John Oliver: Tucker Carlson’s carefully laundered white supremacist act is too dangerous to ignore - Tucker Carlson Discussion

[–] blue1981 (8165) 4 years ago

Who cares, I watch many of Tucker Carlson videos often. If any news personality ran for office Tucker would be great for it.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7247) 4 years ago

Of course white supremacists would vote for a populist asshole like him. You already did it before!

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

No reason not to.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8847) 4 years ago

I'd definitely vote for him.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

There is effectively no such thing as a "white supremacist". It's nothing more than a leftist scare word.

reply

[–] christomacin (4729) 3 years ago

There are some people (I know a few) who sincerely believe it is a scientific fact that non-white races are empirically, genetically inferior to the white race. Those are the true White Supremacists. They do exist. The question though, is if the term is being over used. Of course, other cultures may hold those beliefs about their race as well, like many Asian countries.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

No, a White supremacist is someone who wants Whites to rule over non Whites and virtually nobody wants that. Differences between the races are a scientific obvious fact. Weather you want to label this "superiority" is a philosophical question.

reply

[–] christomacin (4729) 3 years ago

Well, the one belief can reinforce the other, especially if you believe it is mandated by science and/or religion. I said they believe non-whites are "inferior", and that they believe they are superior, not just different. This belief can then be used to justify ruling over non-white groups, or in worst case scenario, removing them or eliminating them altogether. It's not just down to cultural differences and concerns over immigration, although true white supremacy could grow out of that, but it doesn't necessarily follow.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

The ruling over and elimination isn't realistic. The age of empires and colonialism is long over. Today the superpower that is US can't even effectively rule over backward Afghanistan even with the help of Afghans themselves. The belief in racial differences IMO can only lead to racial separation, which isn't inherently oppressive and many of minorities themselves want. It would solve a lot of problem.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7247) 3 years ago

Just like antifa and communists are the right's boogeymen

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Communists maybe. They don't really exist anymore. But Antifa are real and they beat people. Just look what they did to that gay Quilette writer.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Your subsequent breakout is like when ppl yell "pedophile!", and then the response is "no, the correct word is ephebophile."

Your clarification of semantics doesn't change the nature of what's being criticized or what's being asserted. Even if the phrase "white supremacist" is a misnomer, there's still a concrete observation/argument being made.

It's good to clarify definitions. But using a definition to make some sort of point like this is just as misguided as the people tossing out scare words to demonize their opponents.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

So you are saying there is no difference if someone has sex with a 16 yearold or a 3 yerold? There is a difference between a White advocate (a White identatarian who is just opposed to unfairness against Whites) and a White oppressionist who wants Whites to colonize and hold Blacks as second class citizens. The smear term "white supremacist" which is today used basically against any White person who is on the political right is a dishonest way to blur these two things and demonizing White people who just want freedom and self determination for their people - something that all non Whites take for granted. White advocacy should be seen as totally morally benign, if you don't think Al Sharpton is a "racist" or a "Black supremacist" you shouldn't think that of an equally tribal White person.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 3 years ago

I'm assuming you won't get a reply. I've found this undeniable double standard is impossible to ignore by the left, so they won't discuss it. Of course we see evidence of tribalism by all races. Chinatown, BLM, national Hispanic pride month, and hundreds of communities across the nation that populate themselves with races the same as their own, by their choice. It only gets labeled racist if it's related to Caucasians, which is the definition of racism itself. The hypocrisy can't be ignored, so from the lefts standpoint, it can't be addressed.

reply

[–] tom8 (3119) 3 years ago

if you, your sister, or your mom were raped by blacks/Arabs .... you would not report iy to the police, that is how scared you are of being labeled a racist.

you would rather be a victim than admit the truth. that is how weak/stupid you are.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

John Oliver seems tired lately, broadcasting from his blank void ( is he still doing that? )
Some weeks be bounces back hard with a great show.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4008) 4 years ago

Oliver is just a random HBO virtue signaler. He's another random Brit who washed up on our shore to lecture us, just like Piers Morgan.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 4 years ago

Well, at least Oliver is funny and on point.
Morgan is a mor-on.
Looking at America and we are definitely in need of a few lectures by the right people.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4008) 4 years ago

Random "comedians" don't equal "the right people."

