. I can name you SEVERAL in the opposite direction: Identity, pride, safe spaces, interest organizations, history, nativism for their countries...etc
How is preventing them from taking over other people's countries..
I was never talking about the Proud Boys, but mainstream White nationalists like David Duke, Jared Taylor or Greg Johnson
""For a white supremacist, every privilege is 'deserved" No, that was not my argument.
How many TANGABLE benefits of so called diversity can you name?
Name me an example of what basic right do Whites have, but Blacks don't.
"Please see my previous comment"
Why are you changing the discussion from denial of sovereignty to something else? I made a valid point. Exclusion someone is not denying them sovereignty. You claimed I want to deny them sovereignty.
"Also, demographic changes happens. Get over it."
Tell that to any other group besides Whites and see how they react to it.
"Goalpost moving noted."
No, it's not. I clearly said White nationalists in my original challenge, not Proud Boys and every right wing movement.
"It is always your argument"
No, my argument was that if they behave better, they will inevitably be treated better. It's not unfair. Whites are a community, not just skin color. Good people of bad behaving ethnic groups should blame their bad behaving homies, not Whites who are forced to see race to protect themselves for bad Black behavior.
"But to help you out again:"
So a blog from an ideological website?
Also what kind of racial diversity? Asians, Indians or Backs? I don't oppose Asian immigration. We know Blacks and other minorities are hired at lower standards due to DEI so how can less qualified employees yield a better result? Also again just correlation and haven't you said correlation isn't the cause? Perhaps better companies are more worried about image and are therefor more likely to hire minorities? And even if Blacks would bring more productivity, that would be just one benefit (compared to more downsides like more crime, political problems, economic cost, less socail trust etc)
"Fair treatment under the law"
Latest meta analysis shows no discrimination in the legal system:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178923000927
Even if it did unfairly discriminated against Backs, that would be only one example from you vs SEVEN examples from me.
studies showing that immigrants often contribute more in taxes than they receive in public services
I don't so [links]
Show me studies that compare lifetime budgetary contribution of all non Whites in the UK (not just first generation immigrants) to native Whites.
rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscal system – they have made substantial net contributions to its public finances
I have already quoted the contribution made by immigrants to the UK exchequer which is positive. Please pay attention.
Show data for all immigrants not just recently arrived and their children and their LONG TERM contribution.
Directly from the source I linked:
https://cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
"Our estimates for the overall immigrant population residing in the UK between 1995
and 2011 show that immigrants from EEA countries made a positive contribution over
that period of more than L4 billion, while those from non-EEA countries made a
negative contribution of L118 billion"
"EEA immigrants have not only consistently had a
higher revenues/expenditures ratio than natives but have often made positive fiscal
contributions even in years when the amount of public expenditure on natives has
been larger than natives’ fiscal payments. On the other hand, the fiscal contribution of
non-EEA immigrants is slightly negative in all years."
European immigrants made a contribution, non European ones a negative contribution. Very few British nationalists currently oppose German and French immigration.
"If no measures are taken to improve the labor market integration of non-EU migrants,
In other words, even they admit non EU migrants suck at economic contribution. They just assume they "lack opportunities" rather than being burdensome people.
All you have done is show a slight difference between the two groups, and as I have shown before, other surveys show a different assessment.
In 2017/18, non-EEA migrants' average net fiscal contribution was £310 above the national average. For instance an Oxford Economics study estimated that over the course of their whole lifecycle, the average non-EEA migrant arriving in 2016 would make a positive net fiscal contribution (of £28,000, net present value)
Meanwhile the overall benefit of immigration has been shown:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/#:~:text=The%20same%20Oxford%20Economics%20study,28%2C000%2C%20net%20present%20value).
"Our findings show that immigrants to the UK who arrived since 2000, and for whom we observe their entire migration history, have made consistently positive fiscal contributions regardless of their area of origin. Between 2001 and 2011 recent immigrants from the A10 countries contributed to the fiscal system about 12% more than they took out, with a net fiscal contribution of about £5 billion."
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk
By focusing so sternly on just one group of immigrants , when even your preferred link says they offer only "slightly negative" impact on the nations finances (so do white pensioners) your prejudices are unfortunately showing once again.
Why are you cherry picking single years? My previous quote was from all years from 1995 to 2011 while yours was only for 2017/18. When judging immigration and immigration from certain places, you have to take into consideration the long term contribution not just first generation immigrants. Blacks and Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on cash benefits and pay much less taxes. They are a burden.
Directly from the link you quoted:
First, the fiscal impact of EEA migrants is more positive than that of non-EEA migrants; and second, that the impact of recent migrants is more positive than the impact of migrants overall.
They were also estimated to receive more in family benefits and tax credits
By focusing so sternly on just one group of immigrants , when even your preferred link says they offer only "slightly negative" impact on the nations finances (so do white pensioners) your prejudices are unfortunately showing once again.
Already answered, in that I can show that the net contribution to (the UK economy) of immigrants is a positive one. Migrants contribute around £83 billion annually to the UK's economic output " There are two points on which studies consistently agree. First, the fiscal impact of EEA migrants is yes, more positive than that of non-EEA migrants; and second, that the impact of recent migrants is more positive than the impact of migrants overall. But that does not mean non-EEA migrants of older arrival have a negative impact "https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
Please stop. In future you will just be redirected to this 'the post'.
If we used this money we spend on Black welfare and Muslim child benefits to encourage natives to have more children, Whites being pensioners wouldn't be an issue.
But that does not mean non-EEA migrants of older arrival have a negative impact
Our estimates for the overall immigrant population residing in the UK between 1995
and 2011 show that immigrants from EEA countries made a positive contribution over
that period of more than L4 billion, while those from non-EEA countries made a
negative contribution of L118 billion
Again, reaching rather.
No, it clearly says the non EEA migrants are a net negative.
From your own link:
"In addition, EEA migrants typically incur less public spending than either
natives or non-EEA migrants."
"With the net negative fiscal implications of non-EEA migrants being more than offset by the net positive implications of EEA migrants"
"In addition, the average non-EEA migrant receives more in benefit
payments than UK natives. With more dependent children, our estimates
suggest that migrants from outside the EEA receive more in family benefits and tax credits than natives. We also estimate that non-EEA migrants receive more than natives in housing benefits"
Also your quote is only for year 2016 which you conveniently hid. Cherry picking
So again your own quote says Europeans contribute more than non Europeans. EEA also includes Indians and Chinese who tend to be much better in contribution than Africans and Muslims skewing the results for non EEA. I am not opposed to some Indian (who tend to be mostly high caste) and Chinese immigration. Show me data that Africans and Muslims are an economic benefit. Also you can't just count immigrants since with legal immigration there is usually some selection for better quality people which then gravitates back when those people have children (regression towards the mean). Data clearly shows Africans and Muslims citizens in the UK are a cost so long term it still doesn't make sense taking these people.
Please see my previous answers and links. Non-EEA migrants are estimated to have a positive net fiscal contribution to the UK over their lifetime (although less so in the short term) and when the difference between different groups is there, it is minor. That is always the bottom line. Sorry about that. Just let it go.
Also you can't just count immigrants since with legal immigration..
"Non-EEA migrants are estimated to have a positive net fiscal contribution to the UK over their lifetime"
No, they don't. You just cherry picked one year (2016). Overall they are a net cost.
A study from 2014 showed that in the period between 1995-2011, migrants cost the UK L114 billion.
• Europeans made a +L4bn contribution
• Non-EEA migrants made NEGATIVE L118bn contribution
https://t.co/IbsCLQUKDB
For 2016/2017:
https://i.postimg.cc/zGWydkk6/EEA-vs-non-EEA-UK.png
End political correctness on behalf of the media in reporting minority crime and budgetary cost and see then. Also end school "anti racist" indoctrination.
"is there any area of the USA you are barred from living?" How is this evasion?
Capitol trespassing was an INCIDENT, not a political position.
My OP clearly said name a double standard when it comes to RACE
Tell me about the study and the data behind it. Did it control for Black behavior? If not, it's not evidence of injustice against Blacks as a whole
It is if you repeatedly don't answer the question. See how it works?
It was an insurrection by a group advocating patriotism and respect for the police.
And I provided the obvious one: if there no such thing as biological race then discriminating against someone the same as yourself in all but minor details, especially in the case of those whose real ethnicity has been proved. is a double standard
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864380/
For more immediate proof that it exists take a look round the posts on this board. And your own.
How is this a double standard?
Still not a political position.Wanting to overthrow the elected govt is not a political position? Have you thought about this?
And "insurrection" is a leftist/establishment interpretation of it.Insurrection:a violent uprising against an authority or government.
[if] races do not really exist for the sake of the argument .. By your logic Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans are all hypocrites for having intergroup preference which renders the supposed WN "double standard" from WN intergroup preference meaningless
So Blacks reporting discrimination (not actually proven).
Even if they really are, how do you know they aren't discriminated because how they behave?
Me criticizing negative behavior of a group is not irrational discrimination.I don't think I said it was. I was talking of evidence for discrimination. Strawman noted. share
You originally said that no ethnic group has an inherent right to live with another ethnic group. The opposite is true, as you admit.
Wanting to overthrow the elected govt is not a political position? Have you thought about this?
A group is not a race either.
https://www.eeoc.gov
And are you now supposing that blacks reporting discrimination are dishonest? That is reaching, somewhat.
You mean by doing those 'black' things that only black people do?
I was talking of evidence for discrimination.
Currently both Blacks and Whites have a right to live among each other. I propose both Whites and Blacks should be allowed to exclude. Where is the double standard?
WN didn't have any double standards before Jan. 6. which means they were a moral movement.Morality is not a word one readily associates with sometimes violent racists.
"A group is not a race either."
Does this control for their merit and their aggregate behavior? If not, stop wasting my time.
You can't have a society where one visible ethnic group collectively behaves many times worse than others and not have any so called discrimination.
People can't read other people's minds.
people often see discrimination when there is none, especially since they're TAUGHT they're oppressed (media, universities...etc)
"Whether or not apartheid, an implication inevitably behind your views, is moral or desirable is another question."
I never advocated apartheid. Freedom of association (end anti discrimination laws) and splitting the country in half
"Morality is not a word one readily associates with sometimes violent racists."
BLM activists and Antifa are also often violent. They unlike the Alt right have plenty of double standards
"This was in connection with your "Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans are all hypocrites for having intergroup preference. But then WN definitely do as well."
No WN ever called those hypocrites for having it. They only demanded intergroup preference for Whites.
"You first imply that discrimination is only alleged by dishonest blacks. Now when I show actual cases you still deny the obvious. "
It's called having more than one layer of defense against your argument. I don't buy discrimination, but even if it existed, Blacks wouldn't be collectively victims (which is what the left claims) unless it was more relative to their behavior.
"Indeed; which is why the white insurrection in the US and rioting in the UK and racism generally can be comdemned."
A dodge. Whites one the aggregate behave much better than Blacks both in the UKS and UK. Jan 6 as well as UK riots wouldn't have happened if those countries weren't importing bad behaving ethnic groups.
"Like thinking someone must be lying?"
The burden of proof is not on me. If you say they are discriminated, you have to prove they indeed are and not just taught to see discrimination where none exists like the left teaches them.
"Unlike the idea of whites suffering or being discriminated under multi-culturalism"
So more crime, more riots, higher taxes, less freedom and less political power is not a legit grievance?
I didn't say you did.
I never advocated apartheid.
They only demanded intergroup preference for Whites.
I don't buy discrimination, but even if it existed, Blacks wouldn't be collectively victims (which is what the left claims) unless it was more relative to their behavior.
. UK riots wouldn't have happened if those countries weren't importing bad behaving ethnic groups.
The burden of proof is not on me. If you say they are discriminated, you have to prove they indeed are. Which I have done, over several links. Since the claim that they could all be lying is yours, you need to show it so. Sorry about that.
So more crime, more riots, higher taxes, less freedom and less political power is not a legit grievanceNot due to genes then? lol In the UK crime is, overall down (as shown to you sometime ago) taxes too hight but not due to immigration specifically that I can discover, while 'loss of political power' I imagine here equates to underlying fear of loss of white privilege. 'Less freedom' is purely a subjective claim, perhaps from those who wish the freedom to hate without legal consequences. share
You: "Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans are all hypocrites for having intergroup preference
You seem obsessed with one ethnic group. Sometimes an African name or just skin colour can be enough.
The cause of the riots, the murderer who was allegedly an immigrant was a false claim.
As for the more general view of yours, it is entirely unevidenced and just unfortunate prejudice and is just more stereotyping.
Which I have done, over several links. Since the claim that they could all be lying is yours, you need to show it so.
taxes too hight but not due to immigration
while 'loss of political power' I imagine here equates to underlying fear of loss of white privilege.
those who wish the freedom to hate without legal consequences.
I said they're hypocrites for demanding intergroup preference for themselves and then being outraged when Whites also demand it..
The left is obsessed with labelling Blacks victims.
That wasn't the cause.
Do you deny data that (most) memories (sic) in the UK commit more crime are more likely on welfare, have less economic and educational success and are costing the taxpayer more?
"Since the claim that they could all be lying [about discrimination; is yours, you need to show it so."
No [you] just just provided a poll.
Non EEA (black and brown) immigrants are an economic cost
You still haven't provided a distinction between "hate" and raising legit ethnic grievances.Legal definitions given already but thank you. If something is found illegal it cannot be 'legit' can it? QED
There is tremendous reasons to be skeptical about data that minorities are oppressed. Data shows less educated Blacks claim they were victims of racism more than more educated ones. Also that older Blacks report less racism than younger ones. That does not fit with common sense and fits perfectly with modern woke society TELLING Blacks they are oppressed.
Also any discrimination even when proven real has to be controlled for THEIR BEHAVIOR. You can't have a society where a visible ethnic minority behaves much worse than the majority and expect no discrimination. People can't read other people's minds and we live in a world were people have to fend for themselves. Why aren't Chinese discriminated as much as Blacks? If Blacks get discriminated due to their behavior, then they - at least on a collective level - aren't victims which is what the left alleges.
No, non White immigrants (non EEA) are a cost, while White ones (EEA) are a benefit. This fits perfectly with White nationalism. You lose.
Legal definitions given already but thank you. If something is found illegal it cannot be 'legit' can it? QED
There is tremendous reasons to be skeptical about data that minorities are oppressed.. modern woke society TELLING Blacks they are oppressed.
Also any discrimination even when proven real has to be controlled for THEIR BEHAVIOR.
Why aren't Chinese discriminated as much as Blacks?Because that is the way discrimination based on skin colour works and Chinese are not perceived as black.
No, non White immigrants (non EEA) are a cost, while White ones (EEA) are a benefit.
If WHOEVER (you or the legal system) claims that the so called "far right"
And this is why legal definitions exist. See how it works?
is engaging in irrational hate and not legit ethnic grievances, YOU or the LEGAL SYSTEM has to distinguish these two behaviors
How would native White Brits raise legit ethnic grievances without being accused of "hate"?The fact that you imply this not possible, that it is all or nothing or hate cannot be distinguished from grievance, tells one much more about you than those others. It is a convenient blindness - and ultimately disingenuous. share
How do you explain more educated Blacks saying the are oppressed more than less educated ones? It's because higher education TELLS THEM THAT.
"Victim blaming is not a good look."
Again another complete dodge of the argument.
"Chinese are not perceived as black."
How about Indians in the US (who are also dark skinned)? They are the wealthiest group in the US. I guess America is a brown supremacist country.
So you dispute my data of brown being a cost while Whites being a contribution by citing data that shows just that?
"And this is why legal definitions exist"
And where precisely is the distinction in the legal system between ethnic grievances and irrational hate? How would you distinguish it?
I didn't say it's not possible. I said they do not distinguish it despite that they should which is probably deliberate so that they can accuse anyone of "hate". The distinction is simple; "Group X are scum and should be expelled" is hate. "Group X behave badly, are a cost to us and this isn't fair, and we shouldn't be importing them" is legit political grievance.
How do you explain more educated Blacks saying the are oppressed more than less educated ones? It's because higher education TELLS THEM THAT.
"Victim blaming is not a good look." Again another complete dodge of the argument.No, it what is done when one blames the treatment accorded of a victim of discrimination is "controlled by their behaviour". Like when rape victims are called for dressing in a certain way.
How about Indians in the US (who are also dark skinned)? They are the wealthiest group in the US. I guess America is a brown supremacist country.
So you dispute my data of brown being a cost while Whites being a contribution by citing data that shows just that?I cited data showing the positive net contribution of immigrants, whether EEA or non EEA.
And where precisely is the distinction in the legal system between ethnic grievances and irrational hate?
I said they do not distinguish it despite that they should so as to accuse people of hate.Thank you for sharing this conspiracy theory. share
Ok here. More educated black are more likely to believe society holds them back. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/06/15/most-black-americans-believe-u-s-institutions-were-designed-to-hold-black-people-back/
US higher education (especially humanities) are overwhelmingly on the left as shown by research from Jonathan Haidt.
It's precisely those more educated Blacks that are closer to more educated Whites who are less likely to be "racist". Yet they are more likely to believe they are held back.
what is done when one blames the treatment accorded of a victim of discrimination is "controlled by their behaviour"
estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at L4.7bn, compared to a net cost of L9bn for non- EEA migrants:
Please see several earlier posts
More educated black are more likely to believe society holds them back.
It's precisely those more educated Blacks that are closer to more educated Whites who are less likely to be "racist".
The discussion is weather Blacks are victims collectively, not about any specific individual.
So you can't answer?
Or more likely it's because the higher education is telling (lying to) them that they're oppressed.
"And I have shown they are"
No you haven't shown they are victims collectively. To do that you have to show they are discriminated more than relatively how they behave. As long as people can't read other people's minds, you can't expect no discrimination against a visible ethnic group who behaves much worse than the rest.
Again cherry picking a single year (2016), which I already called you out for. Overall they are a burden. And I also already made a point that non EEA includes countries like India and China who are not the immigrants I'm talking about (Muslims and Blacks).
Vice versa? How? White advocates generally don't want to forbid Black Identity politics provided White identity politics is allowed. They don't advocate censorship of Black identity politics or cancel culture on Black identity politics. They don't oppose Black sovereignty provided White sovereignty is allowed. Black advocates or the left on the other hand do demand censorship of White IP and don't want to allow White sovereignty. The left has double standards, not WN.
White privilege is not a legit social grievance. All examples of "White privilege" are natural social mechanism. All examples of Black/minority privilege are of artificial social mechanisms. The argument of WP is essentially Whites behave better therefor tend to get treated better. If they behave better how is their treatment (even if truly better) unfair? The same applies and bad behavior of Blacks.
No ethnic groups deserves "equality" if they do not behave equally. Either make ethnic differences in behavior go away, invent and implement mind reading or shut up about discrimination. Hell, even if Whites were discriminating against Blacks entirely due to irrational tribal reasons, they would have a right to, since they are a people and every people has a right to intergroup preference. Nobody is forcing Blacks to live with Whites.
Why are you linking me leftist biased opinion pieces? The left plays explicit and direct Black identity politics, but then wants to forbid (censor, stigmatize or otherwise artificially suppress) reactionary White identity politics. Hypocrisy on steroids.
No, riots are an inevitable cause of unnatural demographic replacement (especially from much worse behaving ethnic groups) which the people were never asked about. Why are there no referendums on immigration? Please answer.
It is a truism that those who have less investment in society and less education, achievement etc are more likely to commit crime.
>No, riots are an inevitable cause of unnatural demographic replacement (especially from much worse behaving ethnic groups) which the people were never asked about. Why are there no referendums on immigration? Please answer.
Because the UK rarely does referendums full stops on issues like that. We have general elections.
And no, in the UK, the riots were built on an outright lie about the identity of a murderer as promoted by nefarious actors abroad and social media activists from inside the country.
Generally don't hold referendums? Why? What was Brexit then? Isn't immigration enough an important issue? You didn't really answer.
Again blaming the trigger instead of the real cause.
I offered 13 examples when someone asked me to above. Search for it.
Again you have your opinion and you are welcome to it.
Every one is equal under the law.
the latest one was based on white hatred of ethnics based on false news.
>Generally don't hold referendums? Why? What was Brexit then?
A highly unusual event for the UK.
>Isn't immigration enough an important issue? You didn't really answer.
And what should the referendum question be exactly? There's also been no outcry for a referendum of that nature. There was for Brexit.
You are also replying to two people in a single response. This is confusing.
>So a Black person didn't stab those children and minorities don't commit more crime?
An Arabic asylum seeker did not kill those children. That was the lie.
>Brexits was about EU membership not immigration. Immigration from outside of Europe increased after it. Why are there no referendums on immigration specifically? Please answer.
Because there has never been any demand to that level, nor consensus on what such a question would be - nor has the Conservatives or Labour offered such a referendum, and they were in power over the last 10 years.
A highly unusual event for the UK.
An Arabic asylum seeker did not kill those children. That was the lie.
The left has double standards, not WN.
White privilege is not a legit social grievance.
The far right plays explicit and direct white identity politics, but then wants to forbid (censor, stigmatize or otherwise artificially suppress) reactionary black identity politics. Hypocrisy on steroids.
The argument of WP is essentially Whites behave better therefor tend to get treated better.
No ethnic groups deserves "equality" if they do not behave equally.
even if Whites were discriminating against Blacks entirely due to irrational tribal reasons, they would have a right to, since they are a people and every people has a right to intergroup preference.
No, riots are an inevitable cause of unnatural demographic replacement (especially from much worse behaving ethnic groups)
Why are there no referendums on immigration? Please answer.
Ok so you admit it.share
Indeed; but such can apply to any group.
>A dodge. Whites one the aggregate behave much better than Blacks both in the UKS and UK. Jan 6 as well as UK riots wouldn't have happened if those countries weren't importing bad behaving ethnic groups.
And my position is that the Southport Stabber may have been radicalised by online anti-feminist reactionary content. Hence the stabbers choice of target being a Taylor Swift dance studio for kids, given this bloc utterly despise Taylor Swift and view her as the posterwoman for all they hate about women.
So without reactionary anti-women adjacent influencers online ranging from Andrew Tate to associates of Charlie Kirk who deride feminism and women - the stabbing may also not have occured.
There are all kinds of could-would-should have.
>So more crime, more riots, higher taxes, less freedom and less political power is not a legit grievance?
The riots in the UK were from white people, primarily. Most UK crime has decreased in the last decade:
https://theconversation.com/most-crime-has-fallen-by-90-in-30-years-so-why-does-the-public-think-its-increased-228797
Higher taxes? Related to all kinds of issues. Certainly "lots of black people living in society" isn't a massive one there. Lots of elderly a much more relevant data point if we're going to blame demographics.
What do you mean "less political power"?
And my position is that the Southport Stabber may have been radicalised by online anti-feminist reactionary content.
The riots in the UK were from white people, primarily.
Most UK crime has decreased in the last decade:
Higher taxes?
What do you mean "less political power"?
>The critical difference with your analogy is that criticizing ideologies like feminism is part of democracy, importing bad behaving ethnic groups isn't necessary, certainly in high numbers
I have no idea at all what you're getting at here. I'm saying that people who talk about the Southport stabbers motives here may end up having egg on their face when the paint dries regarding their motives. It may be a more distinctly homegrown, western motive than is believed.
>Name me which ethnic group wouldn't riot in this situation? Needlessly becoming a minority to worse behaving ethnic foreigners and censored, smeared and persecuted for complaining about it.
It wasn't even about that. It was directly fueled by fake news and agitated by people like Tommy Robinson who then fled the country.
>Doesn't change the fact Blacks commit more of it.
Right, but your characterisation of the UK is just wrong.
>Minorities in the UK get more cash benefits, more child benefits and more tax benefits. Once they get old and retire and become majority, they will be getting more pensions too.
Dude that data graph says that 51% of black families receive some state support, and 53% of white families receive some state support.
"white British families (54%) were the most likely out of all ethnic groups to receive state support – families from the Chinese ethnic group (25%) were the least likely to"
>Diluting the voting power of Whites from minorities who vote for their ethnic interest (Labor)
Labour lost a ton of the Asian vote in the most recent election to third parties.
I have no idea at all what you're getting at here. I'm saying that people who talk about the Southport stabbers motives here may end up having egg on their face when the paint dries regarding their motives. It may be a more distinctly homegrown, western motive than is believed.
It wasn't even about that. It was directly fueled by fake news and agitated by people like Tommy Robinson who then fled the country.
Right, but your characterisation of the UK is just wrong.
Dude that data graph says that 51% of black families receive some state support, and 53% of white families receive some state support.
Labour lost a ton of the Asian vote in the most recent election to third parties.
>You implied criticism of feminism was to blame for the attack I think immigration of certain ethnicities is to blame. Even if he committed the killing out of being angry at feminism it could still be his genes that were the predisposition to it.
Do you have any basis for this claim whatsoever?
> Blaming anti feminism isn't a very good argument since there wil always be disagreement and criticism of ideologies like feminism. We have to allow it in a democracy. We DON'T NEED to import Africans though and there is evidence Africans may be genetically more predisposed towards violence.
No, I'm blaming angry activists like Andrew Tate and right-wing reactionaries from the USA such as organisations like Turning Point and the Daily Wire that export disdainful rhetoric towards women. There have actually been a number of incel-derived murders in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_shooting
My suspicion is that this may take the same form.
>You're blaming the trigger, not the build up. Trigger will always eventually come in one form or another. If we didn't import certain ethnic groups, it wouldn't happen. We don't need to import Muslims or Africans. Premature reports on social media and mistakes in reporting will always exist.
So we should ban all immigration from African and the Arabic world (and elsewhere?) because of the prospect of career liars making shit up sometime in the future that results in riots down the line?
>Crime rates fluctuate for many reasons. If the UK was 99% White as it was until recently, there is every reason to think it would have less crime.
And our pension system would collapse, and our healthcare system would collapse.
>Pensions shouldn't count. Everyone gets old and nobody chooses to. You do chose to commit crime and live off welfare. Blacks will also once get old.
Not all older people receive a state pension.
>Indians only don't vote overwhelmingly Labour. Blacks 72% lol.