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8847) 4 years ago

Piers Morgan at least talks sense much of the time, even if he's wrong on guns.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4008) 4 years ago

Carlson just hops from network to network and does whatever he's told to do. On MSNBC, he was a moderate. On FoxNews, he's a raging, QAnon nutjob. Just pay him a salary, and he is your puppet.

The funniest part is that anyone actually believes that he isn't just playing everyone.

reply

[–] maximmm (3405) 3 years ago

All anchors are puppets/actors of sorts - they read stuff off the teleprompter and seldom contribute to it. That's why Stephen Colbert was funny on one show and is abysmal now. Basically, you gotto look at who is writing their stuff to know what's what - and who is editing the written stuff.

reply

[–] johnmiller (4008) 3 years ago

That's why they have a dozen writers. Bill Maher has about seven or so writers.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

That's a sick thing to say about another human being.

John Oliver is a true evil piece of shit.

reply

[–] NGMI (1184) 4 years ago

They have no choice. They'll never be able to refute actual facts and ideas. They're like children who throw tantrums as soon as they are corrected by parroting comebacks they've heard their witty actors...umm excuse me, news personality comedians say. Like seriously, they run to Bill Maher, Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Don Lemon for their political news and retorts? Yikes.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11488) 3 years ago

They aren't even running to Maher anymore. He sees it's all about to shift back to the right, so he's becoming very anti woke lately.

reply

[–] liscarkat (19385) 4 years ago

It's so entertaining to watch leftists fulminate about anybody who speaks the truth as they can't grasp it.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

That's some hard-hitting rhetoric ! XD

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8847) 4 years ago

They're just mad Tucker gets great ratings while the buffoons at the lefty networks are constantly trying to play catch-up. CNN's prime time ratings are particularly dreadful.

It's a shame that people like Oliver have a fairly wide audience though and that much of the country is being influenced by fools like him.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

No one gives a crap about who gets what ratings. You can be a raging goober, and all the slack-jawed masses watch with glazed eyeballs. What good is that?

reply

[–] LennyNero (501) 3 years ago

A ton of people love McDonalds, and I don’t suspect because it’s a great burger. It’s cheap, easy, uncomplicated, and fast….like Tucker. There’s no thinking required. Just buy it, quickly consume it, and you’re filled.

It’s a shame, but I know too many people that are too uninterested in what happens around them, and simply get their “news” from the people they spend time with (who also don’t spend much time analyzing the world around them). It’s like the blind leading the blind.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8847) 3 years ago

Well I won't disagree with the second part. Most people are not up on what's going on in the world. They are much too wrapped up in their own lives to be concerned about what's happening elsewhere, and what they do know is usually an inch deep.

Just as significant of a problem is that even for people who are trying to be informed, there is so much misinformation and disinformation being propagated right now that it can be very difficult to know who to trust or to know when when information you're receiving is fully accurate, only partially accurate or an outright lie.

reply

[–] kungfulord (957) 4 years ago

So ask questions is dangerous?

Carlson is kind of an asshole some times but we need diversity of opinions not everything can be oriented to the left i believe the guy present good points a lot of times and talk about things that need to be talk about and everybody else is so focussed in be PC that just ignored, is not bigotry be in the other side of the spectrum

reply

[–] jewoogle (2269) 4 years ago

Breaking News!! John Oliver carefully laundered being a british cucklord act into something too dangerous not be revolted by

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

There is nothing oppressive or morally wrong with White nationalism. I mean that 100% seriously and can defend that position against anyone.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Okay I'll bite...

Then please explain the main agenda of what you call White Nationalism?

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Are you against Romanian nationalism? Should Romanians be denied the right to have their own nation? Does anyone call Romanians having it's nation evil? Boy, those Romanians sure are oppressing those Bulgarians by not letting Romania turn into Bulgaria.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

WHAT???

So your explanation of white nationalism is that Romania doesn't to turn into Bulgaria?

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

What do you mean "what"? It's a perfectly valid analogy. Nationalism is not inherently oppressive, so why should White nationalism be? Nationalism =/= imperialism

edit: I was explaining why White nationalism is not inherently evil, not answering your stupid question of what White nationalism is. The latter is self explanatory.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well I didn'y ask what it was... but what the main agenda of white nationalism is... I perfectly understand nationalism... but why should it only be for a country's white citizens?

You say there is nothing oppressive or morally wrong with "white" nationalism... but isn't it oppressive to favour its country's citizens based on the colour of their skin?

I am glad you think your own analogy is perfectly valid... I just do not see how it describes white nationalism?

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

White nationalism is nothing more than an idea of Whites to have their own country. It doesn't have to be literally 100% White, just like Romania doesn't have to be 100% Romanian, but no politician in Romania (even far left) would support Romanians becoming minority in Romania like what is happening currently in the US with Whites becoming a minority. Any opposition to the demographic changes in the US is labelled "White nationalism" by the media. So even someone in the US who is only in favour of stopping immigration is labelled "White nationalist" even though he doesn't necessarily want to split up the US along racial lines. It's nothing more than a smear term.

If USA would remain the ethnic composition of what it is today, and the government would favour it's White citizens that would be oppressive and wrong. But that's not what nationalism is. Romanian nationalism doesn't say ethnic Romanians should have legal favours in relation to non Romanians. Likewise, White nationalism doesn't say non Whites should have less rights, it only seeks to split up US along racial lines. That would give Blacks and Hispanics their own respective countries which is something many of them want and the current system denies.

Separation is the opposite of oppression. It virtually impossible for an ethnic group to oppress another if they stay away from them. The media is constantly telling us how Whites supposedly "oppress" non Whites and how Whites are hopelessly sick with unconscious "racism" which is virtually impossible to cure. Well, wouldn't the most effective solution to that be to free Black and Brown people from White oppression and give them their own countries?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You do know that The United States of America was built on immigration... Now that you are worried that the white part of the USA might become a minority you want to stop immigration?

Why should people of different colour stay away from each other? And how would you find countries for these so called black and brown people? Are you proposing that you split up the USA and create 3 new countries? And what about the Asian community are they covered by what you call brown people?

Wouldn't it make more sense to try and learn to coexist in the same country?

And what source do you base your claims the the majority of White, Black and Brown people (as you some elegantly call them) want their own country?

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

US was built by White immigrants. Non Whites have been nothing but a burden on the country and continue to be so, economic, crime wise, cultural and political. Diversity is bad for society. Sociological studies have proven that. Americans of different races have trued to "coexist" for centuries, it doesn't work. The left's claims themselves of how America is supposedly "racist" is only proof of how diversity doesn't work. The definition of insanity is to try doing the same thing after it has proven time and time again to fail.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

True... but they did that with slaves from Africa... I am pretty sure the black africans were not a burden when they worked for free to help the White immigrants built the country... Am I also sure they would have loved to return to their homeland when they learned of their new future in America... But the white americans brought them to the country and kept them there... so in that regard you can only blame your forefathers...

It is funny you feel that White Americans have have this god given right to America... Maybe Native Americans feel you should leave and return to Europe where you came from... that actually makes more sense that what you are saying...

And of course diversity can work... but it is hard when on "race" controls all the power... try to accept America's future with a diverse sociaty... and instead of worrying about people of different colour, try to educate the sociaty so you get rid of religious extremism (both the religious consevative right and of course the fanatic muslims)... then you might get a diverse sociaty that works...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Slaves didn't build America. That's just a myth the left perpetuates because they realize there is a need for Blacks to play a positive role in American history because they know that without that role, people will realize that Blacks are nothing but a burden to the country.

Whites weren't immigrants. They were settlers. Latter Whites were immigrants, but initial ones weren't. My forefathers didn't enslave anyone nor supported the institution of slavery. I come from an Eastern European country and have never been to the US, but I have studied it's history and am familiar with it's current sociological and political situation.

Native Americans had no country when Whites arrived and brought civilization. They were constantly at war wit each other, scalped each other and treated women like property. They barely had any farming and no written language. If White Americans left for Europe, today's native Americans would be following them just like non Whites today follow Whites wherever they go, while at the same time claim to be oppressed by them.

You're right when you say one race has virtually all control, but you're wrong about which race that is. I'll give you a hint: Small hats.