What? I'm taking about the Muslim or Arabic vote here genius
just want to be included in this massive thread.
shareOh yes I do. Plenty of reasons to think Blacks could be more violent than Whites naturally. Violent crime rates all over the world, psychopathy data...etc As well as plausible evolutionary theories.
Ok so you completely ignored my point that ideological influencing will always exist in a democracy, but we don't need Africans? Or is it that you lefties want to inherently ban right wing ant feminism on social media but then cry about a threat to democracy?
Yes if there is evidence that given ethnic group may be more predisposed to violence than others, it makes sense to not import that ethnic group or at least limit it to only high IQ people from those places. None of which we have now. And you don't know why it happened as you admit yourself.
And our pension system would collapse, and our healthcare system would collapse.
What? I'm taking about the Muslim or Arabic vote here genius
>Oh yes I do. Plenty of reasons to think Blacks could be more violent than Whites naturally. Violent crime rates all over the world, psychopathy data...etc As well as plausible evolutionary theories.
This is unfalsifiable. You could just by this nature suggest that every single black person who commits a violent crime did so due to their genes, but every white person who does, somehow did not?
>Ok so you completely ignored my point that ideological influencing will always exist in a democracy, but we don't need Africans? Or is it that you lefties want to inherently ban right wing ant feminism on social media but then cry about a threat to democracy?
When did I say anything about banning anything?
>Yes if there is evidence that given ethnic group may be more predisposed to violence than others, it makes sense to not import that ethnic group or at least limit it to only high IQ people from those places. None of which we have now. And you don't know why it happened as you admit yourself.
I don't know why we have mass immigration? Yes I do. Primarily for economic reasons, and to an extent, for humanitarian reasons.
>Not if the UK encouraged higher birth rates.
There's no magic switch that makes this happen. It takes time, and I am not going to endorse draconian policies for this.
>Or imported better behaving ethnic groups like other Europeans or Chinese.
Europeans and Chinese people don't want to come to the UK at the same rate. You don't just order specific nationalities to come and fill out job holes dude.
>Korea hasn't collapsed yet they have less children than the UK and they have FAR less immigration.
Korea's future on this looks utterly grim dude. And Japan's.
>I'm not saying they don't have problem with births, but you said the country would collapse.
"Collapse" doesn't mean immediately, but in the next several generations.
>Any data old Whites get state pensions more than old Blacks or Muslims?
Per capita it's probably similar. But obviously there's many more white people.
>And I'm talking about all minorities. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis vote 44-7 Labor to Conservative.
How much attention did you pay to the 2024 election? Labour lost, or nearly lost a bunch of seats across the country due to outrage over their policy on Gaza. Officially Labour got 39% of the Asian vote, and the conservatives 18% of that vote. 20% of the Asian vote voted "Other" which would be a combination of Gaza Independents, and Workers Party candidates most likely.
If Labour was desperate to just keep them, they'd hold a different policy position on Gaza.
It doesn't have to be falsifiable because of the context of our debate which is immigration. Here the burden is on those who want to import these people.
No I meant that you admitted you don't know for sure why that murder happened.
Yes it takes time, but on long term it might pay off in stopping our counties to eventually become filled with Islamic fundamentalists and not increase crime. Government incentives aren't a draconian policy. So it's the media encouraging large families.
Europeans and Chinese people don't want to come to the UK at the same rate.
Korea's future on this looks utterly grim dude. And Japan's.
Per capita it's probably similar.
Labour lost, or nearly lost a bunch of seats across the country due to outrage over their policy on Gaza.
contd
So now you deny there is group difference in behavior between Whites and Blacks?
Why aren't Asians complaining about being discriminated?
Not in the way you prefer to focus on.
Hey, perhaps they are just lying about it and keeping quiet?
"the way you prefer to focus on." In what way?
The race issue in America isn't over Asians, It's over Blacks (and a lesser extent Hispanics) who behave worse than Asians.
You can't remember?
A peculiar assessment; but I am sure one it suits you to make.
OK so all the data that Asians make better decisions and are more successful than Blacks are just my own "assessment"?No but the emphasis to discriminate against blacks is your own prejudice, when it is quite possible to think of things one ethnic group does better than than another and so stereotype both, or choose to focus on things which suits one's prejudices.
Refresh my memory.
Again with the prejudices? How is data prejudiced? How is making rational decisions based on undisputed facts irrational hate?
Taking aggregate behavior into consideration makes sense in making important decisions like importation of given ethnic groups in the country and deliberately diversifying neighborhoods. I never advocated needless discrimination based on race on random individuals when there is no cost in not doing so. I also never supported repatriating Blacks in USA to Africa. They have a right to live there, just not to live with Whites. As for the UK ones, it's different, since they moved voluntarily.
How is data prejudiced?
How is making rational decisions based on undisputed facts irrational hate?
Taking aggregate behavior into consideration makes sense
I also never supported repatriating Blacks in USA to Africa.
They have a right... not to live with Whites.
Data about race differences is IQ and race differences in crime are not obsolete. Again you assume the ethnic differences in behavior have nothing to do with either genetics or culture while all the evidence says otherwise. You are the one who has to prove Black behavior is not due to them (either their genes or culture) since you are the one importing them here. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU. Until you can prove Blacks are equally genetically predisposed to behavior as us and that their culture is going to be absorbed any time soon, WE SHOULDN'T BRING THEM HERE.
And it's not that just some of them do bad things, it's that they BEHAVE WORSE ON AVERAGE. And behave significantly worse. Until you can proven that this difference has nothing to do with them (genes or culture) we shouldn't be taking them. Hell even if it would be true that they only behaved worse due to our "discrimination" it would still make sense to not bring them here since they will just be discriminated and there is no magic button for ending discrimination.
Not even when you asserted that immigrants, en masse, should just leave?
Data about race differences is IQ and race differences in crime are not obsolete
you assume the ethnic differences in behavior have nothing to do with either genetics or culture while all the evidence says otherwise. You are the one who has to prove Black behavior is not due to them
Until you can proven that this difference has nothing to do with them (genes or culture) we shouldn't be taking them.
My point was that yes they have a right to live in American territory, but Whites have a right to secede from them.
OK I'm gonna let you get away with that dodge because I am really tired of wasting time debating you
No the burden is not on me because of the context. If the context was to weather or not we should sterilize all Black people, then the burden of genetics being the cause would be on me. But it's not, the context is immigration and since you want to bring ethnic groups who behave worse, you have to prove it's neither genetic nor their culture that is the cause of their bad behavior. And even then you would have to show that their behavior (whatever was the cause) was likely to improve very soon.
Linking the governments OPINION is not proof behavior is not genetic. What research was done to inquire this and what evidence came back suggesting it's not? The Bahamas the richest Black country is 4 times wealthier than Bosnia, et their homicide rate is 30 TIMES higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
"is not the same as 'no one is obliged to live with those they don't like'"
Yes it is the same.
since you want to bring ethnic groups who behave worse,
you have to prove it's neither genetic nor their culture that is the cause of their bad behavior.
The Bahamas the richest Black country is 4 times wealthier than Bosnia, et their homicide rate is 30 TIMES higher.
"Stereotyping noted."
So they don't behave worse?
"differences are less between groups than within them."
So even you admit there are differnces between groups. Yet you maintan that these differences are not the cause of behavior.
"I don't know of a reputable anthropologist who would make the case that a group's culture makes its members behave badly"
What? So the fact that Afghanis deny education to women, stone them to death is not a result of their culture? And before you say it, it's not religion. Plenty of Muslim countries don't stone their women to death. This statement has to be the dumbest thing you've ever written in this entire exchange and that's saying a lot.
"the onus of proof is on you"
How is the burden on me, if i'm not the one bringing them here? I never said innocent individuals of a given ethnic group should be blamed for their aggregate behavior. I never said they all need to be sterlizied. I just claim we should stop importing them until we know they will start behaving better (and behaving better soon)
Who is pulling the trigger in the US? Is it Asian grandmas, or is it young Black men?
Correlation often times is the cause. If you don't think genetics is the cause of this correlation, then explain what is it?
In any case even if discrimination against Blacks was real, it wouldn't be justified collective Black grievance, since Blacks as a hole (sic)commit more crime.
Are Whites becoming a minority? Is there any plan to stop immigration once it reaches a certain percentage?
How is "replacement theory" unjustified it's happening?
We're not denying them anything.You are denying them equality and empathy, let alone justice and fairness in many cases, for a start.
The right to live in another people's country is not a basic right for anyone.
It is ironic for you to pick on integration issues when racism and discrimination are among the key determinants against it.
Chinese immigrants tend to be richer and well-educated than the average immigrant from Pakistan or Syria.
However, there are absolutely issues with Chinese interference with universities regarding issues the CCP don't like on UK campuses. It's more of a problem in Canada and Australia.
Chinese immigrants tend to be richer and well-educated than the average immigrant from Pakistan or Syria.
However, there are absolutely issues with Chinese interference with universities regarding issues the CCP don't like on UK campuses. It's more of a problem in Canada and Australia
>Bingo. My point exactly. Did you just admit the problems with Pakistanis and Syrians are due to behavior or Pakistanis and Syrians?
No. I mentioned that the wealth and educational level of the average Chinese immigrant is much different to the average Syrian or Pakistani because they're from completely different social classes, and that's not due to race. Pakistani students would be perfectly comparable to Chinese students.
No. I mentioned that the wealth and educational level of the average Chinese immigrant is much different to the average Syrian or Pakistani because they're from completely different social classes, and that's not due to race
Pakistani students would be perfectly comparable to Chinese students.
>Yes you did admit it. I asked why there aren't as many problems with Chinese and you answered their education. This is an admission that it's their BEHAVIOR.
The behavioural differences down to income and education within their societies and not race.
>Any data on this? Also what percentage of Chinese are students compared to Pakistanis? We are talking about those communities on the aggregate not specifically selecting good subgroups.
On aggregate the average Pakistani is likely much more prone to crime on the basis that they're much poorer and less educated (or the ones that come to the UK are) in comparison to Chinese people coming here to study.
Any evidence of any serious problems with Saudi students (who tend to be similarly well-off)?
The behavioural differences down to income and education within their societies and not race.
On aggregate the average Pakistani is likely much more prone to crime on the basis that they're much poorer and less educated (or the ones that come to the UK are) in comparison to Chinese people coming here to study.
Any evidence of any serious problems with Saudi students (who tend to be similarly well-off)?
>You don't know differences in education and income aren't due to race.
Don't be absurd. China is a much more successful country than Syria. A Chinese person arriving via a student program officially is going to be clearly of a much better background than a Syrian who treks through Europe to get to the UK.
Clearly both would have had completely different lives.
>Immigration selection IQ. Some countries send their better, some send their average, some send their worst. How would Saudi Arabia do without oil? Their average IQ is low.
Any evidence that Saudi Arabia "sends their betters" specifically? Do you have any data that suggests that Middle-Eastern students in universities are more of a problem than Chinese students?
Don't be absurd. China is a much more successful country than Syria. A Chinese person arriving via a student program officially is going to be clearly of a much better background than a Syrian who treks through Europe to get to the UK.
Any evidence that Saudi Arabia "sends their betters" specifically?
Do you have any data that suggests that Middle-Eastern students in universities are more of a problem than Chinese students?
>And how do you know China being more successful than Syria isn't due to race? China in the 1980s was poorer than Black Africa yet it it's IQ was much higher than 70.
Was it poorer in the 1980s? Obviously they advanced heavily (which propagandists might suggest is an endorsement of Communism, if anything) but China was one country controlled by an authoritarian party compared to 54 African countries with varying forms of leadership and government types.
>You claimed Saudis send good students as evidence they are smart people in general. YOu have to prove this isn't due to immigraion selection.
No, I said Saudi **students** are comparable to Chinese **students**.
>You started to talk about students. I am talking about people in general.
I did. But the point here is that poorly educated Chinese working class types rarely make it to the UK. The same is not with Syrians.
but China was one country controlled by an authoritarian party compared to 54 African countries with varying forms of leadership and government types.
No, I said Saudi **students** are comparable to Chinese **students**.
But the point here is that poorly educated Chinese working class types rarely make it to the UK. The same is not with Syrians.
>Yet China's IQ is 103 and Syria's 74
Yes, Chinese people receive a ton more education on average.
You got data that it's due to their race?
Yes, Chinese people receive a ton more education on average.
You got data that it's due to their race?
>Which they would had they been more intelligent. A better IQ is likely to result in better education.
It also might have something to do with being bought up in China, rather than Syria with far less educational opportunities.
>I think it's genetics, but I don't have to prove it's due to their race in this particular context of our disagreement since you claimed the difference in Chinese and Syrians in the UK is strictly due to selection. I pointed out the WHOLE COUTNRIES Syrians have lower IQs than Chinese, so it's not due to selection.
Poor Chinese under-educated people aren't coming to the UK. That's my point. They are in Syria. There are more under-educated Syrians, of course, but that's an entirely different discussion.
But again: you have no evidence for your initial claim here - which was my point.
Education index isn't much better in China than in Arab countries:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/UNDP_Education_Index_%281990_-_2019%29.gif
Also this map from 2021 shows China even LOWER education index than oil rich Arab states.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/y0f7wh/world_education_index/
Yet Oil Rich Arab countries still have IQs in the low 80s which suggests genes are the cause not poverty and education.
Again you totally ignored the fact that as I said Syria as a whole has much lower IQ than China so it's not selection.
But again: you have no evidence for your initial claim here - which was my point.
>Education index isn't much better in China than in Arab countries:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/UNDP_Education_Index_%281990_-_2019%29.gif
The poorest and least educated Chinese aren't coming to the Uk. The poorest and least educated Syrians and Iraqis (not Saudis) are.
>Also this map from 2021 shows China even LOWER education index than oil rich Arab states.
There's a big difference between a refugee from Syria and some rich git from Qatar.
>Yet Oil Rich Arab countries still have IQs in the low 80s which suggests genes are the cause not poverty and education.
How do you know its not culture or religion too?
Data about Chinese and Syrian immigration patterns please. Also the claim is also for Chinese and Syrians as a whole, not just those in the UK. How come China has an IQ of above 100 while Arab countries are so low if the education is not the cause since Chinese education is not much better than Arab? Not to mention oil rich Arab countries are much richer than China
How do you know its not culture or religion too?
>Riots in the UK were a resiult not of decades of mass immigration and ignoring the distatisfaction of the working class natives by the elite. They were completely justified.(unlike the George Floyd/BLM ones)
No. I am a Brit. We literally saw in real-time the false narrative of the Southport stabber being labeled a Syrian immigrant on social media. You could construct a timeline up about how it happened and what made people riot.
And riots are justified, are they? It's okay to smash shop windows, throw bricks at police, loot shops and try to set fire to mosques and hotels whilst screaming that you're going to murder muslims and non-white people? Are you now defending violent thuggery?
No. I am a Brit. We literally saw in real-time the false narrative of the Southport stabber being labeled a Syrian immigrant on social media. You could construct a timeline up about how it happened and what made people riot.
And riots are justified, are they?
>The incident wasn't the cause of the riots. The incident was just the trigger. Also wasn't the stabber Black? Same thing.
The stabber was not an immigrant. They were born in the UK to refugee parents who arrived in the early 00s. The rioters were claiming, on false information that he was a muslim syrian refugee. (His ancestry is Rwandan christian).
Here's my take:
He went into a dance class themed around Taylor Swift with rainbow branding, obvious DEI symbols on and stabbed 20 kids and two adults. My hypothesis is that he was radicalised by the online anti-feminist/women/reactionary movement who very much regards Taylor Swift as the root of all evil.
>The political agenda and dissatisfaction behind them is justified. If your people are becoming a minority in their homeland due to immigration and they aren't even allowed to oppose it while the immigrants tend to behave in let's just say "unbecoming" manner, then it's perfectly justified.
"Not allowed to oppose it"? We just had an election. Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Greens combined won over 50% of the vote from the voting public. A minority of people do not get to use force to impose their policy. That is thuggery. People had a say less than a month before those riots.
>Funny you leftists were justifying the same riots when one police officer on a different continent accidentally killed one criminal.
Not sure when I said anything like this ever.
stabber was not an immigrant. They were born in the UK to refugee parents who arrived in the early 00s.
My hypothesis
"Not allowed to oppose it"?
sure when I said anything like this ever.
>in other words a biased opinion of a liberal. He was Black. There are good evidence suggesting Blacks might be naturally more prone to psychopathy which would explain the stabbing.
Aren't most serial and mass killers in the USA, which this is more comparable to, white?
>Yes, they are smeared, silenced, censored and legally persecuted like Sam Melia who was sentanced to prison for putting flyers against immgraion.
Are you of the opinion that the only way one can express issues with immigration is to put up stickers in public places full of racial slurs? Plenty of politicians, activists and journalists in the UK are openly against the levels of immigration and say so publicly and nothing happens to them.
Aren't most serial and mass killers in the USA, which this is more comparable to, white?
Are you of the opinion that the only way one can express issues with immigration is to put up stickers in public places full of racial slurs?
Plenty of politicians, activists and journalists in the UK are openly against the levels of immigration and say so publicly and nothing happens to them.
>"We will be minority in our country by 2060" is not racial slur. So isn't "immigrants cost more" and even "immigrants commit more crime"
A Muslim posting a similar sticker campaign with loaded comments would also likely be arrested in the UK for that.
>You can be against immigration, but you aren't allowed to effectively advocate why. Once you start bringing effective rational arguments against immigration like the examples I listed, you are censored, smeared and persecuted.
No, people have expressed concerns with the levels of poorly-educated immigrants, ,the strain on public services and welfare, ghettoisation, sectarianism etc. They don't get arrested.
Why hasn't Nigel Farage been arrested?
A Muslim posting a similar sticker campaign with loaded comments would also likely be arrested in the UK for that.
Why hasn't Nigel Farage been arrested?
>So a Muslim saying "We Pakistanis will be minority in Pakistan" would be arrested? Or saying "Demographic change is good"? A Pakistani saying "Whites take more from the government and commit more crime" would be censored, smeared or arrested?
I suspect so yes.
>Nigel Farage has been de-banked. He has been censored, smeared and demonized
Nigel Farage won that banking incident. Bad PR for the bank. How has he been censored?
How has he been smeared?
>But Nigel Farage doesn't even talk about core issues like race and genetic contribution to behavior. He isn't even a real ethno nationalist, just a culturalist. He even virtue signals how immigrants from Eastern Europe are worse than those form third world (not true) so he won't be called a racist.
When has he said that about people from the Eastern Europe?
The point is that Nigel Farage, who is very anti-immigration has NOT been arrested. You claim that you simply can't be anti-immigration in the UK.
I suspect so yes.
Nigel Farage won that banking incident. Bad PR for the bank.
How has he been smeared?
When has he said that about people from the Eastern Europe?
The point is that Nigel Farage, who is very anti-immigration has NOT been arrested. You claim that you simply can't be anti-immigration in the UK.
>No you're just outright lying. You know he wouldn't. They wouldn't even be condemned. Ash Sakar bragged about Whites becoming a minority and she was only condemned by the right, not by the mainstream.
Did Ash Sarkar went on a sticker campaign did she?
https://www.gbnews.com/news/matt-goodwin-white-britons-minority-2070
Is this guy about to be arrested?
>But they still de-banked him. He had to go through lots of trouble and sue which is expensive. The point is he was suppressed.
And what did that have to do with the UK government?
>Read what lefties write about him
Not an answer. How has he been smeared specifically.
>He bragged about Brexit being good for ethnic minorities and people form the commonwealth because they would be favored over E. Europeans. He bragged about "destroying far right"
That wasn't him saying Eastern Europeans are **worse** than commonwealth members.
>You are allowed to be anti Immigration. The elite aren't stupid. They know banning simply being anti immigration wouldn't work. The point is he's not allowed to affectively argue against it by pointing out legit crime differences, welfare differences, cultural differences and possible genetic causes.
You made the point about welfare differences, but government data doesn't seem to suggest what you're saying.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/26/nigel-farage-under-fire-said-muslims-not-share-british-values
https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/sectarian-politics-local-election-nigel-farage
He talks about culture a lot.
Did Ash Sarkar went on a sticker campaign did she?
https://www.gbnews.com/news/matt-goodwin-white-britons-minority-2070
Is this guy about to be arrested?
And what did that have to do with the UK government?
How has he been smeared specifically.
wasn't him saying Eastern Europeans are **worse** than commonwealth members.
You made the point about welfare differences, but government data doesn't seem to suggest what you're saying.
>No need for her. She isn't becoming a minority. Her ethnic group aren't losing her homeland.
Right, but she did not do what this guy did.
>I've searched for a word of every effective grievance against White becoming minority in this article: "crime", "welfare", "IQ", "benefits", "cost", "Islam", "terror"... and nothing came up. You're allowed to oppose it, as long as you aren't bringing up productive reasons why. You're allowed to play football and try to score as long as you're playing poorly.
You've moved the goalposts.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/susan-hall-london-conservatives-black-crime-b2023783.html
Not arrested
>So general society suppressing dissent out of political beliefs is somehow better than government doing it? He won so that means they did it illegally. The suppression of dissent is coming from everywhere. And the government DID go after Sam Melia.
How is it the government can stop whatever social attitudes develop over time?
>He has been called racist
He has. Hasn't stopped him though, has it? Jeremy Corbyn also had named thrown at him during his career. Keir Starmer himself, although not called racist, gets accusations lobbed at him that stick.
>The point it he virtue signals against racism.
No, he was trying to discredit the allegations of racism against him by pointing out that if he really was racist he would be wanting to more harshly come down on that type of immigration.
>Yes it does. Blacks are significantly more likely (24% vs 15%) to be on income related benefits than Whites. They also get more tax benefits and housing benefits. Blacks as well as Asians also get more child benefits. Then there's crime and terrorism.
You have cherrypicked this data badly.
"white British families (54%) were the most likely out of all ethnic groups to receive state support – families from the Chinese ethnic group (25%) were the least likely to"
Also, the data is not that heavily disproportionate. By your logic Indians and Asians should be praised as they take less income-related benefit than White brits.
So you think if she handed out flyers "Bangladeshi pride" or "We will soon become a majority" she would be charged?
You've moved the goalposts.
Not arrested
How is it the government can stop whatever social attitudes develop over time?
Hasn't stopped him though, has it?
You have cherrypicked this data badly.
>So you think if she handed out flyers "Bangladeshi pride" or "We will soon become a majority" she would be charged?
I could see that possibility, yes.
>So you admit the "game" is unfair to Whites? It's not goalpost shifting, our debate is about unfairness to Whites in general, not specifically weather or not something is illegal.
It's not the business of the state to dictate the nature of feedback to individuals when they make claims about things. Susan Hall was not arrested. People in the UK are not arrested by default when they call for lowered immigration. They might be scorned by their peers, but that's simply what happens sometimes in contemporary society.
>Not arrested, but still outrage over a perfectly valid political grievance. Your own link proves Whites are being attacked for raising legit political points.
People are "attacked" all the time by others for raising what they might regard as "legit political points". It is not the role of the state to dictate what kind of feedback people may or may not receive when they make arguments about speciifc topics.
>There should be NO outrage culture over ethnic grievances and certainly not only if one ethnic group raises them. When Blacks or Muslims raise their grievances (which all happen to be legit btw) there is no outrage.
Are you being sarcastic here? What grievances are you calling legit here as raised by Black and Muslim communities? Because they do get negative feedback by society. I recall a number of palestinian activists, for instance, arrested shortly after October 7th for inciting violence - this was very much a Muslim grievance issue. I recall a notable student officer who got frontpage news, negative news, for saying "black people can't be racist" or something along those lines.
>I am talking precisely about those social attitudes. Just a few years ago there would be no cancel culture against politicians like Farage. But then Trump won and the West went insane.
Farage isn't cancelled. He is a TV show host, the leader of a political party and an elected MP. He has more BBC appearances on Question Time than any other politician in history. This is nonsense.
>Being called racist is a tremendous cost to one's reputation. He has been smeared. The point stands. And Farage doesn't even about demographic change, only about lack of integration. And he's still smeared as immoral.
And yet he's still there. All frontline politicians of notable parties, or self-made politicians take heaps of abuse and criticism over the years.
>Yes he did virtue signal. Being against brown people is more taboo than being against Poles so he bragged about against EU more in favor of the Commonwealth. Typical virtue signaling.
No, he was making the point against allegations of him being racist. He was trying to throw it in the face of those who criticise him.
>They also get more tax benefits. Yes Indians and E Asians should be praised. Indians are more from higher castes and E. Asians are good people.
The point is there's not a huge amount in it. Black people get more state benefits primarily on account of many of them simply being poorer. And yes, people get old - but they don't automatically go onto the state pension if they have a private pension.
I could see that possibility, yes.
>BS and you know it.
I know of no such thing. You know people in the UK are arrested for suggesting any support publicly for Hamas or Hezbollah?
Stuff like this has happened: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/06/london-woman-charged-over-alleged-killallwhitemen-tweet
>Ok so you don't dispute my argument that society is unfair to Whites? Who's talking about the state? I'm talking about woke society in general.
From your perspective, society is "unfair". Again ,you don't get to just demand your views become socially acceptable.
>Criticizing and disagreeing with someone's opinion is not the same thing as outrage, censorship and smear. Nobody should be outraged over indigenous Brits saying we don't want to become a minority or brown people are a cost and aren't integrated.
People can be outraged and dislike whatever they like. You don't get to dictate that they shouldn't be.
>He is still being demonized by the left. And he was debanked. Also Farage has those things because he doesn't care about ethnicity or native British people, but only about culture. He doesn't even mind native Brits becoming a minority. People who talk about ethnicity are cancelled though and there is no reason they should. Imagine Koreans in Korea becoming a minority to White immigrants and the only Korean politicians not totally cancelled would be the ones complaining about Korean culture. As if Koreans people don't have a right to remain majority in Korea.
And Korea is, much to its potential demographic collapse, a relatively xenophobic culture.
>So you admit Blacks are more costly then? Yet you still insist on importing them instead of groups who are more beneficial.
Because they're often poorer. The average black person arrives or is born into poverty more commonly than a white person.
Why are you changing the topic to Hamas or directly inciting violence? We are talking weather or not Ash Sakar would be charged if the posted "Bangladeshi pride" or "We will soon become the majority" posters. She wouldn't. But Sam Melia was. A double standard against Whites.
I have very good arguments Western societies are unfair to Whites. I don't' demand automatic acceptance of my views, but I demand free speech and end to cancel culture to people who are explicitly pro White just as there is no censorship and cancel culture to people who are explicitly pro Black and pro minority. The current woke moral paradigm is a result of deliberate conditioning at the hand of institutions like the media and education as well as censorship/cancel culture which is an obvious example of ideological cheating. It isn't natural. It's a result of people being afraid to express themselves. It's an emperor's new clothes situation.
People can be outraged and dislike whatever they like. You don't get to dictate that they shouldn't be.
And Korea is, much to its potential demographic collapse, a relatively xenophobic culture.
>You're right that one could argue that a taxi driver has an obligation to pick up customers of all races because he signed a contract do that and he accepted the risk is part of a job. But the allegation that he is "racist" still isn't warranted as long as data shows Blacks are more dangerous. "Racism" implies irrationality and this isn't the case. Also if a private taxi driver who works for himself doesn't pick Black customers he is also called racist despite the fact he has no obligation to his employer.
He can think what he wants. But he is performing a public service.
And people can judge him however they like.
>Why should the ethnicity of someone matter when discussing that some terms do more harm than good to society? This is a typical example of an ad hominem fallacy. "Your argument is wrong, because you're not an American".
I'm not criticising your ethnicity, I'm criticising you based on English not being your first language.
>Because with "racist" you don't have to show how one is being irrational or unfair. With "unwarranted tribalism" the "unwarranted" can be disputed depending on the situation. There is nothing unwarranted in a White person being on the side of his ethnic group if they are under attack. Yet a White is called "racist" for being on the side of his group, but a Black person is not.
You do if people want to take you seriously. I can just as easily call someone an "unwarranted tribalist" and have no good reason for thinking so. How is it any different if I instead call them racist? Why is "unwarranted tribalist" a valid term, but not "racist". All people would do is instead of using "racist" they'd just "unwarranted tribalist" and it would inherit the negative connotations of racist.
>Depends on the risk/cost involved. For essentials like food and medicine there should be an exception
And shelter, job, banking, internet aren't essential?
He can think what he wants. But he is performing a public service.
And people can judge him however they like.
I'm not criticising your ethnicity, I'm criticising you based on English not being your first language.
How is it any different if I instead call them racist? Why is "unwarranted tribalist" a valid term, but not "racist". All people would do is instead of using "racist" they'd just "unwarranted tribalist" and it would inherit the negative connotations of racist.
And shelter, job, banking, internet aren't essential?
>They shouldn't judge him as long as he doesn't have an obligation to his employer.
No, people can judge whoever they like for whatever reason they like.
>Protecting oneself from being needlessly mugged or killed is more important than inconveniencing someone you don't owe anything.
By this logic, you're back to arguing that black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service.
>This is the same thing. The fallacy of "your argument must be wrong because of where you were born" remains.
No, it's not. You think language is the same thing as ethnicity? It just isn't. You're imposing your own interpretation of how words are used onto a language that is not your first language.
>No they couldn't. A woman could not be accused of "unwarranted tribalism" when she refused to let in her apartment a young Black male in the middle of the night. Her decision to do so is not tribalism, but rational safety concern and it is not unwarranted given the situation.
And I'm sure you'd say that a woman couldn't be accused of racism in such a scenario either, but they are. The point is that there will always be a term that people could use, justifiably or unjustifiably to refer to people who they believe expresses some form of prejudice against people due to their ethnic background. Whether or not they're called "racist" or "unwarranted tribalist" doesn't much matter.
>One could depend the nuances of specific situations and compromises could be made, but that doesn't de-legitimize the principle. My view is the final goal should be geographical racial separation, that would solve the discrimination problem immediately.
There is NO support for this. There are nearly 2 million people of mixed ethnicity in the UK.
No, people can judge whoever they like for whatever reason they like.
black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service.
No, it's not. You think language is the same thing as ethnicity? It just isn't. You're imposing your own interpretation of how words are used onto a language that is not your first language.
And I'm sure you'd say that a woman couldn't be accused of racism in such a scenario either, but they are. .... Whether or not they're called "racist" or "unwarranted tribalist" doesn't much matter.
There is NO support for this. There are nearly 2 million people of mixed ethnicity in the UK.
>That's not the point. They judge unfairly because the term "racist" has brainwashed them.
You might as well be pissing in the wind. Your contention here is that people view many things as prejudice that simply aren't prejudiced. Okay. Focus on that that this aimless tirade at the term "racist".
>If they are a danger to people, people will discriminate against them as long as they don't have the ability to read minds. They should blame their own communities for raising their children in such way and instilling such values that makes them behave so.
That's not what I asked you: Should black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service?
>I already addressed this. The word "racist" is exactly the same as in my language and used in exactly equal situations.
Criticising someone's understanding of language and the context behind the term has nothing to do with race.
>That's exactly my point. She is accused of "racism" because this is the term in our society for any racial discrimination regardless if it's justified. It does matter because "unwarranted tribalist" is a precise term.
"Racist" is a precise term. It refers to a form of discrimintion or prejudice towards someone purely because of their heritage.
"Unwarranted" is subjective. Someone has to make a value judgement as to whether or not someone's "tribalism" is justified or not. Someone could easily call someone an "unwarranted tribalist" and you would disagree. But they'd still persist. So you'd end up in the exact same situation as you are in now.
And do you honestly expect to somehow make the entire western world use the word 'racist'? Like is that a goal you think remotely achievable?
>Lack of current support doesn't debunk the validity of the principle. Also I am talking about the US where Blacks were taken against their will.
There are 34 million mixed-race people in the USA. And most black people in the USA now have been there for multiple generations. Well over 100 years. Where the fuck would they go?
>Immigrants in the UK could return.
Many mixed-race people in the UK are not immigrants.
"Focus on that that this aimless tirade at the term "racist"."
You still don't see that the term "racism" and it's lack of specificity tends to guide people's thoughts?
"That's not what I asked you: Should black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service?"
Private businesses should calculate themselves if risk is worth the extra income from Black customers. Legally they shouldn't be able to force anyone to take needless risks if they don't want to. If Blacks don't want to be discriminated, then they shouldn't live among Whites.
"Criticizing someone's understanding of language and the context behind the term has nothing to do with race."
You're not criticizing my understanding of language. If hadn't told you English is not my first language after you made a typo, you wouldn't have known.
""Racist" is a precise term. It refers to a form of discrimination or prejudice towards someone purely because of their heritage."
No it's not precise. There are dozens of different definitions from respected sources online. ADL itself was forced to change the definition 3 times in one year. Things that clearly aren't prejudiced like test cores or AI are called racist.
""Unwarranted" is subjective. Someone has to make a value judgement as to whether or not someone's "tribalism" is justified or not. Someone could easily call someone an "unwarranted tribalist" and you would disagree. But they'd still persist. So you'd end up in the exact same situation as you are in now."
It's much less subjective than blanket term "racism". All words are subjective to a degree. Some more than others. Blasphemy, degeneracy and racism are among the most subjective.
"And do you honestly expect to somehow make the entire western world use the word 'racist'? Like is that a goal you think remotely achievable?"
Yes. Difficulty in achieving a goal is not an argument of the illegitimacy of that goal.
>You still don't see that the term "racism" and it's lack of specificity tends to guide people's thoughts?
No, because I reject your premise that it is somehow uniquely non-specific.
>Private businesses should calculate themselves if risk is worth the extra income from Black customers. Legally they shouldn't be able to force anyone to take needless risks if they don't want to. If Blacks don't want to be discriminated, then they shouldn't live among Whites.
That's still not what I asked you. I am talking about LEGALITY. Should it be legal to block black people access to public services?
>You're not criticizing my understanding of language. If hadn't told you English is not my first language after you made a typo, you wouldn't have known.
I'm more criticising it here primarily due to it coming across as a form of linguistic imperialism.
>No it's not precise. There are dozens of different definitions from respected sources online. ADL itself was forced to change the definition 3 times in one year. Things that clearly aren't prejudiced like test cores or AI are called racist.
Show me these different definitions please.
And most words have varying definitions, by the way.
>It's much less subjective than blanket term "racism". All words are subjective to a degree. Some more than others. Blasphemy, degeneracy and racism are among the most subjective.
So you claim. No reason to believe this. "Blasphemy" isn't subjective at all, it's just.. who gives a fuck about insulting a religion. "Degeneracy" is, I agree. Racism is not that subjective at all.
>Yes. Difficulty in achieving a goal is not an argument of the illegitimacy of that goal.
And you think you'll achieve this by a thread on moviechat? You believe that you, and you alone can personally make the english speaking world stop using the word "racist"?
"No, because I reject your premise that it is somehow uniquely non-specific."
You actually deny the non specificity of the term "racism"? After I showed you the absurd examples where it is claimed to exist not by wackos but by respectable journalists and academics?
"That's still not what I asked you. I am talking about LEGALITY. Should it be legal to block black people access to public services?"
I already answered. I never proposed a law that prohibit Blacks to have access to public services. If businesses decide the risk isn't worth it, then they shouldn't be forced by the government.
"I'm more criticising it here primarily due to it coming across as a form of linguistic imperialism."
Valid arguments about the problems of terms like "racism" and "blasphemy" aren't linguistic imperialism. Every rational person should see the problems with such terms.
"Show me these different definitions please."
Use Google. Here is a video about ADL and it's confusion of the term "racism";
https://odysee.com/@AmericanRenaissance:7/ADLandRacism:b
"Racism is not that subjective at all."
Saying racism is not subjective without even arguing it is not an argument. I've argued why it's subjective. You haven't argued why it's not.
"And you think you'll achieve this by a thread on moviechat? You believe that you, and you alone can personally make the English speaking world stop using the word "racist"?"
Not an argument against the legitimacy of my ideas.
By this logic I can just as much make fun of you trying to eradicate racism by posting on moviechat.
>You actually deny the non specificity of the term "racism"? After I showed you the absurd examples where it is claimed to exist not by wackos but by respectable journalists and academics?
I don't recall you ever giving me links.
>I already answered. I never proposed a law that prohibit Blacks to have access to public services. If businesses decide the risk isn't worth it, then they shouldn't be forced by the government.
No. I asked you if they should be legally ALLOWED to discriminate. In my country, a private business literally cannot refuse service to someone because of their race. They would get fined.
>https://odysee.com/@AmericanRenaissance:7/ADLandRacism:b
Is there a text form of this? And I'm not especially inclined to trust a scientific racist institution.
>Saying racism is not subjective without even arguing it is not an argument. I've argued why it's subjective. You haven't argued why it's not.
I said *not that subjective*. All definitions have cultural context behind them. Different forms of racism receive different social and legal responses in most western countries. As would be so if it was some variant of "unwarranted tribalism".
>By this logic I can just as much make fun of you trying to eradicate racism by posting on moviechat.
I'm not trying to do that, nor did I ever suggest I was going to do that by posting on here.
"No. I asked you if they should be legally ALLOWED to discriminate. In my country, a private business literally cannot refuse service to someone because of their race. They would get fined."
I answered. Yes they should. It is fundamentally unfair that people have to take needless risks because ANOTHER ethnic group in their country CHOOSES to commit more crime and raise their members in values that make them.
"Is there a text form of this? And I'm not especially inclined to trust a scientific racist institution."
It's a video on Odysee. Watch it, you won't get infected with a virus. You can Google check every claim.
"I said *not that subjective*. All definitions have cultural context behind them. Different forms of racism receive different social and legal responses in most western countries. As would be so if it was some variant of "unwarranted tribalism"."
I still see no argument why "racism" is not a severely subjective term. Give me examples.
"I'm not trying to do that, nor did I ever suggest I was going to do that by posting on here."
Well I don't have delusions that I will stop people using the term "racism" any time soon. But I can test my ideas on forums like this to see if there are any good arguments against them. So far, I've seen none from you.
>I answered. Yes they should. It is fundamentally unfair that people have to take needless risks because ANOTHER ethnic group in their country CHOOSES to commit more crime and raise their members in values that make them.
There's no support for this. And this would mean that in theory a black person born in the wrong area could effectively find themselves unable to work anywhere, live anywhere, or even go in a supermarket to buy goods. It would drive black people into crime as they have no other option.
>It's a video on Odysee. Watch it, you won't get infected with a virus. You can Google check every claim.
I'd rather read an article.
>I still see no argument why "racism" is not a severely subjective term. Give me examples.
Racism at core is about prejudice, or perceived prejudice towards an individual or group on the basis of their heritage. That's it. That's base definition.
Some people unfairly call people racist, some people do not. And the general perception of what is or is not considered racist has changed over the years, as have many things.
And this would mean that in theory a black person born in the wrong area could effectively find themselves unable to work anywhere, live anywhere, or even go in a supermarket to buy goods. It would drive black people into crime as they have no other option.
Racism at core is about prejudice, or perceived prejudice towards an individual or group on the basis of their heritage. That's it. That's base definition.
Some people unfairly call people racist, some people do not. And the general perception of what is or is not considered racist has changed over the years, as have many things.
>This was allowed in the South prior to civil rights act.
And this was widely considered bad.
>In any case you just provided an excellent argument why Blacks shouldn't live in the same country.
No, I didn't. This is like arguing that oppressive laws against Jewish people in the mid 1930s justifies them being removed from the country.
>I've given you many examples of things that clearly aren't "prejudiced" but postjudiced (juding Backs by data) is still called "racism"
It depends on what you do with that data, and how it impacts your interactions with all black people.
>What I'm saying that if the term "racism" was replaced with something more precise, there would be far less situations where fair things would be falsely called that term.
There is no specific word, not "unwarranted tribalism", not anything else that could replace "racism" that would somehow stop what you don't like happening. People have always been fairly or unfairly charged with things.
Do you equally complain about "misogyny" or "homophobia" as terms?
And this was widely considered bad.
No, I didn't. This is like arguing that oppressive laws against Jewish people in the mid 1930s justifies them being removed from the country.
It depends on what you do with that data, and how it impacts your interactions with all black people.
no specific word, not "unwarranted tribalism", not anything else that could replace "racism" that would somehow stop what you don't like happening. People have always been fairly or unfairly charged with things.
Do you equally complain about "misogyny" or "homophobia" as terms?
>Because leftists took over the institutions and started brainwashing people and lying to them. If one ethnic group is behaviorally a huge burden to another it is EHTNIC INJUSTICE against that group to have to live with them. They have every right to discriminate in order to protect themselves and as long as they aren't discriminating needlessly. If the bad behaving ethnic group does not want to be discriminated, they shouldn't live with the other ethnic group. That's why we have countries.
And how do we objectively determine whether or not someone is discriminating on valid grounds, or invalid grounds?
>Jews didn't behave like Blacks.
So are you suggesting you're in favour of imposing Nazi-tier legislation to black people?
>Whites don't owe Black people having good opinion about them and to not discriminate against them to protect themselves if they behave like shit. No ethnic group owes anything to any other group besides leaving them alone.
I'm in favour of judging people as individuals. Turns out if you construct policy to alienate a specific group out of respectable society they'll all be more inclined towards criminality.
>That is just your opinion for the sake of disagreeing with me and not admit defeat in an argument. I think if someone asked you in a different context weather or not "unwarranted tribalsim" would be used in same situations like "racism" if terms were swapped, you would probably have a different take.
"Unwarranted tribalism" could be used fairly and unfairly. You have given no good argument that it can only be used respectably (per your standards). What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>I have very good reservations about those terms as well. Straight men who don't find gay sex aesthetic are now called homophobes
Evidence please.
And how do we objectively determine whether or not someone is discriminating on valid grounds, or invalid grounds?
are you suggesting you're in favor of imposing Nazi-tier legislation to black people?
if you construct policy to alienate a specific group out of respectable society they'll all be more inclined towards criminality.
You have given no good argument that it can only be used respectably (per your standards). What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>See if there is a cost in not discriminating.
This is impacted by one's own prejudice.
>Why do you think so? I never proposed any laws directly discriminating against Blacks. Just discard anti discrimination laws and have freedom of association.
Because you compared how they could be treated to Jews in Nazi Germany.
>They are already inclined toward criminality and even more so they were prior to the civil rights movement. Blacks did better in pre 1960s conservative America according to most metrics.
Data please
>I argued WHY "unwarranted tribalis" would less likely be used in unjustified situation.
No, you claimed it. You never argued it or gave good justification.
>Because the term literally has the word UNWARRANTED in it.
So what? People debate whether or not things are "unwarranted" now. Calling something warranted or unwarranted is bound by subjectivity in itself.
>You also never provided any evidence that it wouldn't change things, and you didn't even argue why. You just asserted it.
Because of how language itself works. We all make judgements on the usage of labels, accusations.
This is impacted by one's own prejudice.
Because you compared how they could be treated to Jews in Nazi Germany.
Data please
Calling something warranted or unwarranted is bound by subjectivity in itself.
>People are allowed to have biases and preferences. In most cases it's not since not employing a competent Black worker is an economic cost to oneself.
Of course people can have biases and prejudices. But one can have a prejudice that is "unwarranted" and not understand it to be so. That's my point, and was my point all along.
>Less so than the word "racist". It's hard to argue wanting to import people who commit less crime and less likely to live off welfare is unwarranted.
No reason to believe this. And language doesn't even work like this anyway. You can't just stop a word from being used. It's already in the cultural lexicon.
But one can have a prejudice that is "unwarranted" and not understand it to be so. That's my point, and was my point all along.
No reason to believe this. And language doesn't even work like this anyway. You can't just stop a word from being used. It's already in the cultural lexicon
>Then he will be economically punished for it.
Perhaps other parts of society hold that impression too. Lots of people can be wrong about things.
>No argument why "no reason to believe this". And like I said, the difficulty in achieving a goal is not an argument about the rational and moral justification of that goal.
So how are you going to achieve it then? How are you single-handedly going to stop the english world from using "racism" to describe "unwarranted" ethnic prejudice?
>Besides, Memes can spread quickly. I could see the right wing adopting "unwarranted tribalism" instead of racism if presented the idea.
The right-wing, or specifically the alt-right bloc you're referring to doesn't dictate how everyone else uses language.
Lots of people can be wrong about things.
So how are you going to achieve it then? How are you single-handedly going to stop the English world from using "racism" to describe "unwarranted" ethnic prejudice?
The right-wing, or specifically the alt-right bloc you're referring to doesn't dictate how everyone else uses language.
>So you haven't disputed that the reasoning is sound?
In your ideal society, a "liberal" could just accuse someone of being an "unwarranted tribalist" and be wrong. You could say they're wrong but they could say they disagree. How do you square this impasse?
>Do I need to even reply to this? I already have above. You are goalpost moving. After I owned you on the idea that "racism" is subjective and "unwarranted tribalsim" is more precise, you shifter to "how will you alone achieve this?"
You have "owned" no such thing. You merely asserted without evidence, merely prediction, that "unwarrated tribalism" would somehow be used only fairly. No accusation, no label is ever fairly described. Hell by your reasoning "liberal" and "conservative" are worthless because they have many different local, national contexts. A conservative in the UK is not the same as a conservative in the USA.
>The mainstream right is also tired of the word "racism" and the contexts in which it's used today. I would plausibly see them adopting "unwarranted tribalism"
I see no evidence that they would ever do this. And you arguing this in the depths of moviechat is not going to accomplish anything. You are pissing in the wind.
How do you square this impasse?
Hell by your reasoning "liberal" and "conservative" are worthless because they have many different local, national contexts. A conservative in the UK is not the same as a conservative in the USA.
I see no evidence that they would ever do this.
And you arguing this in the depths of moviechat is not going to accomplish anything. You are pissing in the wind.
>The term "unwarranted tribalist" has a word "unwarranted" in it. Obvious cases of justified tribalism wouldn't work. The ambiguity would be much smaller.
"Unwarranted" is in itself a value judgement. Someone decides whether or not an action or behaviour is warranted or unwarranted. You can't get away from this.
>Maybe those terms need to be replaced with something more precise too.
This is just not how language works. Music genre terminology also has heaps of subjectivity and context on it. Define "Screamo" to me.
>And what kind of evidence would there be if they would?
Some instances of them taking up this pointless fight.
"Unwarranted" is in itself a value judgement. Someone decides whether or not an action or behavior is warranted or unwarranted. You can't get away from this.
Some instances of them taking up this pointless fight.
>Not in situations that are called "racist" today. It's hard to argue not letting in an unknown young Black male in the building in the middle of the night is "unwarranted tribalism".
I would hesitate to let anyone in a block in the middle of the night if I had reason to distrust them. And I wouldn't do that based on race, but more likely rooted in age, voice, reasons for being asked to be let in and probably social class. Lots of chavs in the UK, many of whom, most of whom are white.
>Besides, the term could be even more precisely defined in dictionaries and institutions, like "racism" is (very badly) today.
Except racism isn't defined badly. No single definition of racism is bad (and most definitions provided regarding racism are similar).
And again, you still can't get away from the fact that people would regard some things as "unwarranted" that you wouldn't. Even just the term itself "unwarranted" bereft of association with "racism"
>So you don't think mainstream conservative culture warriors like Matt Walsh are not tired of the word "racism" and the situations it's used?
Matt Walsh is a weirdo. You really would not want him taking up this fight. He thinks that satanism is a serious concern. He might be willing to take up that fight as well.
I would hesitate to let anyone in a block in the middle of the night if I had reason to distrust them. And I wouldn't do that based on race, but more likely rooted in age, voice, reasons for being asked to be let in and probably social class. Lots of chavs in the UK, many of whom, most of whom are white.
Except racism isn't defined badly. No single definition of racism is bad (and most definitions provided regarding racism are similar).
And again, you still can't get away from the fact that people would regard some things as "unwarranted" that you wouldn't.
Matt Walsh is a weirdo. You really would not want him taking up this fight. He thinks that satanism is a serious concern. He might be willing to take up that fight as well.
>The point is plenty of people in the left condemned that woman who decided not to let him in. Chavs aren't stabbing each other at the rate of Blacks.
Are you referring to a specific woman here?
And Chavs have a sordid reputation in the UK and its a major underclass involved in a lot of criminality.
>Yes it is. The itself ADL had to change the definition of "racism" something like 3 times in one year and even asked people to help them define it.
Finetuning specifically for political and precise definitions is not remotely abnormal. The formal definition of many terms is different and more specific than its use in casual interaction. This is even the case with music.
"Screamo" has a term of reference used by casual people, and a more specific definition used by music nerds in-the-know.
>Of course some subjectivity would persist, but less than there is now.
Strongly disagree. For one "unwarranted tribalism" has breadth associated with "bigotry". It could apply to any form of assumed prejudice or stereotyping against anyone for a variety of reasons.
>Ok how about a more reasonable conservative? Do you seriously think many conservatives would in principle oppose a more specific term instead of racism. Conservatives in general are tired of the situations this term is used in.
I think most conservatives would find the battle utterly pointless, a waste of time, and simply that language doesn't work that way. Look at how the left has tried to implement LGBT terminology onto wider society, or nonsense terms like "latinx".
And Chavs have a sordid reputation in the UK and its a major underclass involved in a lot of criminality.
Finetuning specifically for political and precise definitions is not remotely abnormal. The formal definition of many terms is different and more specific than its use in casual interaction
Strongly disagree. For one "unwarranted tribalism" has breadth associated with "bigotry". It could apply to any form of assumed prejudice or stereotyping against anyone for a variety of reasons.
I think most conservatives would find the battle utterly pointless, a waste of time, and simply that language doesn't work that way. Look at how the left has tried to implement LGBT terminology onto wider society, or nonsense terms like "latinx".
>In London Blacks as whole are 58% of murder suspects at 13% of the population. Chavs are s subset of Whites, not Whites as a whole. And they still don't behave bad as Blacks. Every ethnic group has some bad people.
Any data on the points regarding the criminality of the chav underclass?
>So you admit the definition of racist is so inpercise, the ADL itself was forced to change it several times? Then I win. Which other terms so vital to our ideological zeitgeist were changed as much?
The ADL is an organisation involved in specifics, and subject to political bias. All definitions are subject to minor tweaking and alteration organisations like that. Are you aware scientific terms often have definitions dissimilar to casual usage, or have their terminiology updated or even different institutions and physicians have different interpretations?
To say nothing of definitions of philosophical terms.
>I strongly disagree. With a term that that has "unwarranted" in it, this allows the conversation on weather or not the deed is warranted to go forward even if there is disagreement.
And the debate simply shifts to whether or not such a prejudice is "warranted" or "unwarranted". All you've done is move the debate to another term.
>With "racism" there is no conversation. A leftist would say it's racist, while a conservative would say it's not and that will be the end. The term "racist" is thought/conversation stopper.
With "unwarranted" a leftist would say its "unwarranted" whilst a conservative would csay its not.
Also it's still deeply hypocritical you even use the terms "liberal" or "conservative" given how steeped in subjectivity, local definitions and interpretations they are.
>The left has embraced Latinx and other woke term like chestfeeding and birthgivers that suit their ideology.
And how's that been for them? Useless. Note that these aren't even subjective terms as such, we all know what they mean - it's just no-one wants to use them.
You brought up chavs as an example of White crime. You have to show they behave worse than Blacks. And even if they do, they are only sub class of Whites, not Whites as a whole.
All definitions are subject to minor tweaking and alteration organizations like that.
The belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.
the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people
racism “occurs when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.”
And the debate simply shifts to whether or not such a prejudice is "warranted" or "unwarranted". All you've done is move the debate to another term.
With "unwarranted" a leftist would say its "unwarranted" whilst a conservative would say its not.
>You brought up chavs as an example of White crime. You have to show they behave worse than Blacks. And even if they do, they are only sub class of Whites, not Whites as a whole.
"Chav" is a subculture. It's not really reflected in crime data. It should be. Or at least divisions between working class, middle class, upper clas etc backgrounds.
>According to the fist Derek Chauvin wouldn't be a racist even if he killed George Floyd for racial reasons unless he believes in genetic superiority.
I have no idea if Derek Chauvin is a racist, but specifically his conduct was out of order and that is what he was eventually convicted for.