With America's diverse future will only come more problems. How many political extremists did America have in the 1950s? How many school shootings? America's social problems seem to have started in the 1960s when liberal attitudes took over.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You have lost the plot... so now you are blaming the Jews... You know most of them are white americans... but I begin to sense they are not the right kind of white for your taste... You are begining to sound like this little angry dude from Austria... I think you know who...

There is nothing positive about slavery and it is a dark spot in American history... I do not think any African Americans feel any joy in their forefathers situation... but the truth is that slavery was a competitive advantage when you compare it to countries who didn't have an almost free workforce...

Get back to me when you have actually been to the USA an talked to actual americans...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

No, I'm actually not anti Semitic unlike many of fellows in the Alt Right. I don't think Jews are inherently bad. But they are right that Jews do hold extremely disproportionate positions of power relative to their share of the population and since you mentioned one race holding all the power I had to correct you. It's not Whites. Jews themselves mostly don't consider White.

Slavery did not have any advantage to the economy. It was a huge burden. Economic growth requires flow of money and slavery prevents that. It made a small number of extremely wealthy plantation owners rich, but that's it. Why do you think the North was so much more developed that the South? Any economist will tell you slavery was bad for development. Many think Rome would have industrialized if it wasn't for slavery.

I don't have to have been in the US in order to understand it. I've talked to plenty of Americans online and I follow it's media and politics, In fact, being an outsider gives me an advantage, because i am able to view it objectively and un-emotionately without having a stake in it.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

But you do... to understand a country to its fullest... you have to have been there talked to people on both sides of the spectrum...

The problem with the internet is you seek out information that agrees with you... but it is often a very narrow picture of the truth...

And you are wrong... slavery did kickstart America's economy.. but it is not a nice story so many myths have been spread to hide this ugly fact:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-economy-capitalism-violence-cotton-edward-baptist

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Oh please, I am very aware of the people that disagree with me and the arguments they have. The entire mainstream media and academia is on the left. I am well aware of their nonsense.

Slavery didn't make America rich. If so why is Australia so rich? It's GDP/capita is very close to the US. It didn't have slavery. What made America is the high IQ population, protestant work ethic, limited government, democracy, modern economy (ass opposed to the traditional medieval economy burdened by guilds) rule of law, industrial revolution, scientific revolution, separation of church and state..etc. All things stemming from Europe.

The idea that slavery made America rich is a myth perpetuated by the left because they NEED a positive role for Blacks to play in American history, because they realize that WITHOUT that role Americans will develop a negative view of Blacks. It's ends justify the means, a noble lie.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You can keep repeating yourself it doesn't make you right... You might be aware of what you call the mainstream media... but you have blinders on... And I am by no means saying that the mainstream media doesn't let out a certain amount of bull... but that is from both the right and left...

What the f*** is protestant work ethic? Are you by any chance protestant?

And Australia had slavery so again you are uninformed...

And I still do not understand how you feel that if slavery was part of America's rise... it makes it a good story for the black community? it is and always will be a dark part of America's history no matter what it did for the country...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

The "Protestant Work Ethnic" is the cultural celebration of hard work by Protestants.

Do you really not see how that would be relevant to the creation of wealth?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Let us connect hard work with a specific religion... I guess that sums up a lot of the problems with today's world...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Not all cultures are teh same. Ignoring specific traits of one, because it is a positive trait, is being unfair to those people.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Now you are talking about culture... before it was religion... Sure some cultures have positive traits... but that has nothing to do with race or religion...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Blah, blah, blah. Religion and culture are intertwined and you are just playing silly word games now. Common for liberals that have lost an debate.

The point stands. America had a number of advantages that led to US being wealthy, and slavery was NOT one of them.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

How can I loose an argument... when you have presented no proof other than your own opinion?

So before you decide that you have won a debate... please present some factual evidence...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

The other guy listed some advantages America I had, I focused on Protestant work ethnic and all you did was whine, without actually challenging any of them.

That is you losing.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Really... So now I am whining... funny you accused me of playing silly word games...

So when you cannot answer a question... you accuse someone of whining... Is that your masterplan?