>According to the second, Wukesha SUV attacker or Khalid Abdul Muhammad who called for extermination of White babies also cannot be racist because they aren't White. Minor tweaking eh? The definitions of "racism" by the ADL were TOTALLY changed.
He was a racist.
>It's not always prejudice. THE SITUATION is a very good arbiter weather or not the action or attitude is warranted.
And again, the debate changes to "warranted" vs. "unwarranted".
>No sane person could say not needlessly taking risks for your life to someone you don't owe anything is unwarranted tribalism.
What are you referring to here? It's been a while.
>Some accepted them, others didn't.
Latinx has almost no credible cultural usage.
Ok so you didn't dispute any of my points when it comes to Chavs
Why are you changing the topic? You claimed ADL engaged in "minor tweaking" I've shown you how they TOTALLY changed the definition. The very organization that gets millions very year doesn't know how to define racism and totally changes several times it within just a few years. That is a valid argument that the word "racism" is very subjective and should be replaced with a more specific word.
Ok thanks for completely ignoring the argument how the situation can differentiate between warranted and unwarranted.
I am referring to a woman who was called racist for not letting into an apartment building a young Black male in the middle of the night when he claimed he lost his keys.
>Ok so you didn't dispute any of my points when it comes to Chavs
My point was that people fear a chav, or someone who appears to be one, just as much as they might an urban black youth.
>Why are you changing the topic? You claimed ADL engaged in "minor tweaking" I've shown you how they TOTALLY changed the definition. The very organization that gets millions very year doesn't know how to define racism and totally changes several times it within just a few years. That is a valid argument that the word "racism" is very subjective and should be replaced with a more specific word.
Not this shit again. I will NOT change my position. Your 'solution' is also steeped in subjectivity. What people consider "warranted" or "unwarranted" also varies, and would incite just as many different arguments. You will not, on your own, remove the use of racism in the english language just because you don't like it.
>Ok thanks for completely ignoring the argument how the situation can differentiate between warranted and unwarranted.
What?
>I am referring to a woman who was called racist for not letting into an apartment building a young Black male in the middle of the night when he claimed he lost his keys.
A particular event? Would this woman also refuse to let in a young white male who claimed the same thing at the same time?
"people fear a chav, or someone who appears to be one, just as much as they might an urban black youth."
Data about this please. Black violent crime is through the roof. Blacks in the UK are 18% of murderers at only 4% of the population. This is 4.5 times their share, which is basically the same as in the US where they are about 58% of murders at 13% of the population. In London Blacks are 58% of murders at 12% of population exactly the same as in US. Yet Blacks in the UK were never slaves and never went through segregation as well as have higher IQs than that of US Blacks due to being somewhat immigration selected.
But still commit essentially the same crime which suggests genetic cause.
I want to replace the term "racist" not because I don't like it, but because the term is inherently deceptive. It implies irrationality and unfairness without ever having to show it by just appealing to the manipulated Overton window. If you want to allege someone's views on race are irrational or unfair, label then as such (not the vague word "racist") and argue it. By labelling it "racist" you automatically win by appealing to stigma and taboos.
Yes she probably would also have reservations with a White man. But even if she wouldn't the racial discrimination is perfectly warranted since Blacks commit much more crime.
There are 34 million mixed-race people in the USA. And most black people in the USA now have been there for multiple generations. Well over 100 years. Where the fuck would they go?
Many mixed-race people in the UK are not immigrants.
>The US could easily split in half by race. There are much historic territorial connections than in Europe or the Middle East.
And why should they want to? Plenty of Americans are in mixed-race relationships, have many friends from people of different races. Have children who are mixed race.
>They are descendants of immigrants.
And? They're all still British citizens.
That's why the proposition is 3 countries. Those who want to live with Whites, those who want to remain mixed and those who want to live among Blacks.
shareThere's zero support for this. This is some weird schizo outcome you push for.
shareAnd again we come to the argument I already gave. The difficulty in achieving a political objective is not an argument against the moral illegitimacy of that objective.
shareIt's also highly American. What about the UK? 2 million mixed-raced people here, many non-white people are completely integrated and culturally british.
shareAnd the knife crime is still through the roof, Blacks are 58% of murder suspects in London despite being 13% of the population.
shareCan I see the data for your claims here?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/26/fact-check-has-sadiq-khan-really-overseen-a-surge-in-london
Guardian are far left liars. No person with half a brain cell should trust anything they say.
Here is Sky News (left leaning) saying Blacks make up 58% of murder suspects of London with 13% of the population of.
https://i.postimg.cc/zfqrfj7z/20230914-152342.jpg
(coincidentally the same percentage as US, sounds familiar?) . They were never salves and never had Jim Crow and started mass migrating to UK only after social attitudes towards race became more liberal. Yet they're still committing the same crime as American Blacks.
>Guardian are far left liars. No person with half a brain cell should trust anything they say.
Lying about what?
What makes them far-left?
>(coincidentally the same percentage as US, sounds familiar?) . They were never salves and never had Jim Crow and started mass migrating to UK only after social attitudes towards race became more liberal. Yet they're still committing the same crime as American Blacks.
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/poverty-rates-demographics/#:~:text=The%20highest%20poverty%20rates%20are,average%20poverty%20rate%20at%2029%25.
https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/poverty/
Poverty. Poverty. Poverty.
Biggest predictor of crime.
Unless you're going to propose that Asian British people in London are pretty integrated.
What makes them far left? They push White guilt, lie about differences, support multiculturalism, deny legitimate concerns about immigration.
Blacks (at least in USA where we have more data) commit more crime even controlled for poverty. Even if poverty could explain all the variable when it comes to crime, it still wouldn't prove they aren't more prone to more poverty (and thus crime) for genetic reasons.
>They push White guilt, lie about differences, support multiculturalism, deny legitimate concerns about immigration.
How does the Guardian as an outlet do this? Provide evidence that all of these things are their editorial line.
The Guardian historically in the UK is a Lib Dem aligned type of paper, a centre-left or centrist sheet. Also I'll await evidence that the data they provided from London is in fact a lie.
>Blacks (at least in USA where we have more data) commit more crime even controlled for poverty. Even if poverty could explain all the variable when it comes to crime, it still wouldn't prove they aren't more prone to more poverty (and thus crime) for genetic reasons.
Got any data for this?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/13/immigration-immigrants-society-rich-labour-public
Natives being robed of their homeland, crime, less social trust, more people on welfare, Islamic terrorism, grooming gangs, culture clash are all not legit concerns according to the guardian
Here is a video showing how the Guardian lied about race and intelligence:
https://youtu.be/gVAzPniTzmg
Black crime is not explained by poverty:
https://archive.ph/CQWo1
https://www.takimag.com/article/americas-black-male-problem/
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/#rcatoc-assessing-the-association-with-single-motherhood-with-racially-disaggregated-data
https://i.postimg.cc/7hqgzHBQ/Poor-Whites-lower-crime-than-affluent-Blacks.png
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/13/immigration-immigrants-society-rich-labour-public
>Natives being robed of their homeland, crime, less social trust, more people on welfare, Islamic terrorism, grooming gangs, culture clash are all not legit concerns according to the guardian
This is an opinion article. COMMENT IS FREE category.
>https://archive.ph/CQWo1
24 years old.
Also, one of the other factors of violent crime is that most of it is committed by men. You could use your arguments here to justify that men as a whole have some genetic defect and/or service can be justifiably denied to them by women in positions of service providers.
Immigration costs Netherlands 17 billion per year
https://unherd.com/thepost/dutch-study-immigration-costs-state-e17-billion-per-year/
A study from 2014 showed that in the period between 1995-2011, migrants cost the UK £114 billion.
• Europeans made a +£4bn contribution
• Non-EEA migrants made -£118bn contribution
https://t.co/IbsCLQUKDB
Netherlands asylum seeker costs almost 500k per refugee
https://t.co/vWHRLm77XJ
A report for Sweden estimated that the net tax cost for migrants and migrants' relatives amounts to an average of $10bn per year.
The net tax cost is on average 2.38% of GDP
https://t.co/ARvLA07f6H
In Finland, the average Iraqi migrant (aged 20-24) costs €844k if they choose to have children, costing €1.27 million more than the average Finnish-born family
Worse still, a single Somali immigrant costs the Finnish state almost €1 million
https://www.suomenperusta.fi/content/uploads/2019/03/Summary_AsylumSeekers_lifecycle_effects.pdf
Non EU immigrants cost more than EU immigrants
https://t.co/BdK1Lq6Tyj
Also, one of the other factors of violent crime is that most of it is committed by men. You could use your arguments here to justify that men as a whole have some genetic defect and/or service can be justifiably denied to them by women in positions of service providers.
https://www.nhsconfed.org/articles/immigration-harming-nhs#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20immigration%20to%20the%20NHS%20workforce&text=To%20help%20fill%20the%20current,(264%2C815)%20are%20from%20overseas.
And the NHS relies on immigration to fill many SKILLED spots.
>If there was a society made up of almost exclusively women and the policy was to import millions of men to the point of them eventually becoming a majority, the women in that society would have perfect justification in talking about male crime.
Are you supposing that if the percentage of black people in the USA and UK was stuck at 5%, say, you would not be making any arguments like this? You wouldn't be pointing out their overrepresentation in crime data?
Should we allow people to refuse service to men?
And the NHS relies on immigration to fill many SKILLED spots.
Are you supposing that if the percentage of black people in the USA and UK was stuck at 5%, say, you would not be making any arguments like this? You wouldn't be pointing out their overrepresentation in crime data?
Should we allow people to refuse service to men?
>And how much do immigrants COST the NHS? Also immigration would not be needed if the government and the media instead of celebrating diversity encouraged natives have more children. That way would could kill two birds with one stone. Less economic cost of immigrants and more workers to fill jobs.
No-one has solved the issues of birthrates. They're coming down in every country. Even in countries which have high birthrates, are seeing them slowly drop. From Korea to Turkey to UK to Brazil to almost everywhere.
Also, most of the NHS money is sucked up by old people. This is well known in the UK.
>Maybe. If some business determines that male customers tend to cause them problems, they shouldn't be prohibited from making that decision. But otherwise like I said, racially separated or segregated society works just fine. Sex one doesn't.
So are you in favour of any business having the right to refuse to service to anyone for any reason?
No-one has solved the issues of birthrates
Also, most of the NHS money is sucked up by old people. This is well known in the UK.
So are you in favour of any business having the right to refuse to service to anyone for any reason?
>Hardly anyone has tried. Government incentives in Hungary elevated births from 1.2 to 1.6.
1.33 in 2013 to 1.548 now. A minor improvement. Still below replacement levels.
And yes other countries have tried. Korea and Japan and Italy and many others have offered many financial incentives, tax breaks etc.
>If combined with a change in media/entertainment incentives like conservatives propose
And what are these proposals, exactly?
>Secular Jews in Israel have around 2 children per woman and Israel is a rich country. It's not inevitable.
Exceptions that do not prove the rule.
>Immigrants also get old.
Correct. But you were suggesting that they are now, currently, the largest drain on the NHS. No they are not.
>Maybe, I haven't thought it trough. How did society function prior to the civil rights act of 1964? That's all I propose.
This would lead to serious racial relations breakdowns and persecution. And I'm a Brit and we had no such state of affairs in 1964.
1.33 in 2013 to 1.548 now. A minor improvement. Still below replacement levels.
Exceptions that do not prove the rule.
But you were suggesting that they are now, currently, the largest drain on the NHS. No they are not.
This would lead to serious racial relations breakdowns and persecution.
>Exceptions have a cause. And they DO PROVE the low births aren't inevitable. Why do you think in Israel even secular Jews have high birth rates?
I have no idea. I am not familiar with the local culture there as to why it holds in a way that it doesn't almost everywhere else.
Birth rates are dropping almost everywhere, even in African countries.
>Blacks and Muslims in the UK are more likely to be on benefits, they are more likely to be unemployed and more likely to commit crime
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/benefits/state-support/latest/#by-ethnicity-and-type-of-support
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-11-april-2024/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-11-april-2024#:~:text=77.5%25%20of%20those%20claiming%20Universal,of%20claimants%20in%20April%202024.
What?
>Racial relations are already bad. Besides, America can split solving any racial problems forever.
There's no support for splitting the USA up full stop. It's one of the most stable countries on earth.
I have no idea
Birth rates are dropping almost everywhere, even in African countries.
There's no support for splitting the USA up full stop. It's one of the most stable countries on earth.
>I do have a very good idea. Conservative culture, the belief they are the chosen people, demographic treat from Muslims or minorities. All those could be applied to West Europeans and White Americans.
And how does one suddenly change culture, exactly?
And again, birth rates are dropping in Islamic conservative countries too.
>In third world countries they are expected to drop as they develop. They still aren't critically below replacement. Birth rates dropped in the West just as leftist took over the culture in the 1960s
Or maybe it was just general economically and technological development that fundamentally shift culture surrounding the interest towards people having kids.
Poland and Greece are some of the most conservative countries in Europe, and also have some of the worst birth rates in Europe.
>Current support is not an argument that a hypothetic split would not solve problems.
If you do not have such support, trying to force it would cause serious problems.
And how does one suddenly change culture, exactly
And again, birth rates are dropping in Islamic conservative countries too.
Or maybe it was just general economically and technological development that fundamentally shift culture surrounding the interest towards people having kids
If you do not have such support, trying to force it would cause serious problems.
>One changes culture by admitting the country needs more births otherwise immigrants will change it's identity and probalby turn it worse. Also, why does it need to be done suddenly?
Everyone knows that birth rates are in decline. In every country. It doesn't change anything.
>Western cultural infuence among the youth. Internet...
Any direct evidence for this?
>It was more probably feminism, LGBT, pornography, individualism, atheism, YOLO...etc The media openly encourage people having less kids.
Ah yes, people from the Middle-East are notable pro-LGBT, into porn, atheist etc.
LGBT people are not responsible for straight people choosing to have less kids. I don't see why pornography would be directly relevant here. Individualism? I guess. This has as much association with capitalism as it does liberalism. Do you want to live in a totalitarian country if it has higher birth rates?
Atheism? Poland and Greece say hi with their shoddy birth rates, amongst the worst in the UK. Also Islamic world again.
>If people were made aware of the things I am aware, the support would be there. Stop censoring and smearing racial realism.
I am not censoring anything.
And yes, this is just peak narcissism "if everyone just agreed with me then what I want would happen. I'm right about everything and wrong about nothing".
Everyone knows that birth rates are in decline. In every country. It doesn't change anything.
Any direct evidence for this?
Ah yes, people from the Middle-East are notable pro-LGBT, into porn, atheist etc.
LGBT people are not responsible for straight people choosing to have less kids.
I don't see why pornography would be directly relevant here.
Individualism? I guess. This has as much association with capitalism as it does liberalism. Do you want to live in a totalitarian country if it has higher birth rates?
Atheism? Poland and Greece say hi with their shoddy birth rates, amongst the worst in the UK. Also Islamic world again.
I am not censoring anything.
I’ve heard of this suggestion before. It would be remarkably popular and you just know the first people to be rushing away from blacks would be the champagne Socialists like Skavau.
This is exactly what I support. I originally suggested something like this for media: there should be shows and movies with casts that are racially homogeneous, with White being the main group in the U.S. and Europe, as well as mixed-race casts. This gives people the most options. As you put it so clearly, this idea can also be applied to countries.
shareName me a single example of a double standard from White identatarians (people who are called "White supremacists")
I was a neo-Nazi. Then I fell in love with a black woman
How is a personal story of someone who changed their views an example of a double standards from White identatarians? I can give you plenty of examples of people who were leftists but then became right wingers, myself to start.
shareYou will have to be more specific then in what you will and won't accept. I would argue that a clear example of 'double standards' from a White identitarians (people who are called "White supremacists") with regards to race would be accepting a partner of a different race as an equal. More examples:
https://nypost.com/2017/08/29/i-was-a-neo-nazi-until-i-fell-in-love-with-a-black-woman/
Keith was a neo-Nazi. Catherine is black and needed a bodyguard. Now they lovingly hold hands and kiss everywhere they go.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=368049040454619
Perhaps, you can supply an example of that which you will accept? I hope people won't think you are just moving goalposts.
Those are not double standards. There are practical consequences of marrying outside your race. Nobody has an obligation to race mix. The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize. The left has double standards, not White identatarians.
shareThose are not double standards. There are practical consequences of marrying outside your race.
The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize.
I'm sorry but this just special pleading. If one believes in the 'superiority' of one's race one does not accept a representative of another as an equal, let alone promise to 'love honour and obey'. The infamous Miscegenation Laws of the past show how racists then viewed such things as unacceptable.
This is irrelevant and just your opinion; but thank you anyway.
And I note you didn't offer examples of white supremacist hypocrisy you would accept. I wonder why?
[the] downsides of race mixing, from lower IQ
to higher chance of domestic abuse and divorce,
"The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize. " it's a valid argument unless you can show this isn't the case.
to identity crisis of mixed race children
.if they say demanded independence and purity for White countries, but pushed for multiracialism for brown countries
Pure cope 🤦♂️
Embrace reality instead, you’ll feel better.
Sarcasm is not an argument.
shareOK.
How is that relevant?
OK
How is that relevant?
QED
Just so you know. I'm really only looking for debate here.
Meaningless and wrongful usage
why are you farting out mindless and irrelevant assertions like ‘Sarcasm is not an argument’?
QED : "that which was to be demonstrated" or "what was to be shown".
You agreed with an 'OK' that sarcasm is not an argument, so... QED
To save you wasting more time with sarcasm over argument. Also, as you run close to it in your last reply, you may wish to know that ad hominems are not arguments either. Can we move on now?
My ‘OK’ was not agreement.
You’re not really bright enough .... mast**bating over your baby steps in Latin
This sounds a rather unusual usage. What did your 'OK' really mean, then? - 'Nope'? LOL
(Amended as your insult 'breaches community standards' apparently. Nice going.)
Remember when I said an ad hominem is not an argument either? I do.
I could waste my time explaining it
There were no insults,
Remember when I told you [rudeness repeated] ... I do.
when are you going to actually make a point in this ‘debate’
Your ‘point’ is ‘Sarcasm is not an argument’?
We’ve already established that that was a mindless and irrelevant assertion you farted out. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
You’re a low IQ poseur with nothing of substance to contribute, repeatedly humiliating yourself with the wrongful use of Latin phrases 🤦🏻♂️
You’re a low IQ poseur with nothing of substance to contribute,
There is no ad hominem, you’re simply being described. If you don’t like the description then change yourself.
I’m still trying to discern what your argument is, so telling me ‘ad hominem is not an argument’ is irrelevant - I can’t make an argument until I know what yours is.
It’s clear now that you don’t have one, so all you’ve got left are these vapid low-IQ poseur posts in which you embarrassingly misuse Latin phrases. Do better.
I’m still trying to discern what your argument is,
you’re simply being described.
low-IQ poseur
I can see nothing is going in. Humiliate yourself with another low IQ poseur post. Go…
First of all, how the hell did you get to write such a long post here? When I try it, I can't type anymore.
The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that mixed race people have lower IQs than white people or other racial groups. Difference in academic test scores, if any, have different reasons than 'race':
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/multi-racial-adolescents-show-no-test-score-gap-with-whites/
"The black-white test score gap does not appear to be an inevitable fact of nature. It is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools... But despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites."
First of all, how did you get to write such a long post here? When I try it, I can't type anymore.
Science hasn't identified all the genes for intelligence yet, so you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause.
Wrong. The correlation between brain size and IQ is about 0.3 - 0.4. A moderate correlation. Genes get expressed as one ages. That is why adults look more different from each other as babies and toddlers. This is the reason for increase in brain size differences and IQ with age. Male and female brain size differences are due to visual-spatial differences. Men are better at navigating long distances which makes evolutionary sense since they were hunters. Larger brain size of men actually IS a cause of male - female visual spatial scores.
My point really; and so QED. Thank you.
The correlation between brain size and IQ is about 0.3 - 0.4. A moderate correlation.
increase in brain size differences and IQ with age.
Male and female brain size differences are due to visual-spatial differences. Men are better at navigating long distances which makes evolutionary sense since they were hunters. Larger brain size of men actually IS a cause of male - female visual spatial scores.
I said 100%. You can prove it with 99% chance.
correlation does not imply causation.
Research suggests that IQ scores can be stable across the lifespan, but this stability can be influenced by various factors such as the type of test used, practice with such tests, the presence of developmental disorders, as well as, yes, genetic factors.
the point still stands that women are just as intelligent as men even with smaller brain sizes.
The '99%' in this instance is just your convenient conjecture.
Unfortunately your arguments, no matter how coyly couched, inevitably remind one of those of the old disreputable eugenicists, in that comparing different 'races' leads to the discovery of inferior ones and how important it is to keep the superior ones 'pure' by discouraging mixing of blood.
(never theirs, naturally)
It does not PROVE causation
I listed many more pieces but you simply ignored them.
I said racial IQ gap, not individual IQ score.
Men are about 3-4 IQ points smarter than women
they are a LOT smarter in visual spatial abilities.
all other circumstantial evidence
If some races were hypothetically speaking less intelligent and more prone to bad behavior, wouldn't it be moral to discourage interbreeding with those races and keeping them out?
In which case once again you are arguing without proof.
Unfortunately, as I said space for replies is limited.
The point was that differences in IQ between races can be explained in part by the same factors.
The general consensus is that there is no significant difference in average IQ between men and women.
"Social scientists have long understood race to be a social construct used in its most benign form to categorize groups of people according to a small group of phenotypes and cultural differences and in its most insidious form to assign value to a social hierarchy. ..A review of the medical literature since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 revealed that race, a social construct created to justify slavery, continues to be used as a genetic category, due to a lack of understanding of the continuous nature of human genetic variation."
[circumstantial evidence] It does not prove itself,
"IQ between races can be explained in part by the same factors."
Like What?
even if men and women are equally smart, that does not prove that there is no correlation of brain size and intelligence and that the latter cannot be used as a piece of evidence suggesting genetic cause.
Race is a real biological phenomenon" - Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, 2022
2019 meta analysis on heritability of race found no significant differences suggesting the gap is genetic
In which case your arguments are not proved.
As previously noted, correlation is not cause.
Other opinions can quickly be found eg
"Heritabilities, however, did not substantially differ by race
Nobody is proposing sterilization of other races.
Only stop blaming Whites for their failure and stop mass immigration.
Correlation does not PROVE causation but it can indicate it.
Short amateur video
No differences in heritability means GENETICS IS the cause. If environment was the cause, heritability would differ.
Boy, you're dumb.
One white failure is exactly that failure to stop immigration. But scapegoating is a long and dishonorable tradition, well evidenced.
And so it is ... not proved. See how it works? In fact most of your points have been around a perceived correlation and implied cause. When, just as I said, the two are just not the same. I hope that helps.
s that the best you can do? YouTube btw is not university or even a scientific authority.
Genes are inherited. If environment etc was the real cause of different IQs between peoples, then unchanged heritability would what one might expect. Environments are no biological factors. Glad to help.
So you admit there is a very, very, very good probability that race and IQ is real?
It addresses every point of race deniers if environment was depressing Blacks IQ more than White IQ, heritability of IQ of Blacks would be smaller.
'Race' is not a biological fact, as already explained. IQ is real, although questions of how exactly it is expressed and measured are vexed.
Exactly; and you are the one favoring correlation and causes in favors of black IQ are you not? In addition your link definitely claims Race/Ethnicity × Heritability interactions' likely do not exist,' which rather rules out your warning about mixed races.
Again, one has to wonder why you are concerned with decrying the supposed lower intelligence of blacks while ignoring stupid white people. One also wonders why people should not be allowed to mingle and marry as they please.
For those interested, a more nuanced and informed discussion of this issue (ie not Youtube) can be found here
Yes it is.
People who deny it do it because they think it makes them good people.
You said my source showing no heritability differences between races proves IQ equality. I showed you it proves exact opposite.
Do you deny that it is likely Blacks have lower IQs due to genes than Whites?
What the hell are you talking about dude?
The Black and White IQ gap is not closing
Biologically speaking is just isn't; sorry about that.
People who deny it know good science.
No heritability differences mean any difference come from things other than genes eg environment.
They don't show a hereditary cause. The main point is that IQ itself might likely be affected by environment and other external factors. But even if we accept your claim, it is still not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of supposed intelligence;
why you are concerned with decrying the supposed lower intelligence of blacks while ignoring stupid white people? Your implication that mixed-races are not desirable or 'not celebrated' is an attack on personal freedom.
It has narrowed since 1970
" Biologically speaking is just isn't; sorry about that."
Yes it is. Just because our entire society denies it ..
No heritability differences means environment is NOT the cause. You still don't understand.
No, outlawing interracial marriage is an attack on personal freedom.
Not celebrating is not attack on anything.
When was I ignoring stupid Whites?
If you control for an increased amount of mixed race people who are classified as "Black..
LOL
I would say the same about you and repeating your error does not make it right. At the very least most researchers conclude that external forces can have an influence.
Unfortunately you often do more that just this. Justifying hate for instance.
When have you mentioned them?
In other words move the goalposts.
is it really right to discriminate against, even hate minorities because of their perceived lower intelligence which it seems as if you are doing.
So you would deny that the post WW2 moral zeitgeist in the West is the evils of the holocaust and racism? That this does not play a role in the motivation to convince the public that races do not exist?
Environment plays some role, but according to evidence it's probably minor
Would resenting celebration smoking or obesity be just "hate"?
When was there a need to mention [stupid whites]?
When was I advocating "hate" due to lower intelligence? If I advocate resentment of Blacks it's because of their behavior such as crime, their entitled attitude and the lack of gratitude to what Whites did for them etc.
another one of your unfounded theories?
influence the IQ of a child to a great extent
Why would the hatred of other races be just mere 'resentment'?
To keep you seeming racist in using this factor to discriminate only against blacks.
If you suddenly decided to control for an increased amount of mixed race people in assessing black IQ that is goalpost moving.
Else why go on about it?
Negativism to the race concept which became apparent during the last decades, in many respects might be explained ..
It (biologically speaking) is definitely explained by the findings of modern science, as I shown.