I do not know what you think I am losing? But hey I am still waiting for a coherent answer from you... or some factual evidence...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

I focused on ONE of the advantages listed. It is a real thing and it had impact. You want to research how much impact? Go crazy. YOu just whining about it, is not a counter argument.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

So you can't even prove your own point... and you say I am whining:-)

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Yep. YOu are whining. Teh Free North was ALWAYS outgrowing the slave south and that is why the Civil War was such an one sided affair. Your anti-American fantasy that slavery is what built this country only makes sense if you are completely ignorant of history.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

I am pretty sure you are the one who is whining... I never said slavery built America but it played a part... It seems I hurt your feelings at some point... I have no anti-American fantasy... but you should never ignore important parts of a country's history even if it isn't pretty...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

The issue today is not whether or not we ignore the "not pretty" parts, but that we spend ALL our time focusing on the worst AND making up some negative shit too.

That you pretend otherwise, is you shitcanning your own credibility.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well you have been shitcanning your own credibility from the begining of this discussion... so maybe you managed to pull me down to your level:-)

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Everyone reading this, knows that what I said is true, and what you said is bullshit.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

> America had a number of advantages that led to US being wealthy, and slavery was NOT one of them.

Yeah, cumulative exponential investment of someone else's 400 years of free labor didn't make any difference, as well as the saving in taxes from not paying for health care like every other developed country does. Plus free land as much as you can steal if you kill the indigenous population. It's happened, I don't get why anyone today has to try to hide that or deny it. Denying it and not telling people about is the Republican plan.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

If it was that, then the South would have been the engine of American growth before and even after the civil war.

Instead it was the FREE north, that was growing in leaps and bounds.

Your ideas sound great. Until you compare them to actual reality of what actually happened.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

Do you really need me to teach you history? Hamilton put up protectionist trade policies to develop America's industry and that is how America became independent from Britain and more that just another colony sucked dry from cheap labor and raw materials. The North industrialized and the South pretty much stuck or cotton and tobacco.

Anyone who knows even first order history understands that.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

So, yes. THe north industrialized, becoming the core of the most powerful nation on Earth.

While the slave south, fell behind. And stayed behind.

Pretty much teh exact opposition of what you would get, if slavery is what built this nation.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

Kind of a limited mentality there. That was in the 1800's ... there is still 300 hundred years before of free labor that build the South and its infrastructure. You guys really hang on so tight to your delusions. Then when slavery was gone, virtual slavery continued, to today when we have pretty much equal opportunity wage slavery that does not even provide a living wage, or any motivation at all to consider the life liberty or pursuit of happiness for most Americans.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

"Virtual slavery"? What a load of shit. LOL!!!

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

working as an internet troll is kind of virtual slavery ... not so funny really is it?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Here in the real world, this country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the early 60s. You are full of shit.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Nobody denies slavery was bad OK? It doesn't justify White guilt, because it wasn't unique to America or White people. Africa had slavery before White people ever showed up. Whites never enslaved Blacks. They simply bought existing slave from other Blacks. In the South during slavery, there were White slaves and Black slave owners. According to one estimate as much as 28% of free Blacks owned slaves. But that story is rarely told because it doesn't fit the narrative of evil Whitey the media and the left constantly push. Do you really think slavery builds wealth? You still haven't answered why was the North which didn't have slavery so much wealthier than the South. You still haven't answered how slavery builds wealth. I have explained how it does the opposite, you haven't explained anything but linking a far left publication like Vox I wouldn't trust in a million years. I already told you why they promote the myths of American slavery.

It makes a good story because it gives Blacks a positive role in American history. If White people believe Blacks helped build America, they are less likely to feel resentment against them for how they behave today. Do you ever wonder why the modern SJW left keeps saying that treating people by the content of their character is racist? Because they don't want Blacks judged by their character. They want Whites feeling perpetually guilt and turning a blind eye to Black behaviour.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You do know the North also had slaves... so you don't really have an argument...

You throw numbes around... but where are your sources... what have you actually explained with any credible evidence...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Nowhere nearly to the extent as the South. We are arguing weather or not slavery has a positive impact on the economy. If it does then South wouldn't have been so much backward compared to the North. The truth is slavery is BAD for the economy, because it prevents the flow of money.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Of course there still was a flow of money... There were a whole business in buying and selling slaves... Actually The North made a lot of money selling slaves to the South...

Please present the factual evidence you have that slaves were bad for The South's economy...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

It was bad because slavery isn't an industry that spawns other industries. If people don't get paid, they don't spend the money. Any economist will tell you slavery is bad for the economy.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Again no factual evidence... just a stametent from you that any economist will tell me it is bad for the economy...

Then it should be easy to find evidence that supports your claim.

But again your premise isn't correct...

First of all the money the slave owner saved in wages he could invest. It is not like the money disapeared, they just ended up in in the Slave Owner's pocket instead of his workforce...

And secondly it is not like the entire community were slaves... there were regular people with regular jobs in The South who earned money...

You are of course right that the wealth in The South were shared among an elite group (much like the wealth in America today;-)) so if they had no vision on how to improve their community and invest their fortune... then that would be an issue for the progress of the sociaty in the South... but that has nothing to do with the slaves... only the people making money of slave labour... and their limited visions...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

You still haven't provided any arguments why was the South so much poorer and less industrialized than the North. Many experts think that Rome would have industrialized if it wasn't for slavery. If slavery is amazing for the economy which your position requires, then why shouldn't some countries today enact slavery? Remember, you don't just have to prove slavery wasn't bad for the economy, you have to prove it wasn't neutral either. The premise we are arguing with is weather or not Blacks built America.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

WHAT??? Just read my latest post if you want a reason for the South being poorer than the North...

And if you think we are arguing weather or not Blacks built America... then I understand why most of your posts make no sense... At no point have I ever stated the Blacks built America...

We all know modern America was primarily built by the European Settlers/immigrants... But with use of slavery as they imported aprox. 4 million Africans as slaves to the North American continent...

Just answer this question... What do companies often do when they have financial difficulties in today's world or need to maximize their profits?

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

I don't deny that slavery made plantation owners rich, but that is not what we're debating. We're debating weather or not it made America in general rich.

I have read your post and I see no answer why the South was poorer than the North.

We are debating weather or no America is rich due to slavery. If it is, then the idea that Black built America is at least in part true. If you don't agree with that thesis, then I see no reason to debate anymore. I'm glad we agree.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well as I have explained numerous times the North also made money on slavery...

But as I wrote earlier:
'You are of course right that the wealth in The South were shared among an elite group (much like the wealth in America today;-)) so if they had no vision on how to improve their community and invest their fortune... then that would be an issue for the progress of the sociaty in the South... but that has nothing to do with the slaves... only the people making money of slave labour... and their limited visions...'

If we forget there some basic climate advantages which favour the North...

Then the main issue for the South were the lack of visions of the Plantation Owners/Slave owners/Southern Elite (call them what you want)... on how to spend their wealth and invest in their sociaty... it was also a problem that the majority of the wealth was shared between very few people and they therefore didn't see the benefit in investing in other business areas... because their business was very profitable (especially because a large workforce who demanded no salary: SLAVES)

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Yes, they didn't want to invest in other businesses, because slavery was very profitable to them. And that's why the South didn't become industrialized. Hence slavery stood in the way.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You are a very narrow minded person... Try and read what you just wrote... Slaves didn't stand in the way... bad decisions... by the people in power did... Funny you try to blame the slaves for their owners lack of ambition...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Nobody is blaming slaves, I blame the institution of slavery. Learn the difference. That's what we are debating, aren't we?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well I guess it started with you wanting to defend White nationalism...

And then you said something about white, black and brown people should have their own countries...

Slavery made a lot of white folks rich... that those people didn't know how/or wanted to invest that money in their community has nothing to with slavery... you could say it made then lazy... but that is still on them not the institution of slavery... Which they of course should ended... instead of fighting a civil war for that right...

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

It has everything to do with slavery. If slavery was illegal they would have HAD to invest in other businesses' that would have stimulated the economy.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

> It doesn't justify White guilt

Guilt is an emotion. What does that have to do with anything?

I learned clearly as a kid about the genocide of the native Americans and African slavery. It's a sad story, but I didn't do it, nor did my parents. Probably on my dad's mother's side of the family if you back far enough they might be some connection there - but people should not deny it.

Feeling bad is Republican code for to not do anything about it or be asked to do anything about it. They feel bad if their taxes and labor costs go up.

You get into all this mushy stuff about feelings and resentment - and none of that makes any difference. Deal with your feelings ... and remember it the next time you ridicule someone for the being a snowflake know that you are a snowflake too.