Because of their behavior. Make a disnction (sic) between irrational hatred and legit resentment.
How much is "great extent"? 30%, 40% [links follow]
If stupid and violent Whites had an obvious visible tell tale that they're likely stupid and violent, I would not oppose using that external sing (sic) to be used so people can protect themselves.
our claim was that Black and White IQ has narrowed. If Blacks just became more White it hasn't narrowed.
I don't need to the courts and law already do it for us all. But that you cannot apparently tell (or choose not to distinguish) yourself is worrying..
Once again one is given the impression that you wish to discriminate against people whose genome 'means' a disapproved tendency is inescapable
so now you can stop focussing just on other ethnic groups and be more balanced can't you?
if the gap has narrowed they would be closer to the white IQ scores would they not? QED
Ok, how do the courts distinguish it?
Resenting Blacks and Muslims (as long as you express it through the ballot box and not in your personal life) is legit resentmentsomething I think we have agreed on before. Whether or not that 'resentment' is actually something else is something else again of course, just as if the reasons for it are logical and sensible.
Genetics has never been disproven as the cause of different behavior between races.
Sometimes active hate is hard to miss (or disguise). The recent sentencing of 600 whites for rioting shows that.
something I think we have agreed on before. Whether or not that 'resentment' is actually something else is something else again of course, just as if the reasons for it are logical and sensible.
As just previously noted you are mixing good science with bad again to make a point to suit yourself.
[blockquote]So you don't know how to distinguish legit ethnic grievances and irrational hate and don't even know how the courts distinguish it. [/blockquote]
Please see earlier when I gave the UK definitions of types of hate - which are clear enough for the courts and me. Those convicted are for hate and not for 'grievances'
Yet you accuse me and people on my side of irrational hate.
So you agree resentment against bad behaving ethnic groups on the aggregate is legit?
science debunked a possibility that genetics could be the cause of racial differences in behavior With that in mind, since races behave differently
Please see earlier when I gave the UK definitions of types of hate - which are clear enough for the courts and me. Those convicted are for hate and not for 'grievances'
It is when just based on 'race' which is a scientifically discredited notion.
What is legit is the resentment against the behaviour, not the 'race' which you and your ilk focus on.
You are doing that thing again, using reputable science (genes) with bad ('race') to justify prejudice.
Where did you specifically distinguish raising legit ethnic grievances and "irrational hate"?
Please tell me again how to distinguish the twoThe fact that you say you really can't tell is worrying. Hate: feel intense dislike for. Grievance: real or imagined cause for complaint. I hope that helps. But it won't.
Replace race with ethnicity. If ethnic Poles would be pouring in Slovakia, replacing the ethnic Slovaks with immigration and high births, would Slovaks have a legit grievance to oppose this? How would they raise their reservations without being accused of "hate"?
how me where science has debunked a possibility that genetics could be the cause of racial differences in behavior"A lot of things are possible. But are they likely? The biological and social sciences generally agree that race is a social construct, not a precise representation of human genetic variation. If your assertion is otherwise then the onus on proof is yours.
"Where I quoted the UK legal definitions of hate. Nowhere is mere grievance included."
So you admit even the legal system cannot distinguish raising ethnic grievances and irrational hate? How do you know then that what you label "hate" isn't justified grievances? (which HAVE to be allowed in a democracy)
" Hate: feel intense dislike for. Grievance: real or imagined cause for complaint. "
OK by which standard then you include what people like Tommy Robinson or Anne Marie Waters say is "hate" and not justified ethnic grievance?
"I feel sorry for any group, or commentator who think that hate is the answer to anything."
You did not answer my question. Another evasion.
"A lot of things are possible. But are they likely? The biological and social sciences generally agree that race is a social construct, not a precise representation of human genetic variation."
That same mainstream science acknowledges that there are average genetic differences between the races. (or populations whatever you like to call them).
"If your assertion is otherwise then the onus on proof is yours."
The context was me challanging you how do you know there aren't racial differences in predispostion to behavior. The burden is on you. My evidence is everything except identifiying actual genes (which can't be the standard since science isn't as advanced yet to do so). IQ studies, twin studies, adoption studies, brain size studuies, behavioral differences, IQ controlled for SES and education, IQ subtest heritability, school performance, welfare use, crime rates, single motherhood rates, sucess and GDP growth of countries....etc.
So you admit even the legal system cannot distinguish raising ethnic grievances and irrational hate? How do you know then that what you label "hate" isn't justified grievances?
OK by which standard then you include what people like Tommy Robinson or Anne Marie Waters say is "hate" and not justified ethnic grievance?By the clear definition of the law, including case law.x. Hate is not 'legit'. Nor does 'grievance' give the right to defame come to that EG
You did not answer my question. How would they raise their reservations without being accused of "hate"By staying within the national and international law on hate which, as I have shown, has been the basis of frequent, successful prosecutions, based on clear definitions also shown. Please move on.
science acknowledges that there are average genetic differences between the populationsThere is only about 0.1% of genetic variation between any two people while 'racial purity' does not exist. You have been told this before.
you how do you know there aren't racial differences in predispostion to behavior. The burden is on you.
My evidence is everything except identifiying actual geneslol
So you admit that the legal system does not allow ANY way for indigenous Whites to raise their legit ethnic grievances? That it doesn't even attempt to distinguish irrational hate and legit concerns? Yet you still accuse the right of "irrational hat" and claim it's not about legit grievances? That pretty much proves my case that what you label "hate" is justified and that the law is unjust to it's own indigenous ethnic group. They are being replaced in their own country by worse behaving ethnic groups, they were never asked and are censored and smeared and even prosecuted if they fight back.
By staying within the national and international law on hate which, as I have shown, has been the basis of frequent, successful prosecutions, based on clear definitions also shown
>Most have stayed within the law. Mark Collet or Ane Marie Waters have never been convicted or hate. They are however accused of "hate" by the media and people like you and censored and smeared under it's justification. Yet nobody cannot disguise how what they is "hate" as opposed legit ethnic grievance. How would they raise ethnic grievances for native Brits without anyone accusing them of "hate"? Give me an example or admit the accusation of "hate" against them is unfair.
Who cares? They're not arrested by your own admission. No-one stops them forming political parties and running for office, as they do. They are just deeply unpopular and can't get elected. It's not the role of the state to give them a form of political affirmative action and uplift their position. They are not owed political representation.
But that's my point. Why do they deserve to be deeply unpopular? What that they do is inherently immoral? You can disagree, but the left doesn't just disagree. They are outraged over Mark Collet and Anne Marie Waters. What is the justification for outrage?
the legal system distinguishes quite readily between a grievance and a hate crime.
By using unhateful speech
>But that's my point. Why do they deserve to be deeply unpopular?
Because racism, or specifically, the concept of constructing policy that treats people differently based on their heritage is unpopular. You don't get to just demand that it isn't unpopular.
>What that they do is inherently immoral? You can disagree, but the left doesn't just disagree. They are outraged over Mark Collet and Anne Marie Waters. What is the justification for outrage?
Mark Collett once celebrated the deaths of Africans and gay people over AIDs. He's also currently the leader of Patriotic Alternative which is an outright neo-nazi organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Alternative
Anne-Marie Waters is jsut vociferously anti-muslim. I don't believe she's actually expressed any specific racist positions.
>Then name the distinction for me. How would Sam Melia raise his political grievance (and raise it just as effectively) in a democracy like the UK without being prosecuted and convicted?
There's no right to have it "raised effectively". Not sure what you mean there. Winning elections? He could just do all the things that Mark Collett and Anne-Marie Waters have done, both of whom are not in jail.
the concept of constructing policy that treats people differently based on their heritage is
I don't believe she's actually expressed any specific racist positions.
There's no right to have it "raised effectively".
So you admit that the legal system does not allow ANY way for indigenous Whites to raise their legit ethnic grievances?
How would they raise ethnic grievances for native Brits without anyone accusing them of "hate"? Give me an example
They are being replaced in their own country by worse behaving ethnic groups,
How would they raise ethnic grievances for native Brits without anyone accusing them of "hate"?
Even leftist admit there is 15% genetic variation between races.
IF violent Whites had that sing.
Our discussion was about genetic input in IQ differences. In this context, Blacks IQ must raise without increasing White admixture.
I can see no reason why stupid violent people cannot be identified just easily no matter who they are.
And recent research shows the gap has narrowed
But the question still remains as to why anyone ought to be discriminated against generally on the basis of perceived intelligence.
No they can't be easily identified.
there will be discrimination against worse behaving visible ethnic groups.such as insurrectionists and rioters in the UK lately? Go it.
Black and White IQ gap is not closing
Don't companies give candidates IQ test to decide who to hire?But they don't assume at the start that blacks are more stupid to justify exclusion; we are also talking discrimination in general. share
Yet here you are, suggesting that they can be easily identified, conveniently for you of course, in some ethnic groups...
there will be discrimination against worse behaving visible ethnic groups.
Reviews by Flynn and Dickens,
is it right to discriminate against those one perceive as less intelligent on that basis?
In which case why don't we prefer Asians and the Chinese to those (in comparison) stupid whites?
But they don't assume at the start that blacks are more stupid to justify exclusion;
Yes they can as long as external appearance (race) is strongly correlated with behavior. Within race it's more difficult.
If you want to discriminate against a guy with a painted face wearing a giant Viking hat who storms congress, that's fine by me.
"is it right to discriminate against those one perceive as less intelligent on that basis?"
Yes [excuse followed]
Economic differences are only a problem when Whites do better than someone else, not when someone else does better than Whites.
'Race' is not by consensus seen as true biological science,
You also seem to be showing double standards: whites riots because of external reasons it
while bad behaviour is put down to 'genes'. Another example to add your initial OP request, in fact..
I think you'll find the courts did that already. Is Viking helmet wearing by whites down to genes or social pressure btw?
[excuse followed]
Thank you for your unevidenced opinion.
Er.. so this difference one of the reasons you implied caused the recent immigration riot? ("Taking our jobs,benefits and homes" etc) Thought so.
LOL
The context of our particular debate here is correlation of external appearance and behavior and weather or not can be useful information.
How many such White riots in Iceland, Finland or Estonia (ethnically homogenous).Which if true, goes against your previous claims that (black) bad behaviour was based on genes...
You think current UK riots would be happening if the UK was 99% White?You have an unduly deterministic view of UK history to suit an agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_riots
Lost of evidence suggesting genes are the reason for Black violence.
Evasionoted
you don't have a comeback by ignoring the argument and simply labelling it "excuse".It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of 'intelligence' and it is an excuse for racism since we do not exclude, say whites, in favour of the 'more intelligent' Asians.
The point was leftist hypocrisy of demanding racial equality of Whites and Blacks, but having no problem of differences between Whites and Asians
"Taking our jobs,benefits and homes" etc) Thought so. Those are all legit grievancesBut economically illiterate. However as I have shown 'legit grievance' is not the same as a hate crime.
Which if true, goes against your previous claims that (black) bad behavior was based on genes...
You have an unduly deterministic view of UK history to suit an agenda.
lol Make yer mind up!
It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of 'intelligence' and it is an excuse for racism since we do not exclude, say whites, in favor of the 'more intelligent' Asians.
Whites and black are not 'races'.
But economically illiterate. However as I have shown 'legit grievance' is not the same as a hate crime.
How are lack of riots in ethnically homogenous countries not a valid counter argument?
You think current UK riots would be happening if the UK was 99% White?
Asians are wealthier than Whites, have higher education and nobody complains about that
FF "Whites and black are not 'races'."
A really pathetic dodge
You failed to distinguish legit grievance and hate which is what I asked.
Of course every country has had some types of riots. But racial riots (like the one recent in the UK) is a result of diversity. If the UK was 99% White, this riot would not happen. It also probably wouldn't happen if the UK imported Europeans and Chinese instead of Africans and Muslims.
people will always seek to blame outsiders or newcomers
It is true though, please see previous posts.
Or, check the dictionary for the separate and distinct definitions of 'hate' and 'grievance'.
But racial riots (like the one recent in the UK) is a result of diversity.
It also probably wouldn't happen if the UK imported Europeans and Chinese instead of Africans and Muslims.Thank you for your opinion, but even if true it probably tells us more of the types of bigotry and racism common to the English than the faults of those ethnic groups you always like to suggest.
Then why aren't they blaming the Chinese?More repeating of the same question. Please see my last answer. And see But https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/chinese-students-most-likely-face-racism-uk-post-covid#:~:text=Students%20from%20China%20were%20the,cent%20in%20the%202022%20study. or https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-29/Ethnic-Chinese-most-common-victims-of-racism-in-UK-according-to-poll-RHnkdR3fVu/index.html
The point was that higher Asian SES is not seen as a problem while higher White SES is. A double standard against Whites.er, but don't you usually assert that Asians are not a real problem?
I'm getting sick of this from you.Well then stop using obsolete terms (and repeating yourself, more and more, it seems)
How about you link them to me?How about you look back in our conversation when I helpfully pasted the two quite different definitions? And I remember too that you have already told me that you can in fact tell the difference. So that is you who can, those juries who convict haters and the legal system. The only outliers, it would seem, are those obdurate who try and confuse things with the special pleading that hate and grievance are really just the same. share
"immigrants than 'diversity' per se."
This is the same issue.
So if the UK imported Chinese and they caused less problems, it would be proof of how the English are bigoted? In other words, minorities have no agency, their behavior should never be taken into account?
"And see"
Like I already said Covid was a special situation. If it originated in Germany, then Germans would most probably be likely victims of Covid era discrimination. Also if Chinese are discriminated and they still cause less crime, that suggests Black crime is not a result of discrimination.
don't you usually assert that Asians are not a real problem?
In other words, minorities have no agency, their behavior should never be taken into account
Also if Chinese are discriminated and they still cause less crime, that suggests Black crime is not a result of discrimination
I can tell the difference between grievance and hate under MY definition of hate. The left has a different definition of hate (more broad one) that is why they allege that
perfectly legit grievances from Whites fall under their definition of hate.
You still don't get it. The left isn't just claiming that individual minorities can be victims in specific situations. They are claiming that they are victims collectively. What I'm saying is that they are only victims collectively if they are discriminated more than how they behave. If their alleged discrimination is a result of their aggregate behavior, then they are not victims.
Whites behaved no worse than others in the past and today behave the best. In fact, today they behave in a destructively pathological altruistic way.
Ok thanks for your opinion, but where is your argument that Black crime has to be a result of discrimination. My theory is that discrimination is the cause of Black crime. Chinese were discriminated in the past (today almost zero) yet they still commit much less crime.
"The distinction I am discussing is the one determined by successful prosecutions"
Yet you are still yet to list that distinction to me. And even if you do it has to allow for White ethnic grievances to be heard, otherwise the country cannot claim to be democratic, free and fair.
If they weren't a burden on Whites,
In my reply earlier I gave plenty of reasons why immigration (ie not just 'blacks' a group which seems to exercise you must) has been seen generally as an advantage to the UK at least.
It never seems to worry you how much some whites are a burden on minorities.
The largest minorities (Blacks and Muslims) are a huge burden to the country both financially as well as safety wise not to mention politically (riots and protests).
'some whites are a burden on minorities.'
They aren't. If they were, they would try to get away from Whites.
Ethnic minority-led businesses (EMBs) in the UK contribute between £25 billion and £74 billion to the UK economy each year:
And I didn't see many members of ethnic minorities in the recent riots, mostly white thugs.
Believe me during the various race riots in the UK they try and do so, or cower inside immigration centres while the white add to the fires.
You seem determined to see the worst in other groups other than whites. If you are white I don't have pride in you
A bunch of numbers without context
without any data on how much they cost is not evidence that non Whites in the UK on average contribute more than they take in.
Whites protest because they are losing their homeland and having it turned into a shithole, minorities riot because one of their criminals was accidentally killed by a cop after resisting arrest and because they failed to reach equality with Whites despite preferential treatment.
"cower inside immigration centres while the white add to the fires.". IDK what you ate talking about.
Where is your counter argument against my point that if Whites oppressed Blacks, Blacks would try to get away?
. If the problem is only me, why don't I complain about Chinese immigrants?because your discrimination appears to be against blacks which you call a 'race' and use the prejudices common to eugenics.. share
the overall contribution to the UK economy by immigrants
nationalists which stoked the flames of the recent riots they do not, as a rule use your careful justifications and are very unsubtle (and false)
"cower inside immigration centres while the white add to the fires.".
The counter argument is that many blacks are UK nationals and that immigrants are often fleeing terrible conditions when they come here only to face aggression, misinformation-fuelled violence and discrimination.
because your discrimination appears to be against blacks
No, you just lited the benefits side and not the COST side.
So you are saying minoritiy(sic) crime, welfare use, demographic change, less free speech - all that are not the cause of White working class disatisfaction (sic)?
If it wasn't government who is needlessly destroying the country with needless immigration..[blah]Thank you for your unprejudiced opinion, but see just above. And as I have shown already, in key sectors in the UK at least, we really, really need immigration to keep the system going at all. Stupid white people don't make good doctors.
The point was that if a given ethnic group does not want to get away from their alleged oppressors that they are not really oppressed by them. Can you not see the logic?
If I was just "racist" why wouldn't I also have "prejudice" against East Asians and high caste Hindus? They also aren't White.
Some of the supporting quotes were from a link you provided.
Blacks are significantly more likely blah
As for all state benefits, Whites are much OLDER than minorities so they are more likely to be pensioners.
So you do not deny they are more likely on benefits? I am complaining about both. All Blacks are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argumnet not to take in much more Black immigrants.
Which fact indicates that they are a greater burden on the public purse from immigrants say, who tend to be young.
All Blacks are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants.
If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argumnet not to take in much more Black immigrants.
Unless you are Native American, then so are you.
based on data of the positive net contribution of immigrants, necessary not least because of the increasingly pensionable population.
Aren't we discussing UK?We have been ranging all over the place to be fair. However most of the anti immigration rhetoric here comes from Americans. No idea where you are from.
Why would they be discriminated unless they behave worse.
Why aren't there such problems with Chinese and Indians? Answer please
Again why are you ignoring my argument about WHERE do we want to take in immigrants?Are you sure the matter of 'where' it was addressed to me, I don't recall seeing it. share
also, aren't you a poster who has argued that whites are 'discriminated' against all the time by 'whining liberals' et al?
it was addressed to me, I don't recall seeing it.
Whites are discriminated because society is taught to dislike Whites by our institutions. Minorities are (to the extent that they are) because of how they behave.
No influential institution today teaches people to discriminate against minorities.
In the US Indians are by far the richest group and they generally don't complain about discrimination nearly as much as Blacks.
In the UK Indians are successful too,
How does behavior of Whites 100 years ago affect how Blacks are viewed today as opposed to how they behave being a more likely culprit?
Show me evidence of this overt "racism" and how - even if it exists - is not a result of Black behavior?
I meant, Indians, not Native American you dummy. You really thought I said Native Americans were the richest ethnic group in America LOL?
If Indians are discriminated it could be they are conflated with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and other brown people who behave worse. Blame those people, not Whites. And even if they are discriminated due to Whites, they still aren't victims. UK is a country built by native Brits. If others don't like it there, leave. I don't have a right to move to Japan and demand Japanese society conforms to my interests as a non Japanese.
If only we could find a reason for whites rioting in their racial genes though eh?
And as I have shown already, in key sectors in the UK at least, we really, really need immigration to keep the system going at all. Stupid white people don't make good doctors.
Yes and we can see that, er, in people risking their lives in small boats all the time, can't we?
"If only we could find a reason for whites rioting in their racial genes though eh?"There is no correlation between IQ and 'peace'.
Yes prosperity which comes from IQ is the reason for peace and lack of rioting.
Whites are on average smarter than most (most) ethnic minorities.
No need for Africans or Muslism.(sic)
They're trying to get away from their fellow ethnic comrades and get to us.
Yet they complain they're oppressed by us, not themselves.Perhaps because, despite all our fine words and implied superiority, we sometimes offer hatred and inequality to them. Oh sorry, we offer 'legit grievances' and riot. share
So you do not deny they are more likely on benefits? I am complaining about both. All Blacks are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argument not to take in much more Black immigrants.
Which fact indicates that they are a greater burden on the public purse from immigrants say, who tend to be young.
If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argument not to take in much more Black immigrants.
So you do not deny they are more likely on benefits?
Minorities will get old someday too.Never the less immigrants' taxes are needed to help pay the pensions of an increasingly elderly white population in the UK.
Minorities choosing to be a burden So even you don't deny that they are a negative contribution? The whole point of immigration is supposedly economic benefit
Seems to me like we have made well case to import more White immigrants and less brown ones.
Stereotyping refers to an individual. We are not dealing with an individual, but a group
"No, recent immigrants to the UK are less likely to claim benefits than people born in Britain."
Race data please. With regards to economic contribution EEA (White) immigrants are way better than non EEA (non White) so it's very likely Black and Muslim immigrants are more likely to be on benefits than White immigrants.
"Never the less immigrants' taxes are needed to help pay the pensions of an increasingly elderly white population in the UK."
Which immigrants? Also any immigrants wouldn't be needed if births were to increase. The ruling elite didn't even try to do that.
"Seems to me that you think 'natives' means ethnics rather than the existing UK population generally."
Brown people are not natives.
Stereotyping refers to an individual. We are not dealing with an individual, but a group
Race data please.Please look back to where I tell you about 'race'. But illegal immigrants are not entitled to benefits in the UK. The only financial help available to refugees is a refugee integration loan, Unemployed migrants are also less likely to claim unemployment benefits than unemployed people born in the UK. "Recent immigrants are 43% (17 percentage points) less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits. These differences are partly attributable to immigrants’ more favourable age-gender composition. However, even when compared with natives of the same age, gender composition, and education, recent immigrants are still 39% less likely than natives to receive benefits." https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk
""Never the less immigrants' taxes are needed to help pay the pensions of an increasingly elderly white population in the UK." Which immigrants?Does it matter> If they pay taxes it goes in the pot. Diversion noted.
Also any immigrants wouldn't be needed if births were to increase.Maybe not, but unfortunately most birth rates are falling in the west. Immigrants in the UK are also needed of course for all those jobs the locals just can't be persuaded to do.
Brown people are not natives.Any citizen is a native. Or do you mean not 'true' natives? share
"stereotyping is the act of holding a standardized mental picture of a group "
It's based on data. Since the issue is importation of certain ethnic groups and weather or not we should be taking them, we have to use aggregate data about ethnic groups. Your perspective is a typical example of myopic individualism. Deliberately ignoring the forest for the trees.
Again ignoring racial differences which is the main point of our debate.
"Does it matter> If they pay taxes it goes in the pot. Diversion noted."
What? Yes it matters because immigrants from certain countries are a benefit while those from others are a cost. That is precisely our disagreement here. I am not opposed to Western immigrants in the UK. There is no diversion and you know it.
Nope, one cannot change ethnicity by simply getting citizenship. I bet you wouldn't consider a Russian living in Sir Lanka "native" if asked in a different context.
Your perspective is a typical example of myopic individualism.
Again ignoring racial differences
we have to use aggregate data about ethnic groups.
immigrants from certain countries are a benefit while those from others are a cost.
I am not opposed to Western immigrants in the UK.It is just the others, whom you stereotype to whom you object. Those with darker skins. Got it.
Nope, one cannot change ethnicity by simply getting citizenshipA person who was born in, or raised in, a particular country is native to it which can include immigrants. I did not mention 'changing ethnicity', so that is a Scotsman. share
"No; it is an example of giving a standard definition."
In what world is taking aggregate ethnic differences in behavior not make sense if we are deciding from which countries we should be taking immigrants?
"Most differences are, literally, skin deep."
That's simply not true. There are differences in intelligence, psychopathy rates, time preference, work ethic, vulnerability to diseases, life spans...etc, etc..
"However this is not the same as negatively stereotyping in order to exclude them en masse."
Again how do you define stereotype? Does it mean the belief has to be false? Ethnic differences in behavior are factually true. There is nothing immoral about excluding certain ethnic groups from your country and especially not if they tend to cause problems. The purpose of countries is that different ethnic groups have their homelands. No group owes inclusion to anyone else. If Japanese don't like the Chinese, they aren't obligated to take millions of them in their country just like we aren't obligated to take in Pakistanis. Even if our perceptions about Pakistanis were false, we still wouldn't be obligated to take them and they are far from false given the data.
"If only we could find a reason for whites rioting in their racial genes though eh?"There is no correlation between IQ and 'peace'.
Yes prosperity which comes from IQ is the reason for peace and lack of rioting.
Whites are on average smarter than most (most) ethnic minorities.
No need for Africans or Muslism.(sic)
They're trying to get away from their fellow ethnic comrades and get to us.
Yet they complain they're oppressed by us, not themselves.Perhaps because, despite all our fine words and implied superiority, we sometimes offer hatred and inequality to them. Oh sorry, we offer 'legit grievances' and discriminate on that mild basis. share
There is no correlation between IQ and 'peace'.
There is no reason to discriminate on reason of 'intelligence' in whole groups since differences within groups are more than without them.
On this basis, using your novel logic, they ought to be sent back to Europe where they came from.
Which sort of sums up the depth of your reasoning.
we sometimes offer hatred and inequality to them.
Yes there is a correlation between IQ and political stability and low crime.
Yes there is a reason to discriminate on the basis of intelligence as Employers tend to give IQ test to candidates.
Where are Whites swarming into East Asian countries?
Where are Whites rioting
and demanding stuff from Asians in East Asian countries?
It has never been proven minority inequality is a result of White racism
we don't owe then any "equality"Check your constitution. share
"That is not 'peace' and correlation is not cause."
Scandinavia is very peaceful and has a high IQ, Africa and ME is violent and has a low IQ. The most violent place in Europe is Balkans where the IQ is lowest. Correlation. You said there was none.
The point is intelligence is useful information about ethnic groups. As long as we can't read every individual's mind, there will be a cost in not discriminating ethnicity. And even then there would still be a cost because of regression towards the mean.
"Never heard of colonialism eh?"
Colonialism wasn't Whites swarming into already rich country as immigrants. Why are you changing my point? I said where are they rioting in E. Asian countries demanding stuff from East Asians like browns do in the West?
(This is what you do deliberately all the time. Ignoring the actual point, but changing the direction into something else so that you don't have to admit defeat)
Stuff like freedom from discrimination and hate?
Correlation. You said there was none.
there will be a cost in not discriminating ethnicity.
Colonialism wasn't Whites swarming into already rich country as immigrants.Why do you think whites colonised other countries then? To strip them of, and exploit their poverty? And yes, some colonists were de facto immigrants.
I said where are they rioting in E. Asian countries demanding stuff from East Asians like browns do in the West?Something of a loaded question, but thank you anyway. There are plenty of riots evidence around the world however, and demands are various. You are sadly stereotyping again.
This is what you do deliberately all the time. Ignoring the actual point, but changing the direction into something else so that you don't have to admit defeat
They have only themselves to blame for resentment and discrimination.
Why aren't there problems with Chinese in Europe? Why Black and brown people? Oh, it's dark skin. How about Indians?
Slavery has been disproven as a cause of racial gaps in the US.
Blacks did better than today prior to the civil rights movement by most measures of success.
Constitution says Blacks have to be equal in SES and Whites? Constitution says Whites must live in the same country with Blacks?
Why do you think whites colonised other countries then?
Colonies were an economic burden.while there might have been the odd area of exception, this is statement is just untrue.
You totally ignored my argument that Whites didn't migrate to already rich countries and live off benefits like brown people do today which was the point of our disagreement.
Conquest was virtually universally seen as moral back then.
They aren't victims if they behave a certain way.
Nope, slavery has been debunked as a cause of Black poverty by several studies:
Again with the dodge and derail to colonialism. Those countries weren't already rich. I never said all immigrants, i said it's a pattern which is important. They say they come to work and are let in on condition that they will be working, but they and their descendants still tend to take more from the government. Yes there is plenty wrong in some ethnic groups mass migrating into a country that another ethnic group built and influencing that society according to their interest at the expense of the original ethnic group. They bring their genetics, culture, politics, habits, identities and loyalties. The purpose of countries is that different ethnic groups have their homelands. Mass immigration denies sovereignty to ethnic groups who built wealth. It is the antithesis of ethnic justice.
US was founded as a White country. Non Whites were only allowed in 1965 after liberals took over the culture. Race is identity and behavior and much more than skin color. Blacks haven't fully assimilated after 400 years.
"But by the conquerors only, naturally"
That doesn't mean it was immoral. Morality is relative to the time.
How do Whites act towards minorities? Giving them DEI as well as making them 40% of people in commercials despite the fact they commit 60% of murders in the country?
Research shows
And now suddenly, correlation IS causation, eh?
How did buying slaves make those places poor?
Again, slavery as the cause of Black poverty has been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJwPpNzTWoQ (studies in the video) Effects dissipated after a few generations. IQ is the main cause. If Whites were the cause of Black poverty, how come those Blacks that live with Whites are today the wealthiest (US and UK) while those that live away from Whites are the poorest? East Africa had little slave trade, yet it's actually poorer than West Africa. If slavery was the cause of Black poverty, how come Blacks today do worse than they did prior to the civil rights movement?
Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.
However few would agree that this is a reason to argue in favour of white supremacism since it would seem a matter of education and culture while seeking a genetic proclivity for wife-beating would be a hard ask
I suppose it has never occurred to you that black children, say, may be exposed to stereotypes and discrimination due to their genetic and phenotypic makeup, which can challenge their search for a positive sense of identity?
But if they have been demanding purity for the white population in general and then marry a black person in particular that still doesn't count? I see. It really is an obvious example such as you ask for, your special pleading notwithstanding. Love of a different person is 'not the practical consequences' of marrying outside your race, but, logically vice versa.
his claim is just a desperate attempt on behalf of well intentioned people to prevent the political consequence of admitting the obvious truth. They HAVE TO lie about this
Science hasn't identified all the genes for intelligence yet, so you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause.
How is an undisputed fact of higher domestic abuse in interracial couples not a good argument to not celebrate interracial relationships?
How do mixed race children express more abuse than Black children but less than Whites?
If he changed his views it's not a double standard. If he didn't, it may be hypocrisy from him,
but not White nationalists in general.
but then, from you elsewhere only just recently
Unfortunately I don't think your attitude to peoples who are not white is really not just 'not wishing to celebrate' them. This is just mealy-mouthed.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48623311 A few seconds work. Google in your friend,
Since I am suggesting a case when, either a racist changed his views to accommodate just this personal instance or, conversely, keeps them overall anyway -it would be both as a hypocrite. The example stands.
But I wasn't being asked for proof for race supremacists in general, just to offer one example.
quote bombing fallacy
I have nothing against race mixing as long as the truth about race is not hidden and as long as it's not celebrated. I don't think race mixing should be illegal.
you source a link with more proof that race mixing shouldn't be celebrated
If White nationalists in general opposed race mixing but supported it for themselves it would be a hypocrisy. But they don't support it in general nor they demand to be personal exceptions.
Just personal hypocrisy of one individual.
Is it really a fallacy to compare what you said and find a difference?
That is very liberal of you. Neither do I. In fact it is not something I would celebrate.
You asked how do mixed race children express more abuse than Black children but less than Whites, and I showed you some research. The 'lack of celebration' is entirely your own.
This is as maybe 'in general' but you were asking for a single example which I gave and have explained why it would represent hypocrisy or double standards and below, I see you agree. But I see why now you feel the need to move goalposts. Not something I celebrate.
you deliberately took my words out of context.
But do you support censorship of science of race?
Should White women be told about the statistical risks of marrying Black men?
The context of my question was in regards to pros and cons of race mixing
asked for general double standards of White nationalist when it comes comes to race. You provided a single example of a personal (not ideological) hypocrisy of one no name individual
A convenient claim. The "obvious truth" is actually that, as you said " you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause."
humans share 99.9% of their DNA with each other, and the few differences that exist are likely due to environmental factors and not core biology. That's the science.
rejection from family or disinheritance; a sense of isolation; stares, insults, jibes, slights, and whispers? I think they can probably guess what they will face from bigots.
As already noted you are always concerned with the alleged disadvantages of mixed races for whites, never for blacks.This shows a lack of balance to say the least.
and in the end I gave three .
white supremacy is not only perpetuated by whites
but to stop importing them in West and blaming Whites for their failure
anything above 50% probability is sufficient.
Humans share 98.5% of DNA with Chimps.
Even woke race deniers themselves admit human biodiversity comes in clusters.
should people be properly informed about statistical risks of race mixing (lower IQ, identitiy crisis, higher risk of domestic abuse, divorce...etc) ?
So you admit race mixing has also downsides for Blacks?
My question was obviously about political stances of WN in general not personal lives of every individual WN... you can't name a single example
And you didn't reply to my argument that every single movement can be labelled hypocritical by this standard.
Unfortunately this just recalls the fears of Replacement Theory again and shows a level of projection (in that some whites seek scapegoats among minorities)
... For you, it appears.
I 'don't celebrate' human and chimp mixed couples.
There's not much info available about human biodiversity 'coming in clusters' I can find so this just seems speculation.
The downsides for blacks though has been lacking in your arguments, since you mention it.
You asked for individual cases - and then agreed that those I gave can can be seen as hypocritical.
A clear double standard since one presumes they wish parity themselves.
the concern about demographic change is more than justified.
There are no examples of affluent Black or brown societies in the world.
You said that the fact that differences between the races in terms of genetics is small percentage wise proves there are no races and that race differences are not important. It doesn't.
Only to certain groups. Notably those interested in racial purity, Replacement Theory etc etc
Africa has fast-growing economies
I said that biologically speaking 'race' does not exist. The American Association of Physical Anthropologists says there is no evidence that pure races exist in humans
No, concern about demographic change is legit to everyone and even to minorities living in the West. Even they should oppose it.
no it doesn't
So race does not exist because PURE RACES do not exist.
Modern science doesn't define race by skin color anymore
What misinformation? Hate is nothing but another word for resentment and resentment is justified if the party in question behaves in an immoral way. If someone hears the truth about minorities and the threat they pose and shoots up a mosque, blame the guy who shot up a mosque, not the guy who correctly warned society about the threat of Islamization. Also blame those that keep importing these people without the approval of the public. It's an extreme hypocrisy how leftists see legit concerns as "hate", but then spread true hate against Whites with White guilt and blaming Whites for failure of minorities (which leads to more violence against Whites than talking about IQ by the right against minorities).
Nine African countries are projected to be among the world's fastest growing economies
No, pure races do not exist
But you are right, hard sciences like biology don't talk about 'races' anymore
What misinformation?
Hate is nothing but another word for resentment and resentment is justified if the party in question behaves in an immoral way.
If someone hears the truth about minorities and the threat they pose
which leads to more violence against Whites than talking about IQ by the right against minorities
Black Africa as a whole..
"No, pure races do not exist"
So you agree races in general exist (absent "pure" races)?
They talk about "population" because the term "race" has become un PC.
Mass immigration and minority/immigrant burden on the country is not misinformation. The government persecutes people who advocate against mass immigration. Minorities take more from the government and commit more crime. This was the cause of riots.
In which case the alleged hatred towards whites by blacks, often condemned on this board is justified given (for instance) the institutional racism I evidenced yesterday.
Unfortunately a good number of racists and their ilk claim the truth in the event is just propaganda and fake news, even when it come from reputable sources in a fingers in the ears syndrome. As I have discovered on this board.
Glad to see you identify yourself so precisely. There seems a touch of guilt here too, which is welcome.
This is different from your original "no examples of affluent Black or brown societies in the world." to which my answer is correct.
>Mass immigration and minority/immigrant burden on the country is not misinformation. The government persecutes people who advocate against mass immigration. Minorities take more from the government and commit more crime. This was the cause of riots.
And how does the UK government persecute people against mass immigration?
>LOL Those countries you listed are not affluent societies. Having an above average GDP growth in one year is not achieving affluence. And you don't dispute that Africa AS A WHOLE is not growing and has not grown decently by any standards. It is the slowest developing continent.
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/fastest-growing-economies-in-the-world/
What?
https://carnegieendowment.org/carnegie-africa-program-newsletter/9-of-the-20-fastest-growing-economies-worldwide-in-2024-will-be-in-africa?lang=en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate
How are you defining, measuring development?
And how does the UK government persecute people against mass immigration?
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/fastest-growing-economies-in-the-world/
What?
[deleted]
And even if this fresh statement is correct, is it right to discriminate against the poor? Come to that what has it do with denying people the right to marry as they choose?
As a biological fact, no
If a given ethnic group
As long as ethnic groups and populations genetically differ from each other (and they do) race exists.
I see you are now more and more avoiding 'race' lol
'Certain ethnic groups' - Whites (for instance) have a history of wars, colonialism, exploitation
As long as the essential differences are so small then there is no essential biological distinction,
The logic applies to both ethnicities and meta ethnicities (races).
Almost everyone practiced conquest during conquest ethic and before modern international law (which whites created). Only Whites are today blamed for it because they are the only self critical people.
There is more evidence colonialism at the end helped the third world than the reverse.
Nobody would say Turks or Japanese today don't have a right to keep their country Turkish or Japanese because of Ottoman empire or WW2.
.How do you know that these "small" differences aren't enough to make statistical differences in key psychological propensities like intelligence, consciensousness (sic), agreeableness and anti social behavior? Different races today exhibit those differences
Just look at Blacks in America - still rioting after 400 years and 60 years of civil rights
The 'races' that science says doesn't exist?
Whites however provide the most prominent and far reaching examples
Are you suggesting that whites invaded other countries for those country's own good?
No, science doesn't say that [races don't exist]
even if races didn't exist in biological sense, they exist in sociological sense.
Yes because they were most successful which means they deserve credit.
. Yet you are fine with no guilt for them, but you want guilt for Whites.Please don't tell me what I want and project so much. It is a weakness..
I've shown the relevant links. You can of course decide to ignore them.
I have never denied that the concept is still clung to in the social sciences (and politics), although in the former case one wonder for how long). And a 'community' is not a 'race', nor is a'cluster' come to that.
Most successful at world-wide colonisation and exploitation and subjugation? We can agree on that.
Tired of debating this
Are there average aggregate genetic differences between the races (or populations whatever you like to call them?
The context was my argument that if a given ethnic group fails to build prosperity, it's rational to want to keep them out.
it would still be valid to keep out bad cultures.
and false premises that colonization hurt the conquered
Your prejudices against blacks
Are those small and often vexed differences enough to discriminate against a whole ethnic group?
Its just a shame that so far you have been unable to show that, overall in the UK at least this just is not the case.
Or send them all back home on the basis of a few bad apples? I know. Stereotyping noted.
Whitewashng noted.
Prejudice is PRE-judging.
Judging a race on DATA of how they tend to behave in NOT prejudiceIt is, especially if you are deliberately pursuing an obsolete scientific notion to repeatedly attack the same peoples.
Sol now you're backing up and admitting differences exist?
What is not the case?That migrants do not materially make an overall positive contribution to the [UK] economy. And you haven't. There is also the question as to why someone poor should necessarily be the subject of discrimination, let alone if they are ethnic and poor over white and poor.
Never advocated repatriations of citizens,This is a natural interpretation of your repeated assertion that the expectation of (always ethnic) minorities who face problems is that they should all, rationally, just leave or relocate.
Unfortunately nothing here you have written persuades me anything but your focus on blacks is with pre-formed views which you then seek to justify,
It is, especially if you are deliberately pursuing an obsolete scientific notion to repeatedly attack the same peoples.
the point is whether they are significant. Science certainly thinks they are not enough so to make of different ethnic groups 'races',
That migrants do not materially make an overall positive contribution to the [UK] economy.
There is also the question as to why someone poor should necessarily be the subject of discrimination, let alone if they are ethnic and poor over white and poor.
your repeated assertion that the expectation of (always ethnic) minorities who face problems is that they should all, rationally, just leave or relocate.
I judge them by data and behavior.
Obsolete scientific notion like IQ?No, of 'race'.
Criticizing needless importation of bad behaving ethnic groups
Again with repeating the idea group differences aren't likely but providing no evidence for it.
Brown migrants are a cost.Please see our previous exchanges. Even your preferred sources said, after some positives. that the negative was .. slight. Others had a more positive overall conclusion.
I don't support needlessly being mean to someone over their race if there is no cost in not discriminating. If there is a cost,
The argument "either respect us or go back" is a perfectly valid one.
What do you mean chose to accept? Shouldn't data be accepted? Shouldn't we live in reality? It's not a fallacy in the context of our debate. The context is weather we should be importing certain ethnic groups. In this context there are good behaving and bad behaving ethnic groups. You judge ethnic groups based on how they behave on the aggregate and how they behave compared to other ethnic groups who we could be importing instead. Imagine you are in the business of importing eggs and eggs come in packets. One type of egg pack has only 1% rotten eggs while another type has 10% rotten eggs. If someone deliberately knowingly imports the 10% rotten egg pack instead of the 1%, wouldn't it be fair to say that he is importing "rotten eggs"?
It was discovered in 2020 that Black people are up to 20% unknown homnin (most likely Homo Ergaster), White people are about 4% Neanderthal.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2072X9/
Whites and Blacks are to a small extent different species.
So even you admit Blacks on the aggregate behave worse? Yet you still support their immigration and blaming Whites for their behavior? When a given ethnic group one the aggregate tends to behave worse, it is perfectly rational (and even moral) to oppose the importation of that ethnic group unless you can show that their behavior is going to change and change soon. Blacks in the UK behave much worse despite never being slaves or Jim crow. The government didn't EVEN TRY to increase birth rates, and they didn't even try to first import better behaving ethnic groups like other Europeans, Chinese or Indians. They immediately took in Africans or Muslims. And now that these groups turned out to be problematic, they blame "raycisum" instead of themselves for taking them in and those communities or cultures.
What do you mean chose to accept? Shouldn't data be accepted?
In this context there are good behaving and bad behaving ethnic groups..You judge ethnic groups based on how they behave on the aggregate
Whites and Blacks are to a small extent different species.
"Stereotype much?"
We are talking about ethnic groups not individuals. Until we live in a world where every person knows everything there is to know about every other person, ethnic groups will exist and ethnic differences will always be useful information.
"As has been pointed out before, science tells us the difference between ethnic groups is generally less than inside a single group"
A deceptive technicality. Those group differences are extremely important.
"And any other differences are not viewed by science as significant"
There are very important ethnic differences like intelligence, predispositions to disease, lactose and alcohol intolerance etc. In fact it's hard to find almost any things that naturally differ between individuals that also don't differ between groups.
"Stereotype much?"Please see the Webster's definition of a stereotype, quoted earlier.
We are talking about ethnic groups not individuals.
ethnic differences will always be useful information.
science tells us the difference between ethnic groups is generally less than inside a single group"
A deceptive technicality.
There are very important ethnic differences like intelligence, predispositions to disease, lactose and alcohol intolerance etc.
No, the accusation of stereotyping is only valid morally if I am choosing to judge an individual (who I am able and required to inquire information about) based on group differences. If we are talking about groups and weather we should be IMPORTING certain groups as opposed to others, then group aggregate differences are perfectly valid territory. How else do you decide which groups a country should be importing other than group average differences? Do you even care about making your country better? Do you even care about not ruining the country?
"differences between ethnic groups are still less than those within them"
That is FAR from saying that they don't matter. The context here is importation of different ethnic groups, not judging every individual based on group average.
Sorry, but it is still the case that stereotyping is defined most often as the act of making generalizations or assumptions about a group of people based on their perceived characteristics, as already noted.
If I am choosing to judge an individual, I am able and required to inquire information about based on group differences.
Do you even care about making your country better? Do you even care about not ruining the country?
That is FAR from saying that they don't matter.
Ok so you don't care about ruining your country just so you wont' be accused of "stereotyping". Great.
"It is far more ethical and best practice to judge an individual on their own merits."
But here we are not talking about judging individuals, but groups. Immigration is a collective policy. No country has the means to judge every individual specifically to decide weather or not he should be let in (especially since they have an incentive to lie and deceive to be let in).
"And, loaded questions"
It's not a loaded question since this is literally happening. Whites will be a minority in the UK in 2060s. Muslims are rising quickly. They aren't assimilating, their values, culture and loyalties are totally different than ours. There is absolutely no reason to think they will assimilate and become like us. Unless something drastic changes, the UK will eventually become a majority Muslim country and it won't be the UK anymore. Do you not care about you country's long term identity?
"They (differences within groups) matter less than differences within ethnic groups"
Why are you just repeating this talking point and not addressing the argument? Just because there is technically more diversity within than between doesn't mean between differences can't be vastly important.
David Reich is a Jewish American geneticist and a liberal. He writes in NYT in 2018:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science."
Not a single affluent Black society in the world despite them living on 5 continents, in 50 different countries with differen histories and cultures. If you group different world regions by historic economic growth, there is almost a perfect correlation with skin color (race). The darker the skin, the worst the economic growth (India is the only exception). It is BURDEN ON YOU to prove there is no important differences between the races, because YOU are the one importing them.
Riots wouldn't happen if government only imported good behavin ethnic groups or at least listened to the working class or IDK maybe had a referendum on immigration. You know thing called democracy.
There will always be inequality among ethnic groups. Even if someone would prove genetics aren't the cause there is still culture, habits, family structure and skills...There is no benefit to try to artificially level them as it will just cause political problem, cause inefficiency and injustice to individuals. I don't see even any benefits of ethnic equality. The only problems are caused by society LYING to less successfu ethnic groups that they are oppressed.
So if Whites would move to a brown country like Sri Lanka, became a huge burden, refused to respect the host nations, it wouldn't be fair to say to them "either respect Sri Lankans or go back"?
You're not by any chance a Jared Taylor fan are you?
Love your posts. Keep them coming.
From that David Reich article: "Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.,, To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating."
It is BURDEN ON YOU to prove there is no important differences between the races
Not a single affluent Black society in the world
Riots wouldn't happen if government only imported good behaving ethnic groups
. I don't see even any benefits of ethnic equality.
So if Whites would move to a brown country like Sri Lanka, became a huge burden, refused to respect the host nations, it wouldn't be fair to say to them "either respect Sri Lankans or go back"?Given the way the immigrant whites have treated the Native Americans down the years then perhaps you can pack your bags. share
Yes technically many times smaller. But this fails to take into account the bell curve nature of distribution. The difference between the smartest White and the dumbest White is 100 IQ points, but the average difference between Whites and Blacks is only 15 points. This makes it technically "many times smaller" however this 15 point difference is enough that a White person is about 25 times more likely to have an IQ over 125 than a Black person. This average difference is EXTREMELY consequential for society and especially in the context of push for more Black doctors or lawyers etc.(DEI)
Why are you still hanging on to semantic disputes and ignoring the main point? Call them ethnic groups instead of races, the differences are still extremely important to society.
Nigeria is poor, SA is wealthy exclusively due to oil, The Bahamas GDP is artificially inflated by offshore banking and has one of the highest murder rates in the world. None of your examples are affluent societies by any standards.
This is a paper by respected economists showing the most colonized parts of Africa are the wealthiest weather you measure it by time or number of Whites settled.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18162.pdf
Sub-Saharan Africa has had the worst economic growth compared to all other regions in the world over the last 60 years after decolonization. Look at where some other former colonies are like Singapore or Hong Kong.
We are talking about race riots and those wouldn't be happening in a homogeneous country
"yours, naturally"
When have I argued for SES superiority of Whites over East Asians and Jews? If anything, I'm a merit supremacist (as every rational person should be)
Immigration and conquest are different things. When have Whites ever immigrated into a wealthy non White country? Much less demanded favoritism (so called "equality")? or caused mass crime and riots?
Yes technically many times smaller. .. White and the dumbest White is 100 IQ points, but the average difference between Whites and Blacks is only 15 points.
Call them ethnic groups instead of races, the differences are still extremely important to society.Ethnic groups are not 'races'. And the differences are, one again, not that significant. In fact they only seem important to those who judge people on their ethnic heritage rather than as citizens. There is a word for that.
None of your examples are affluent societies by any standards.
When have Whites ever immigrated into a wealthy non White country?
Much less demanded favoritism (so called "equality")?
caused mass crime and riots?
Again letting you get away with a dodge because I'm really tired debating. Hopefully the readers will see it.
"Ethnic groups are not 'races'. And the differences are, one again, not that significant"
Race is actually MORE than ethnicity and the racial differences between two races are way bigger than ethnic differences between two groups within the same race. How do you know that "the differences are not that significant"? Show the data of Black success which suggests race differences are not that significant.
Nigeria has a large economy only DUE TO IT'S LARGE POPULATION. Their GDP per capita is only 1,100 dollars in 2024 according to the IMF. This is almost 6 TIMES less than KOSOVO the poorest country in Europe which is at 6400 dollars.
Mass White immigration into a rich non White country please.
Colonialism was during different times where almost everyone believed in conquest. Nobody says Serbs today have right to demand something from Turks because of the Ottoman empire. Guilt goes only in one direction. Whites never leeched off wealth of non Whites. India was never wealthy and benefited a lot from British rule.
I'm really tired debating.
Race is actually MORE than ethnicity and the racial differences between two races are
Show the data of Black success which suggests race differences are not that significant.
Mass White immigration into a rich non White country please.
Colonialism was during different times where almost everyone believed in conquest.Not of themselves though.
Whites never leeched off wealth of non Whites.
The differences between races are bigger than the differences between ethnic groups, both genetically as well as with any important human properties. According to liberals differentiating between Swedes and Norwegians is OK, but differentiating between Whites and Blacks is not. I've given you evidence from mainstream sources and respected liberal geneticists about racial differences, yet you still deny it. You haven't even disputed the recent discovery that Blacks have up to 20% Homo Ergaster DNA while Europeans have about 4% Neanderthal DNA. If those species of homo were not the same, then how can human races be the same? The Guardian are far left liars. Here is a video of how they deliberately mislead readers about likelihood of racial IQ differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAzPniTzmg
OK so you can't show any example of any evidence that suggests there are no important race differences so you doge with semantics. OK.
I still see no examples of Whites moving into a rich non White country to live off wealth created by someone else. Third world countries that were conquered were not wealthy, that's why they got conquered. Stop with your Marxist exploitation narratives.
There was no US before Whites came, there was no country. If resources were the main reason for wealth, why weren't' the natives wealthy?
"Not of themselves though"
Don't hate the player, hate the game. They themselves believed in conquest and were conquered by someone stronger. They aren't morally superior and aren't victims.
Colonialism was Whites conqeuring peoples who were more backward than them during conquest ethic, not Whites leeching off wealth created by someone else.
I posted 13 examples. Search for them above.
Thank you for all replies. Unfortunately given that I don't think anyone is following all this by now, the fact that it is all difficult to read on screen and you are largely repeating yourself, I will leave it at that. Essentially you are merely justifying scientific racism over and over with more than a dash of white supremacy. You are fully entitled to your opinions, of course; but ultimately they leave a bad taste in the mouth.
shareThe same might be said of all those countries independent after the decline of coloniallsm. So?
All I know is that they are not commonly held sufficiently significant to distinguish a 'race' - a notion you stlll cling to, to ultimately justify discrimination.
Yes and its all their fault, eh? They ought to have been grateful for being second class citizens?
Even egalitarians admit about 15% of genetic variation is between races. Races today behave differently which suggests differences are due to genes.
in group bias it's perfectly OK. When Blacks do it relative to Whites it's Ok, But when Whites do it it's "racism"
Why aren't Asians rioting? They were also discriminated, yet today they're more successful than Whites.
You are doing that contradictory thing again where you use a scientific term (genes) and then haste to apply it to discredited science ('race'). In fact most of your points assume that blacks (and whites come to that) are a 'race' when. they. are. not.
In-group bias is not the same as outward discrimination - and I think you know that.
Probably for social and cultural factors, also Asians often have a good stake in the community.
However rioting is quite common in the subcontinent so it would be hard to call it genetic.
Racial science was never discredited.
All evidence suggests races are different in the brain.
So you admit Blacks and browns are the reason for riots?
"However rioting is quite common in the subcontinent so it would be hard to call it genetic". that is like saying tall height is quite common in the Netherlands so it would be hard to call it genetic.
Yeah, I know, all Woke propaganda again...
Modern biological science does not consider 'race' is a thing
In recent events more precisely the misinformation and rabble rousing against them.
You asked "Why aren't Asians rioting?" And yet they do.
Tell me which studies were done to inquire weather race differences in the brain exist and what data came out strongly suggesting they don't'.
that's why leftist evolutionarily biologists like Dawkins
You said culture is the reason Asians don't riot
while Blacks and Muslims do. You admitted rioting is their own fault
I meant Asians in America who were also historically discriminated. Indians in the UK also don't riot.The fact that rioting is attributed unevenly to the same ethnic groups mostly as rule around the world would suggest the cause is not genes but external, social and political - say, for instance, exactly those justifications you have given recently to excuse violent whites in the UK.
The concept 'race' is seen as obsolete in the biological sciences.
And why all you offer is just that one quote by Dawkins. Given the current consensus on the matter he seems an outlier.
No more or less than it is true of those violent whites in the UK of late, which you seem to defend over others.
The fact that rioting is attributed unevenly to the same ethnic groups mostly as rule around the world would suggest the cause is not genes but external, social and political - say, for instance, exactly those justifications you have given recently to excuse violent whites in the UK.
Call them ethnic group or populations, the same question applies whether race differences in the brain exist
Only in the West do most scientist claim there are no races.Evidence please. And even if true , that is just an Argument from Popularity, a fallacy.
I could easily defend White riots from them having perfectly legit grievancesWhich you have I believe and leaves you defending violence and hate.
"..rioting is attributed unevenly to the same ethnic groups .. around the world would suggest the cause is not genes" It actually would suggest the genetic cause. They fail to build prosperity due to low IQs
since the media does lie to them that they're oppressed.Like the far right chat rooms and blogs, news outlets etc insist that whites are? In a fear of losing treasured white privilege? Got it. share
And how do you know those "small" (human and chimps are 98.5% genetically the same) aren't very important? All data shows Black and brown people are less sucessful than Whites werevery they live. The burden of equality is on you since you are importing them here and blaming Whites for their failures.
There is no world concensus on non existance of race among experts. It's just a popular political trend in the West steming from a tendancy to see yourself as a "moral" and "progressive" person.
In 2004 Leonard Lieberman reviewed several surveys of anthropologists and found that 31% of physical anthropologist in N. America regonize race and 43% recognize race in Europe. Specifically, they found that 50% of biological anthropologists accepted the concept of race, while 42% of biological anthropologists rejected it1. In 2009 Kaszycka survey of pyhs antrhopologists in Europe found that in E. Europe overwhelming recognize race, while in W. Europe about a third do.
In 2001 Štrakalj and Li Sun looked at 779 articles in the only Chinese anthropological journal and found overwhelming acceptance of race. The more West you go (the more individualistic and racially diverse society) the lower the recognition of race. Race denial seems to be a Western ideological tendancy steming from individualism as well as fear of what race recognititon would do to those diverse societies, rather than an objective socientific conclusion.
The argument from popularity could just as easily be applied to your supposed concencus of non existnace of race in the West. And the West (unlike China) has a political incentive to deny race
Again distinguish "hate" (ie resentment) from legtit ethnic grievances or shut up about hate. Every political movement has violence.
How is losing your homeland without ever being asked if you approve it not a legit grievance? How is being discriminated by DEI and AA as well as being labelled oppressor by media and universities not also?
And how do you know those "small" (human and chimps are 98.5% genetically the same) aren't very important?
All data shows Black and brown people are less sucessful than Whites werevery they live.
There is no world concensus(sic) on non existance(sic) of race among experts. It's just a popular political trend
The more West you go (the more individualistic and racially diverse society) the lower the recognition of race.
Again distinguish "hate" (ie resentment) from legtit ethnic grievances or shut up about hate.
Reich might parrot the PC line of "race is a social construct" in order to be seen as a "good person" but even he admits there are SUBSTANTIAL racial genetic differences. His words.
The concept of race classification in physical anthropology lost credibility around the 1960s.
Reich might parrot the PC line of "race is a social construct" in order to be seen as a "good person" but even he admits there are SUBSTANTIAL racial genetic differences.
Right around the time culture/society changed it's views on race.Not everyone. Some still live with the views of a generation or so back...
Name me please examples of affluent Black societies.
The American Anthropological Association is one organization influenced by society, ideology and politics.
Colonialism excuse is laughably stupid.
Singapore and Hong Kong are today richer than their former colonizer. Ask yourself how are Honk Kong and Singapore different from Africa?
There is no consensus about experts about non existence of race. About a third in the West accept race and virtually all in China accept race. And the remaining in the West who deny it can be explained partially by ideological conditioning as well as cancel cutlure or stigma in accepting race.
Not everyone
bla bla bla were among the effects of colonialism
There is no consensus about experts about non existence of race.
the West who deny it can be explained partially by ideological conditioning
But the intellectual elite generally changed their ideological moral stances on race ..
Like Jared Taylor saysHim again? If only he was a biological scientist with qualifications in that area, rather than a right winger with ideological preferences....
So you don't deny that American Anthropological Association stance on race could be a result of ideology rather than science and objectivity
You did not answer how come today the most colonized countries in Africa are the wealthiest ?The same ones, er, among the many you claimed, just earlier, were 'not affluent' LOL? One notes also that they are not so wealthy as the West.. those who ran the slaves.
This is economic growth of Black Africa since 1960 (post colonialism) compared to other regions of the world. As you can see, it has by far the least growth. It almost perfectly correlates with IQ and latitude.
This paper concludes that IQ is the best predictor of economic growth of a country
No, there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus if the largest country in the world universally accepts race and about a third in the West do as well? The remaining can be explained by politics and popular social trends. Blacks have up to 20% Homo Ergaster DNA that Whites don't, but there is no such thing as race LOL.
What specific research and facts were discovered that made people deny race? Please list them to me.
"Him again?"
Completely ignored the point he was making and resorting to ad hominem fallacy.
geneticist David Reich :
"substantial biological differences among human populations"
Evolutionary biologist Erns Mayr of Harvard and one of most prominent taxonomist and philosophers of biology:
"Those who prescribe that there are no human races are obviously ignorant of human biology"
Richard Dawkins evolutionary biologist: "It's nonsense to say race is a social construct. Race is a real biological phenomenon" - 2022
"why don't you ask them"
Yes the people indoctrinated and blinded by ideology are going to tell me, they are political and their science is BS. Their statement has as much value as the statement on race by the Democratic party.
Meanwhile this was the conclusion from a conference on race in Russia in 1998:
1.) According to the old anthropological tradition big human morphological variations which are the result of polymorphism united by common origin in certain geographical areas had been given the name "races"
2.) Reality of the racial subdivisions of homo sapiens are supported by the totality of the scientific data investigated on the different levels of human organism. Morphological, physiological and genetical. Race classification created with regard for morphological criteria clearly enough reflect the phylogeny of the separate populations and groups of populations
3.) Negativism to the race concept which became apparent during the last decades, in many respects might be explained by the psychological shock which all progressive humanity had felt in the epoch of Hitlerism
"The same ones, are, among the many you claimed, just earlier, were 'not affluent'"
One thing is affluent by world standards another is affluent by African standards. A dodge.
"If only correlation was cause"
It seems to me you are confusing "correlation is not NECESSAIRLY proof of the cause" with "Correlation is unlikely to be the cause"
I already debunked colonialism as the cause. There is no evidence for it. And why would slavery cause poverty? Slave traders in those countries got rich trading slaves. I never praised economics of brown countries. I only compared them to those never colonized to make a point.
contd
How is more divorce and domestic abuse not a downside for Blacks
OK let's not dwell on this.
Name me examples of double standards by White nationalist when it comes to their political stances or principles.
my point is that this the first time you have ever pointed up a disadvantage for blacks mixing with whites (and even here you talk just of blacks). Or whites mixing with the more intelligent asian group, come to that.
You mean like when they claim to be patriots and respect the law and yet storm the capital with a view to insurrection?
These far-right hate groups are antithetical to patriots; they are hypocrites."
Mixing with Asians is less of a problem because Asians are probably not genetically prone to bad behavior.
Few drunken enthusiasts trespassing
Whites deserve a higher social status because they behave better.
I asked for an example of a double standards when it comes to their ideology.
And probably the gene dictating 'bad behaviour' in blacks has been identified? LOL
The FBI estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol Building on January 6,
Like on the above occasion lol? And is this is a simplistic and reductionist argument. Who measures 'good behaviour' and what it entails?
Those (for instance) claiming respect for the law, nation and the police do not storm the Capitol to overturn the results of a democratic election.
"And probably the gene dictating 'bad behaviour' in blacks has been identified? "
Lots of circumstantial evidence for it.
hat doesn't mean I don't have a right to prefer one breed over another
Group impulses in the heat of the moment.
You have still not provided any double standards on behalf of them when it comes to their political positions.
[examples of bad behaviour] Crime rates, single motherhood, time spent doing homework, likelihood of donating blood... Is the right to storm the capitol when you lose an election a general political principle of the identatarian (sic) right?
I asked for political positions, not what some people did in their private lives.
No, i didn't have the warrior gene in mind, but their worldwide pattern of behavior.
but this a poor comparison with racism, hatred and discrimination towards an entire group of humans.
I am sure if it had been a riot of blacks you would be less forgiving. And such excuses certainly did not affect the scale of justice meted out.
Those who claim to be patriots, respect the law and to support the police and army do not attempt an insurrection.
er, if it was, then they would not be hypocrites would they? Have you thought this through?
Aren't people allowed to have preferences?
I never said their behavior should not be condemned
The context was weather (sic) or not this event presents an example of a double standard when it comes to political beliefs regarding race.
had this even not taken place (No Covid and Trump victory, not a close election...etc) what would be your example of a double standard of WN?
Absolutely; but not to articulate hate, intimidation and to offer discrimination. Even though one might try and reinterpret hate as just 'resentment'.
I will admit that the Capital insurrection specifically was not about race.
Also given that there is no such thing as biological 'race' or 'racial purity' it is hypocritical to declare superiority to other groups when one is essentially the same to them in all but superficial detail.
This looks like 'you gave one example but I want a second'
when biologically speaking there is no such thing, racial purity either.
Yet you can't distinguish "hate" and legit "resentment" when confronted
Everyone else is allowed intergroup preference except Whites.
So you admit you can't name a single double standard of WN when it comes to race?
Yet you still see them as evil.
Equality of races has never been proven.
Name me a double standard of WN when it comes to race
else admit WN aren't evil - at least when it comes to their principles .
"there is no such thing, racial purity either." Not true.
Oh I think I can; and in matters of hate speech the law can, too.
right wing trope usually provided without evidence.
One given to you just earlier, based on the logic of accepted biological science
Not a word I have used here..
Under the law it is assumed which is good enough
It seems the Chinese and Asians are brighter and do better than whites.
you mean they are, just elsewhere? But as I have never called them evil.
Science does not support the idea of pure races with ancient origins
Ok how does the law distinguish "irrational hate" and legit resentment towards bad behavior of certain ethnic groups?
Name me a Pakistani who was cancelled, censored or condemned for being proud of being Pakistani? A Hispanic in the US? A Black?
you do morally condemn them (WN). But can't name a single example of their double standards?
"All men are created equal" means everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Not that there are not differences between races.
And even more evidence that Whites are better and brighter than Blacks and browns
yet can't name a single double standard.
So you admit only pure races don't exist, but races in general do?A strawman. Naughty.
I am not a lawyer
Can you name any Pakistanis in the UK who have rioted because they are so 'proud' of their ethnic identity they need to attack others?
I did it once and then you felt the need to broaden the demand to exclude individual. I have done it again of late and now you ignore that.
Unfortunately blacks are often treated more harshly under the law. For instance a 2016 Ministry of Justice study found that Black defendants were 81% more likely to be imprisoned than white defendants.
Please stop mixing good and discredited science.
Your prejudice is unfortunately showing. 'Better' is a subjective notion. And better at what? Rap music?
But if you like we can also consider SA Apartheid and the WN's lack of support of patriotism and racial pride there?
A strawman. Naughty
"I am not a lawyer [how law decides what is hate]"I admit I am a lawyer. one would image each instance/case is judged on its merits, based on context and egregiousness et. To be helpful here is the legal definition of hate in the UK. Since you seem unaware of the way things are done here, feel free to mug up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Something%20is%20a%20hate%20incident,crosses%20the%20boundary%20of%20criminality.
So you admit you can't answer.
Yet you still accuse me of "irrational hate"
So you can't name a non White who was ever condemned, censored or smeared because he states he is proud of his race?
It it obvious that is someone makes a thread "name a double standard of WN when it comes to race" he means political positions. You just can't name a single oneThe insurrection was a political act from 'patriots' and those who value the law. But you have been told this. You have a very short memory, it would seem.
CJS is not racist.
Show me proof where was racial realism ever disproven.
Which modern WN advocate denying Black people sovereignty?
You said races don't exist, but then said "pure races don't exist". Are Whites and Blacks on average genetically different? Yes or no?
"Hate definItions in the UK: Hate incident: An incident that is thought to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Hate crime: A hate incident that crosses the line of criminality. Hate speech: Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation."
I still see no distinguish between legit ethnic grievances and "irrational hate speech".
"That the supposed 'hatred of whites' often referred to on this board is not similarly downplayed show the double standards on the right you are always on the look out for."
The difference anti White hatred is that it's based on LIES and FALSE PREMISES or at least decontextualized illegitimate grievances ("White privilege", "Systemic racism", "Slavery", "colonization", "Jim Crow"). If someone just quotes stats of White crime and advocates Whites and Blacks should live separately, I would not consider that "hate". You accuse me of "hate" when I do these things for non Whites.
"I am not aware of any whites for just saying this. Perhaps you can show some before we play his game? It sounds like a presumption convenient to your bias."
Jared Taylor. Deplatformed, smeared, censored, lost his business. Yet unapologetic Black advocates like Ibram X Kendi are glorified. Taylor wants even les for Whites than Kendi wants for Blacks.
"The insurrection was a political act from 'patriots' and those who value the law. But you have been told this"
Why am I even debating this? Name a prominent WN who supported Jan. 6.
I still see no distinguish between legit ethnic grievances and "irrational hate speech".
The difference anti White hatred is that it's based on LIES and FALSE PREMISES
If someone just quotes stats of White crime and advocates Whites and Blacks should live separately, I would not consider that "hate".Neither would I although your reasons have been shown as dubious and suggestive of prejudice against a 'race'.
You accuse me of "hate"A strawman, I have never called you hateful. In any case for you, isn't hate exactly the same as just holding a grievance? So why so upset?
Why am I even debating this? Name a prominent WN who supported Jan. 6.
an earlier post where I helpfully posted dictionary definitions.
Thank you for your opinions
your reasons have been shown as dubious and suggestive of prejudice against a 'race'.
I have never called you hateful
"The people who stormed the U.S. Capitol weren’t poor, unemployed red-states. Many were middle-class professionals motivated by the “great replacement” conspiracy theory."
You provided no such distinctions. You just copy pasted the definition of "hate"That is because the legal definition of hate is easy to find and understand. It does not specifically exclude mere 'grievance' for instance, (or just 'not celebrating' either, come to that lol) since one might expect a judge and jury to exercise proportionality and common sense even if you don't to suit a rather desperate claim. All those jailed after the recent riots no doubt had their 'legit grievances'. None of them successfully used the idea to explain or excuse away their illegal and thuggish actions. Nor did the insurrectionists. I just don't believe you cannot distinguish between hate and something clearly milder, sorry. Special pleading noted.
all black grievances...blah
How are my reasons dubious and how are they pre judging any group?
OK then what is "hateful" about what a prominent WN like Jared Taylor says,
and how would he raise those exact same grievances without being "hateful"?
White identatarian leader (Taylor, Duke, Spencer...) who supported Jan. 6.Neofascist, white supremacist and other extremist groups like NSC-131, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, the Groyper Army, QAnon and various neo-Confederates played a visible role in the Capitol attack. Are you suggesting that none of their leaders approved? We have quotes such as “The Proud Boys will turn out in record numbers on Jan 6th but this time with a twist…,” Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the group’s president, in a late-December post on Parler. Or Stewart Rhodes, a former soldier and Yale law school graduate, who founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 and built it into a nationwide network, was caught standing outside the Capitol egging on his gang too. QED share
All those jailed after the recent riots no doubt had t
I just don't believe you cannot distinguish between hate and something clearly milder, sorry.
They were jailed for rioting, not raising political grievances.
Yes you can distinguish between hate speech and legit ethnic grievances.
How are Taylor's views extreme?
Proud Boys..
Isn't one of their leaders mixed Black and Latino?
which according to you cannot be distinguished from hate.
They are certainly not middle ground.
Thank you for pointing up an extra, racial hypocrisy.
I never said it cannot be distinguished. It can easilyIn which case we can finally move on.
If all White ethnic grievance is hateWhich it is not and no one sensibly suggests this - except those who express hate and then deem it just a grievance, possibly to avoid legal consequences. So again time to move on.
Why should they be seen as "extreme"?
My point was to defend White nationalism and White identity. Where is a WN double standard on race?You are repeating yourself again and ignoring my previous, patient answers. A further example of double standards from White identatarians (people who are called "White supremacists") with regards to race is to deny (as you have done all the way along in our exchanges) the right of ethnics to be free from discrimination while expecting that exact same freedom as part of white privilege.
"Which it is not and no one sensibly suggests this"
Basic White arguments "We will become minority in our country" and "Minorities behave worse and are a cost on us" are considered "hate". Those are basic ethnic political grievances. If some ethnic groups cannot raise them, then you cannot claim the UK is about ethnic justice and democracy.
If Blacks are discriminated it's not because Whites are taught to hate them, it's beacuse they behave worse. Freedom from discrimination for an ethnic group not controlling for behavior is not a basic right, it's a special right. Also If Blacks seceeded (as WN want) they would not be discrminated. So how are WN then denying them that right?
What the left demands here is that Whites have an obligation to have a positive view of and never discriminate Blacks in any situation despite Blacks continuing to behave in a way that causes it. This is a special right, not a basic one. This is a privilege.
Basic White arguments "We will become minority in our country" and "Minorities behave worse and are a cost on us" are considered "hate".Those are basic ethnic political grievances
f Blacks are discriminated it's not because Whites are taught to hate them, it's beacuse they behave worse.
Freedom from discrimination for an ethnic group not controlling for stereotyping their behavior is not a basic right,
What the left demands here is that Whites have an obligation to have a positive view of and never discriminate Blacks in any situation despite Blacks continuing to behave in a way that causes it. This is a special right, not a basic one. This is a privilege.
"There are different ways of putting the same argument,"
Then show me how are White advocates supposed to raise those exact same grievances (and raise them just as effectively) without being accused of "hate"
"Stereotyping noted again."
There are many definitions of stereotype, some include the thesis that the belief has to be wrong, others don't. My premise that Blacks behave worse is not a false one according to all the data.
Whites haven't oppressed Blacks. Exclusion is not oppression unless it's coupled with denial of sovereignty. No ethnic group has an inherent moral obligation to have a positive view of another ethic group and to include them in their society. Especially if the group in question behaves worse.
So changing my comment when quoting me instead of addressing the actual point. How do you define stereotype? Does the belief have to be false?
"Thank you for your opinion"
Ok so you totally avoided addressing the point like usual. And it's not victim blaming since they are not victims given they behave worse. Ethnic groups are not just people with certain skin. They are communities. They are at least to a degree responsible for their aggregate behavior.
"In a 2017–2021 study, Black men received sentences 13.4% longer than white men. ail admissions: Black people are admitted to jail at a higher rate than white or Hispanic people. In 2019, Black people were admitted to jail at least double the rate of white or Hispanic people in some counties. Length of stay: Black people spend longer in jail. Lawyers: Lawyers are less likely to take on clients with Black-sounding names"
Control for crime rates, repeat offenders, court room behavior, IQ, SES (the ability to afford good layers). All of things you listed could be explained by behavior differences. I've linked you a META ANALYSIS (a study of all studies) showing CJS is NOT racist.
"Once again: are you really saying that Blacks are not discriminated against?"
Relative to their behavior, probably not. Blacks as early as 1890 committed much more crime and were 3.5 times more likely to be in prison for murder.
"And there are WN alive who hypocritically supported apartheid in SA."
That was pragmatic to avoid disastrous Black rule. Show me a WN who supports denying Blacks sovereignty today.
"BUT the point is, still that the difference are not enough to determine separate 'races' -despite how it suits those with prejudices to prefer it so."
Call them populations, genetic clusters, whatever you like. In the end, I don't care about the term "race". The point is ethnic groups are on average different.
I've linked you a META ANALYSIS (a study of all studies) showing CJS is NOT racist.
"And there are WN alive who hypocritically supported apartheid in SA." That was pragmatic to avoid disastrous Black rule
Show me a WN who supports denying Blacks sovereignty today.
In the end, I don't care about the term "race"And yet, how many times have you used it of late? You are being disingenuous.
The point is ethnic groups are on average different.and the returning point, still, is that enough to discriminate against them with, when science thinks the differences are not really significant? You seem to want to play them up, and exclude other factors, to justify prejudice. Except of course when it is bad behaved whites who seem have be justified always by supposed external factors. Double standards indeed.
And I've given you the data.
It was a case of double standards another example of that which you asked for.
In a post-colonial era one would naturally not expect any.
However
And yet, how many times have you used it of late?
when science thinks the differences are not really significant?
still, is that enough to discriminate
to justify prejudice.
you have totally failed to provide proof of racism CJS
prominent WN who currently supports White rule over Blacks
No I asked for current double standards. Apartheid is 30 years old.
The point is regardless what term you use (race, population, genetic cluster...) there are group differences.
We know from twin studies they [differences]are heavily genetic.,
Every ethnic group has a right to have intergroup preference ie discriminate.Racial discrimination is illegal, esp when associated with hatred and an idea of 'racial superiority', which is in the background of everything here. It is a right wing tactic to make of all their divisive tropes something reasonable and mild, when the opposite is true.
OK what this link you provided prove? What data did they look at? What methodology did they use and what did they control for? A meta analysis in the US has proven CJS isn't racist which puts into question the idea that UK is. Did they control for all Black behavioral differences? (likelihood of taking risks, making stupi crime choices, having worse lawyers due to being poorer, court room behavior...etc) If not, it doesn't prove injustice to Blacks.
Virtually every rightwinger on this board implies or states the need for white supremacy,
There is no mention of the 'current' in the OP. So, goalpost moving again.
OK what this link you provided prove? What data did they look at?
you can't name any good examples and you don't want to admit you lost.
Just because a White thinks apartheid was better than current disaster the country ...The fact is that if one does, or some do (the South African whites for instance to which I have linked) then that is hypocrisy, special pleading notwithstanding.
Show me a modern prominent WN who supports White rule over Blacks ahead of racial separation
Discrimination and resentment (what you call "hate") is a result of differences in behavior and behavior differences
Does this supposed "evidence" for systemic racism control for possible genetic differences and Black behavior or does it simply assume there are no important differences, ignores behavioral differences between races and asserts Blacks must be victims?
"See above and the Oath Takers etc"
I asked for a double standard of White identatarian specifically and specifically on race. Not ever right wing movement. Name me what WN demand for Whites that they don't grant to Blacks. Answer please, not "please refer to XYZ"
"The fact is that if one does, or some do (the South African whites for instance to which I have linked) then that is hypocrisy, special pleading notwithstanding."
It's only a double standard if they prefer White rule over separation and if they do it today which is what I asked. If I prefer Trump over Kamala that does not mean I agree with Trump on everything. Unfortunately Trump vs Kamala is the only choice. The same with apartheid vs disastrous ANC Black rule.
"Show me a WN who does not prefer white rule over blacks. I already remember you preferring segregation, right back to sending them home, a de facto segregation of the greatest type."
Jared Taylor and David Duke, the 2 most prominent WN do not support White rule over Blacks. So doesn't Nick Griffin in the UK. Segregation is not White rule. Blacks can rule their own communities. US could split apart into 2 entities based on ethnicity like Bosnia has.
"I also remember how just a few post back you admitted that after all there exists a difference between hate and grievance"
When have I said it's impossible for a person to hate someone for irrational reasons based on race? I am saying the general political resentment on behalf of Whites in the current situation happens to be justified. That doesn't mean everyone is necessarily rational.
Does this supposed "evidence" for systemic racism control for possible genetic differences and Black behavior or does it simply assume there are no important differences, ignores behavioral differences between races and asserts Blacks must be victims?
I asked for a double standard of White identatarian specifically and specifically on race. Name me what WN demand for Whites that they don't grant to Blacks.
Jared Taylor and David Duke, the 2 most prominent WN do not support White rule over Blacks. So doesn't Nick Griffin in the UK.
I am saying the general political resentment on behalf of Whites in the current situation happens to be justified. That doesn't mean everyone is necessarily rational.Clearly not.
Funny you accuse me of diversion while it's you who engages in it. You didn't answer my question. Do these links you posted control for differences in behavior and genetic differences? Precisely HOW is institutional racism measured and what does it control for? And it's not victim blaming since their victim status is precisely what I'm disputing by asking these questions. If Blacks behave worse and are discriminated due to their behavior, they - at least on a collective level - aren't victims which is what you/the left are claiming. And that's granting you the premise that they are actually discriminated.
"Racial supremacy."
What do you mean precisely by "racial supremacy"? I'm asking what basic ethnic RIGHT are they denied? Basically all White nationalist admit East Asians are superior to Whites in intelligence and propensities towards crime, sexual promiscuity, single motherhood etc. WN don't deny superiority of Asians. As for their talk about race differences, they are forced to talk about Black and White differences since Whites are unfairly blamed for Black failure. Most WN do not want artificially rule over anyone. They just want meritocracy and eventually sovereignty for their people. WN want nothing but basic rights for Whites, something all other groups take for granted.
Do these links you posted control for differences in behavior and genetic differences?
Precisely HOW is institutional racism measured and what does it control for?
What do you mean precisely by "racial supremacy"?
they are forced to talk about Black and White differences since Whites are unfairly blamed for Black failure.
WN want nothing but basic rights for Whites, something all other groups take for granted.
"Why would they?"
Ok you don't know they control for behavior. Yet you still maintain they prove minorities are victims. Also data for race differences in crime are not discredited science
"Google is your friend."
So you don't know how it's measured and what does it control for. Yet you maintain that there is unjustified institutional racism against Blacks
"Ask your white nationalist friends"
None of people I follow demands any kind of supremacy. Only meritocracy and equal standards for all racial groups. If they are allowed identity, nativism, pride, safe spaces...so should we.
"Victim blaming"
Ignoring the argument as usual
"And which 'rights' are not given to whites which the rest of the population enjoy?"
Identity, safe spaces, nativism, pride, history, safety....etc.
Not a counter argument that race differences cannot be the cause for average behavioral differences. Humans and Chimps are also 98.5% genetically identical
No, all racial discriminations is not illegal. Choosing who to marry or who to invite for dinner is not illegal. White people voting for White identity politics is also not illegal. And plenty of things are illegal and were illegal in history, that doesn't mean they're moral. Making an appeal to current laws is not an argument that those laws are moral.
Not a counter argument that race differences cannot be the cause for average behavioral differences.
No, all racial discriminations is not illegal. Choosing who to marry or who to invite for dinner is not illegal.
Race is an obsolete term in the biological and anthropological sciences. Please write this down.
Please also write down the difference between private taste and preference and public discrimination.
Apologies for butting in, I'm not in the mood for a debate (I'm drinking at the moment), but there is an account on Twitter that shows statistic after statistic demonstrating that blacks do in fact have lower IQs than Whites and do worse than Whites on many different metrics.
Go follow @eyeslasho on Twitter. He has tons of data to back up these claims.
>What else could it be? Western culture/Youtube/TikTok, atheism, individualism YOLO is everywhere.
More evidence that this in itself some negates birth rates, and if it does, what you propose to do about it.
>Yes, they are into porn LOL. Google it. You'd be surprised how the young in those countries are also influenced by Western culture.
And they're pro-LGBT, atheist, are they? Everywhere is secretly into porn. I'll await evidence that pornography, or at least secret pornographic consumption behind closed doors somehow negates birth rates.
>More LGBT = less children. Not a huge difference compared to feminism, atheism...etc, but some.
The growth of LGBT people (or rather more people not concealing their sexuality) isn't so large that it somehow dwarfs the amount of straight people, nor somehow causes them to stop having kids. What is it you propose to do about feminism and atheism exactly?
>Young men have less desire to pursue women when they have all the porn available to them
You got any data points here whatsoever.
>The West in the 50s had the perfect balance. It wasn't North Korea, but also not tatooed pronoun cat ladies that we have today.
And what should the west do to force that then, exactly?
>Religion is high among the older ones. Old people aren't having children. The youth is influenced by Western culture
But younger people in those countries, even if they're less religious than their older counterparts are still more religious than in UK or Sweden or Denmark. Yet still lower birth rates.
>The left censors information regarding race differences which leads to false beliefs races are equal and interchangeable which leads to political agreement with immigration
Except you have citated all of your data points from studies online. Correct or not, biased or not, they still exist and the people behind them have not been arrested.
>If all those Western cultural reason aren't a reason for low births, then what is it? It's not economic prosperity. Even you said poor countries still have low births.
It's the consequences of capitalism in sufficiently developed countries that highly discentivises having kids. People focus on their careers, their lifestyles, and/or don't have enough disposable income to raise kids.
More evidence that this in itself some negates birth rates, and if it does, what you propose to do about it.
You got any data points here whatsoever.
And what should the west do to force that then, exactly?
But younger people in those countries, even if they're less religious than their older counterparts are still more religious than in UK or Sweden or Denmark. Yet still lower birth rates.
Except you have citated all of your data points from studies online. Correct or not, biased or not, they still exist and the people behind them have not been arrested.
It's the consequences of capitalism in sufficiently developed countries that highly discentivises having kids. People focus on their careers, their lifestyles, and/or don't have enough disposable income to raise kids.
>I think you made a typo. I don't understand the sentence.
I want evidence that "Western culture/Youtube/TikTok, atheism, individualism" specifically hurts birth rates.
>Porn reduces relationship quality Bad relationships reduce births.
Plenty of people in long-term relationships simply don't have kids and/or have no desire to have them.
>Change the culture. Ever heard of culture wars?
How?
>And they have more children. In conservative religious countries, birth rates are falling, but they aren't as critically low as in Korea or Italy.
Italy happens to be a conservative religious country, in comparison to many others. Still trash birth rates. Why is this?
>I said censor not arrest. How many people read studies online? The media's job is to inform public about important information. When did you last time saw a study suggesting racial differences in the brain on CNN or discovery channel? Deliberately not informing important stuff for the public is censorship.
You can't dictate to private companies what they may or may not screen or share.
>The US in 1960 had 3 children per woman. It was capitalist and life more difficult than today. And don't get me started on US births in the 19th century when there was no welfare whatsoever.
This is not true. It was much easier to buy a house in the 50s and 60s, and most incomes could be sustained on a single breadwinner. This matters. Also, contraception was not as widely used at all during that period.
I want evidence that "Western culture/Youtube/TikTok, atheism, individualism" specifically hurts birth rates.
Plenty of people in long-term relationships simply don't have kids and/or have no desire to have them.
How?
>What type of evidence would there be if it was true?
Exactly. It's impossible to know. You're making claims that can't specifically be backed up.
>Liberals oppose changing culture. The reply "how would you do it" is not exactly good one, if you yourself are preventing it. Bring back stigma for not having kids, have media promote large families, government incentives...etc.
And what would this stigma look like in practice? The media is independent. You can't make them promote things. There are already lots of government incentives for having kids in most countries.
>No, Italy USED To be a conservative and religious. Western culture influence is very high in a country like Italy.
Italy still is conservative comparatively. But it, Poland and Greece have worse birth rates than more secular western examples.
>USA in 1960 didn't have higher purchasing power than today, yet it had 3.7 births per woman.
https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill
Dude, this is well known. The cost of housing has shot up in comparison to wages.
So you don't have an arguments why my explanation is unlikely to be true or what kind of evidence would there be if it was true. OK. So you should admit, my explanation isn't unlikely to be true then.
And what would this stigma look like in practice? The media is independent. You can't make them promote things. There are already lots of government incentives for having kids in most countries.
>The same kind of stigma that the left created towards "racism" and "transphobia" over the last few years. The people who control the institutions and guide the culture could create sigma if they wanted to.
Who are "these people" that supposedly control the media and can just impose social stigma at will, purely happening in a few years? How can they do this?
>Present the crisis to the public, explain how immigration is not the solution (stop hiding the cost of non Western immigrants for the purpose of PC) and the public will accept that higher births are the only way to go.
We have a free press. The press is free to report on what it likes. Do you understand this?
>Stigma will naturally follow. Right now the media and the ruling class do the opposite. They write articles how child free life is wonderful and having White children perpetuates racism and harms the environment.
No, this is not a normal position. This is just bullshit. Some stupid Comment is Free article from The Guardian does not remotely represent the average position of the wider Uk press. Stop making shit up.
>Those policies didn't go far enough. They only included child leave and kindergarten costs and so on. The government could literally give people money for having more kids (instead of spending that money on foreign aid and so called "refugees"). This is an existential crisis for our counties and the entire Western civilization. Under this realization, the public would support more money being spent. Right now this isn't being done because the media lies to the public that brown immigrants will turn out just fine (which the data contradicts but the media doesn't report on it in order to not "perpetuate negative stereotypes").
Again, no, this does not happen. Much of the media openly reports about cultural clashes from migrants coming in the country. The majority of the UK wishes to to lower immigration, and most of the press is moderately anti-immigration.
>Housing prices has gone up, but that is partially the result of regulation to building
It's due to population, supply of houses and many other factors. Not just regulation at all (whatever you mean by that).
I never said it's "at will". Tell the truth to the public about 1. Current racial differences in behavior and 2. The fact racial equality has never been proven and that it's very likely to be false. It will be a floodgate from that.
So the leftist press does things that prevent the very same culture change needed to increase birth rates while at the same time using low births to convince people to take immigrants. If you are creating a problem, you don't get to complain about it and use it to your advantage.
"Some stupid Comment is Free article from The Guardian does not remotely represent the average position of the wider Uk press"
I's not just one article. It's a pattern that the media is leftist and tends to not encourage high births. If low births are a threat to a country, the media should encourage it.
"Again, no, this does not happen."
So you are saying the media objectively reports about minority crime, welfare use and other negative behavior like grooming gangs? That is fairly reports on the possibility that some racial groups could be inherently prone to worse behavior? This is just pure BS and you know it.
"It's due to population, supply of houses and many other factors. Not just regulation at all (whatever you mean by that)."
Supply of houses is lower because of environmental regulation and demand is higher because of immigration. Both leftist policies.
I'm not a liberal, but I am definitely pro-anti-racism. I'd like to accept your challenge.
However, since who qualifies as a white identitarian might be subject to debate, why don't you choose the name of someone well-known for being a white identitarian (aka 'white supremacist'), and I'll try providing a single example?
OK name me an example of a double standard from Jared Taylor. Caveat: even if you find one, that doesn't prove White identatarians in general have double standards. I am one, yet I don't have a single double standard. I can't necessarily defend Jared Taylor, I'm not Jared Taylor. But I can defend myself and my views.
shareJared Taylor's rhetoric aligns closely with traditional white supremacy, even though he avoids that label. By questioning what other races contribute to society and advocating for racial separation under the guise of "racial realism" or "white identitarianism," Taylor appears to rebrand white supremacist ideas to make them more intellectually defensible.
Rebranding White Supremacy
Taylor attempts to soften the image of white supremacy by framing it in more intellectual terms. As a "racial realist," he distances himself from overt racism, but the core ideas remain the same:
* Focus on Racial Differences: He emphasizes perceived inherent differences between races, a cornerstone of white supremacist ideology.
* Preservation of White Culture: His advocacy for preserving white culture implies its superiority or greater worth.
* Opposition to Multiculturalism: Taylor's opposition to multiculturalism and non-white immigration mirrors the white supremacist belief that racial diversity is harmful.
Misleading Denials
Taylor's rejection of the white supremacist label is likely a strategic move to avoid its stigma while promoting similar ideas. This tactic broadens his appeal by presenting his views as rational concerns for cultural preservation rather than overt racial hatred. Despite his claims, the substance of his arguments remains closely aligned with white supremacy.
If you've reached this far and are still wondering how this relates to a double standard, consider this analogy: It's like someone committed a number of crimes, but insisting he shouldn’t be called a criminal.
I didn't ask you copy paste someone's personal opinion on Jared Taylor. I asked you to give an example of a double standards. Being labelled a "White supremacist" is not a double standard. Name me one thing that the demands for Whites which he doesn't extend to Blacks or others. I can name you a dozen examples of double standards from the left.
shareWhich part seems like "personal opinion" to you?
shareEverything. Someone wrote that. Show me his double standards. Where does he claim Blacks don't have right to sovereignty, identity, pride, history and biological continuation of existence? Plenty mainstream leftist intellectuals don't allow this for Whites.
shareEverything? David1616, have you considered that you might be operating with a built-in double standard when it comes to distinguishing between fact-based conclusions and people's unsubstantiated opinions and beliefs?
shareSo still no double standard? You yourself challenged my to a debate and now you can't name a single example. Yawn. Please stop wasting my time.
shareAll I see in that copy pasted opinion piece of yours is name calling. "White supremacist" is of course a false accusation since he nor his movement advocates ruling over anyone. A proper term would be "White separatist" or a "White advocate". He is no different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton except for Whites. In fact, he wants less for Whites than these two clowns want for Blacks.
If we lived in an alternate reality where it was Africans who sailed over to Europe and captured white people and took them back to Africa and sold them there as slaves, it would be the other way around. Then you could go around being a white power racist freak and nobody would be irked by it. Sound good?
shareYeah that doesn’t work. Blacks were captured by black slavers who sold them to Arabs, Europeans, whoever wanted them.
Also, the only remarkable thing about Europeans when it comes slavery is that they abolished the practice.
Slavery continues today on a scale much larger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade ever was, yet you conveniently ignore this since it doesn’t fit your racist agenda.
Half of the US abolished the practice. The other half refused to abolish it and was willing to literally go to war to keep slavery legal. And to this day many of their ancestors are still butt hurt that they lost and can't have n-word slaves in 2024.
Yeah, there is still a lot of slavery in today's world. But you can't name one single country in the world where it's still legal. It's only committed by corrupt outlaws. Same as any other crime. So whatever you thought your point was there, pfft.
Pathetic response which in no way refutes what I said, and in no way excuses your racist insane focus on the vanishingly small proportion of slavery conducted by whites to the exclusion of the far greater proportion committed by non-whites (which continues to this day)
And this…
And to this day many of their ancestors are still butt hurt that they lost and can't have n-word slaves in 2024.
Yeah, yeah, have fun at the Proud Boys meeting tonight, you big stud.
sharethe vanishingly small proportion of slavery conducted by whites
Pathetic response which in no way refutes what I said. Do better.
the vanishingly small proportion of slavery conducted by whites
Pathetic response which in no way refutes what I said. Try again.
shareIn what way using fact to contradict your point not refute it? You said a vanishingly small proportion of slavery was conducted by whites, when it is historically true that Britain and Portugal were the most dominant countries in the transatlantic slave trade. Based on data concerning 86% of all slaving vessels leaving for the New World, it has been estimated that the British, including British colonials, and the Portuguese, accounted for seven out of ten transatlantic slaving voyages and carried nearly three quarters of all people embarking from Africa destined for slavery. Please stop. But you won't.
sharePathetic response which in no way refutes what I said.
Blacks were captured by black slavers who sold them to Arabs, Europeans, whoever wanted them.
Also, the only remarkable thing about Europeans when it comes slavery is that they abolished the practice.
Slavery continues today on a scale much larger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade ever was, yet you conveniently ignore this since it doesn’t fit your racist agenda.
You said a vanishingly small proportion of slavery was conducted by whites, when it is historically true that Britain and Portugal were the most dominant countries in the transatlantic slave trade.
Where one notes that conducting the trade is not the same as just capturing slaves. But I am sure you really know that.
Slavery continues today on a scale much larger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade ever was,
yet you conveniently ignore this since it doesn’t fit your racist agenda.
Another pathetic response which in no way refutes what I said.
You don’t seem to realise that my post was debunking Druff’s bullshit post.
You don’t understand the context of this discussion and your nitpicking is irrelevant and false.
Grow a brain before trying to contribute.
Now you seem aggressive, which unfortunately just comes across as defensive.
no way refutes what I said
[context was]that my post was debunking Druff’s bullshit post.
Grow a brain before trying to contribute.
Are you Skavau’s retarded younger brother? Nothing I’m telling you is going in, you’re just farting out irrelevant drivel.
I'm sure I did tell you. Do you want me to remind you again?
And it seems you can't show me why I did not refute your claim as I asked. I wonder why?.
This is like playing chess with someone who thinks the way to win is to eat the most pieces.
Go on, fart out another utterly irrelevant reply from a conversation you’re having within your own damaged head…
Grow a brain before attempting to have a discussion.
And it seems that you stillcan't show me why I did not refute your claim as I asked.share
My supposed Proud Boy membership is yet another figment of your diseased Leftoid imagination. Take CNN’s dick out of your mouth for one second and think.
shareWhites never captured anyone. They bought existing slaves, 30-50% of Africa were slaves before European colonization. Since slavery was naturally seen as moral in a scarcity ridden society, and Whites bought them with their own money, one could even easily argue Whites had the right to own them. Then they freed them at their own will. Arab countries abolished slavery in the 1960s when Whites were singing under the rainbow with flowers in their hair, yet Whites are the only people today to feel guilty about slavery.
shareWhites never captured anyone
Is this a debate about slavery in Brazil and Portugal or in America? In any case, Arabs captured European slaves, yet today nobody blames them. It's only Whites who are told we must feel guilty. My point stands.
shareMy point stands.
I see no counter arguments to my points.
share" whites 'never capturing anyone" has been dealt with and disproved, but thank you anyway.
shareIs this a debate about slavery in Brazil and Portugal or in America? In any case, Arabs captured European slaves, yet today nobody blames them. It's only Whites who are told we must feel guilty
Not about whites 'never capturing anyone' it doesn't.
And if the context is that 'white guilt' thing of yours then given whites, apart from the capturing bit, ran most of the trade then their guilt is the highest.
Slavery was seen as moral by basically everyone in the world back then. Almost everyone practiced it. Arab slavery was worse and lasted longer yet there is no Arab guilt today, the same with everyone else. My point about White guilt being unfair to Whites is valid. White guilt is simply a result of Whites being held to a higher standard than anyone else.
there is no Arab guilt today
Er... some Arab leaders have expressed guilt and regret over their involvement in the African slave trade, including Muammar Gaddafi: In 2010, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi apologized for Arab involvement in the African slave trade, saying "I regret and I am ashamed when we remember these practices"
but then again they didn't run most of the trade beyond capture. Based on that fact, one would expect White guilt ought to be proportionately greater
And, if one is arguing that whites are generally superior to every other ethnic group, then why should they not be looked at to reflect some moral superiority?
Ghadaffi is just one leader.
Blacks today don't ... demand reparations from them.Proponents of anti-Arab black nationalism have demanded reparations from the Arab League for “Afro-Arab slavery”. eg Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka for instance is probably the most renowned proponent of the view that Islam and the Arabs are as guilty of the “the cultural and spiritual savaging of the continent” as the West. Nigerian poet J. P. Clarke: “If the European states are to pay, so must the Arab states, and so must the African states set up by the Europeans…if the eminent personalities now addressing the matters of redress are not to be accused of casuistry and of applying double standards.” Etc. I hope that helps.
How is BUYING someone legally in a society where nobody sees slavery as immoral worse than CAPTURING him?
Current society does not consider Whites superior
There is no Arab guilt' today was what you said. I showed there is.
Proponents of anti-Arab black nationalism have demanded reparations from the Arab League for “Afro-Arab slavery”. eg Nigerian Nobel laureate
It is not,
but the historical truth is that nearly all the trade was due to the demand from, through the transportation, and the use of slaves, by whites
Hey, perhaps blacks have a gene predisposing them to be enslaved?
As already said, if we are considering whites as supposedly 'superior' to anyone else, then we ought to be held to higher moral standards.
No, one (dead for 12 years) making one statement for strategic interest is not comparable to entire dominant Zeitgeist of the West being riddled with guilt over slavery. It still stands that the Black agitation over slavery is WAY more focused on the West than to Arabs.
so you admit I have a point?
Black Africa was 30-50% slaves before European colonization.That is irrelevant to the guilt of the West for their part which was considerable. And as you think white culture etc is superior then we ought to hold ourselves to superior standards. Or presumable we are just as bad as 'them'.
"Hey, perhaps blacks have a gene predisposing them to be enslaved?"
Yes very possible
Low intelligence means less civilization
Whites are currently not seen as superior by any anyone respected..
yet still held to higher standards.
What good reasons? Name me a good reason why the guilt should be more directed against the West than to Arabs. If you ask me the real reason is that the West unlike Arabs is succeptable to guilt and has more riches to give them. This is what Whites get for being the only self critical race on the planet. Instead of credit, we get hated even more.
That is irrelevant to the guilt of the West for their part which was considerable. And as you think white culture etc is superior then we ought to hold ourselves to superior standards. Or presumable we are just as bad as 'them'.
Name me a good reason why the guilt should be more directed against the West than to Arabs.
If you ask me the real reason is that the West unlike Arabs is succeptable (sic) to guilt and has more riches to give them. This is what Whites get for being the only self critical race on the planet. Instead of credit, we get hated even more.
How is it an irrelevant argument that almost half of Black Africa used to be slaves before Whites arrived and that Whites ended slavery in Africa?
. An upstanding citizen will not be penalized for a crime any more than a crook.
Even if you accept that superiors ought to be held to higher standards, this should not be applied until the West is universally accepted to be superior.
I looked at the article on African history about 10 years ago and it literally said they had no original written language, built no 2 story buildings, never build any mechanical device, domesticated any animals or built a ship that was sea worthy
So you admit Whites generally didn't capture slaves like the Arabs yet you still insist, guilt should be specifically directed to Whites. I fail to see any arguments of why in your reply. As for "look at ourselves" this creates an imbalance since we are the only ones blaming ourselves but nobody else is which causes exploitation by others who aren't at all self critical. It's like "weapons are evil so we will get rid of them" mentality while nobody else does it. This unique guilt is destroying the West and Whites. Also any notion of guilt for past behavior during the conquest ethic is faulty since it holds past behavior in a totally different world to current moral standards.
It is not an argument to excuse massive white involvement in an odious trade.
In which case we can put aside all of your common, previous arguments for white superiority which you accept in other contexts, until that happy day arrives lol
So you admit Whites generally didn't capture slaves like the Arabs yet you still insist, guilt should be specifically directed to Whites. I fail to see any arguments of why in your reply ... The context is uniqueness of White guilt
As for "look at ourselves" this creates an imbalance since we are the only ones blaming ourselves
Also any notion of guilt for past behavior during the conquest ethic is faulty since it holds past behavior in a totally different world to current moral standards.
So you don't deny mainstream society and the left is hypocritical when it holds Whites to higher standards, but denies their superiority?
Why weren't Whites buying slaves from Chinese or Indians (at least to the same extent) as with Africans? I think it's becauseThank you for your opinion. share
"The Arabs are just as culpable yes
Are you seriously suggesting that only whites blame whites for their slaveries of the past?
Even in the past there were fierce opponents to slavery,
What about those who claim white superiority and yet do not hold them to such higher standards?
Thank you for your opinion.
et Arab societies are far from being riddled with guilt, reparations and apologies to the point of erasing their history. Yet you are still concentrated on blaming Whites, but not Arabs and others. A double standard.
Yet you still blame Whites collectively instead of giving them credit for being among the first (if not the first) to have opposition against slavery
Remember the context is collective White guilt
Ignoring the point and straw mining it. I said you are focused on blame on Whites, but not on others who are much less apologetic therefor you are biased against Whites. And that's not even going into the fact that past actions in a different world ought not to be judged by present moral standards stemming from a modern world.
"In the UK however it took years and years; in the US it took a war."
Your point being Whites are not perfect my today's moral standards. Yes it took a war, but compared to who? Others like Arabs who abolished it when US was listening to Michael Jackson? (Mauritania abolished it in 1981). Remember the context of disagreement is not weather or not Whites behaved benign by present standards, but weather or not Whites today should have unique guilt over slavery.
Success of the West was built by IQ (genetics), individualism, protestant work ethic, democracy, rule of law, industrialization and enlightenment/science. All of that came from White people.
"Even when the trade was abolished in the UK it is significant that substantial compensation was largely paid to the owners and not their 'lost property"
Slavery was moral back then. If we had to return to living like people in the 1700s, I guarantee you, slavery would have slowly become moral again.
I already addressed this. IQ superiority is not necessarily moral superiority. And even if I claim Whites are morally superior, I don't have to mean they were always morally superior. You on the other hand deny any racial differences, yet hold Whites to higher standards by your own admission. You are the epitome of a hypocrite.
As of 2018, there were over 600 white-supremacist organizations recorded in the U.S.
you can use it to hold Whites to higher standards.
I never said that Whites are perfect. Nobody is perfect. Just because they might be a bit more moral than brown people, doesn't mean they ought to be held to unrealistic standards (practicing conquest during a time of extreme scarcity, when it was a universal ethic throughout the world). Whites were the first to free another ethnic group for slavery and they are the only group who ever fought for rights of someone else beside themselves. Yet they get no credit for it.
shareI never said that Whites a perfect
Just because they might be a bit more moral than brown people, doesn't mean they ought to be held to unrealistic standards
I never said you did, so that is strawman.
Like not running slaves?
Yet you're holding [whites] to such standards
How man civilizations can you name that never had slavery? Slavery was not seen as immoral back then. One could even say it wasn't immoral given how scarce the environment was.
You are holding them to higher standards than others and you are holding them to unrealistic standards since slavery was naturally seen as moral back then given the environment.
"As I said, this just special pleading for among the worst of human behaviors, which was condemned by some back then too."
Slavery was not seen as immoral back then so no it was not the worst of human behaviors. That prize would have to probably go to mass human ritual sacrifice from civilizations in C. America. That kind of behavior was not prevalent throughout the world unlike slavery. Yet liberals don't hold those accountable, but they do hold Whites. Yet again a double standard.
Some, lol. Those were the exceptions not the rule. There are people who today say eating meat is immoral. Does that mean every non vegan is necessarily immoral?
You are holding them to higher standards than others and you are holding them to unrealistic standards since slavery was naturally seen as moral back then given the environment.
Slavery was not seen as immoral back then so no it was not the worst of human behaviors. That prize would have to probably go to mass human ritual sacrifice from civilizations in C. America.
Yet liberals don't hold those accountable, but they do hold Whites. Yet again a double standard.
There are people who today say eating meat is immoral. Does that mean every non vegan is necessarily immoral?
An accusation of "special pleading" (whatever that is) as an excuse to ignore a perfectly valid argument. I already addressed the exceptions. I never said Arabs ought to be condemned, I only mentioned them in the context of the fact only Whites are today condemned.
"haven't you now said that things ought not to be judged by the standards of today?"
Yes I did say that, but you and most of modern progressive society disagrees with that that so I'm throwing it back at your face. Also when have Whites conducted mass human sacrifice?
Jews were never seen as racially inferior, they were targeted because they were believed to be an enemy race. Holocaust had nothing to do with race and IQ. Nazis denied validity of IQ test just like modern liberals.
"where exactly do Liberals not hold any participants in the trade 'not accountable'? "
Liberals are concerned with White guilt, not West African guilt over slavery. You know the people who actually captured slaves as opposed to Whites who bought them with their own money and made a lot of Blacks rich. Liberals have double standards against Whites.
"A false comparison"
Not a false comparison. Morality ought to be judged by the environment people lived in at the time. It's liberals who tend to prescribe to moral relativism when it comes to behavior of Islamic societies and indigenous tribes, but when it comes to White behavior in a totally different environment, all that moral relativism goes out the window.