And just because some Whites recognize the injustice of history does not mean they feel perpetual guilt. Maybe they feel perpetual disappointment in the inhumanity and deceitfulness of Republicans who are all over the place in terms of arguments against limiting their greed.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

What happened to Native Americans wasn't a genocide. They mostly died due to diseases which they weren't immune to. There were some battles and some treaties broken, but that was history was before international law and modernity - conquest ethic.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

You have no idea of history past a John Wayne movie.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

When you lose an argument, resort to ad hominem.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

You have a false sense of history, and you know it and deliberately pass it on. No wonder you are so terrified of Critical Race Theory. That's a personal defect, so there is really nothing else to say other than ad hominem ... if you were actually a hominem.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

What false sense of history? The idea of a Native American genocide has been thoroughly debunked
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=rL2XX_2tNk8
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=UIkud2agq1A

Critical race theory is very one sided to the point of being bigoted against Whites. When someone tries to blame exclusively one group for an ethnic conflict, that should be red flag. It completely ignores critical (no pun intended) things when it discussing with Black White relationships such as IQ differences.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 3 years ago

>Do you ever wonder why the modern SJW left keeps saying that treating people by the content of their character is racist? Because they don't want Blacks judged by their character. They want Whites feeling perpetually guilt and turning a blind eye to Black behavior.

What is it with there loony narratives about what Fascists develop to dehumanize both people of color and decent people who seek to better race relations and lower inequality.

And I use that term, Fascist, because it is a main tenet of Fascism, to dehumanize those they want to exploit or marginalize politically. Truly vicious hate speech that is allowed to unchecked here.

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

Whites aren't dehumanizing anyone. In fact they always portray Blacks in the most positive light. Blacks dehumanize themselves with their behaviour.

A fascist is someone who believes in militarism, dictatorship and big government. I believe in none of that.

reply

[–] blue1981 (8165) 3 years ago

I look at it as wanting to ensure you and your family's survival in America when modern liberalism have made it perfectly clear they want the white population wiped off the map. They hate everything about our existence and don't even hide their racism anymore. That's why they exploit the immigration issue the way that they do.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Okay... but shouldn't you want a nation with equal rights for everybody... white, black, asian, hispanic etc.? Isn't the issue basically the white america has been in total control of power for centuries, and now they have to except that they might have to share some of that power?

reply

[–] blue1981 (8165) 3 years ago

I do but if the modern left get there way they’ll create their own version of the holocaust to kill us. I’m convinced that’s where things are head with the current trajectory of their rhetoric.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You honestly believe that?

I think you need to meet some people from what you call the modern left and try to talk to them face to face... It often helps instead of trusting what you hear and read in todays media...

reply

[–] blue1981 (8165) 3 years ago

Yes I do believe that. If it weren't the case than open borders wouldn't be a problem and liberals wouldn't justify their racism under the lie of diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

So you think the modern left are planing to kill you?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

I had a liberal call me a racist because I want my people to survive.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

But yet you are still alive...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

So until I am DEAD, I can't talk about the openly expressed hostility from liberals?

To be clear, you refuse to admit any hostility, until after the person making the complaint is DEAD? Then you are willing to listen to our words?

Cute. Stupid. Retarded even. But cute in a vile sort of way.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

I was asking blue1981 if he honestly thought what he called the modern left was planning to kill him...

To that you replied that some liberal once called you a racist... I would say that is kind of cute... but seeing how you generally answer my questions... I guess you see being called a racist as proof that liberals wants to kill you...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Being called racist BECASUE I expressed a desire to see my people survive was the point I made.

That is a. some serious hostility to white people as a group and b. shows that you libs just use the word "Wacism" to mean anything you don't like.

Like whites surviving as a group.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

My people??? I am white but I am more worried about the survival of the entire human race and not one specific ethnic group...

What if in 500 years we were all brown... is that a problem? I mean as long as we got smarter as humans and maybe buried all religion for good (so we stopped fighting over which god is right and stupid landmarks that has some holy meaning)... would that really be a big problem?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

IMO, yes. Do you share the belief that my wanting my people to survive makes me a bad person? Is that the point you are trying to hint at, while not actually saying it clearly, because being clear makes you look really, really bad?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Again with your people... who are these people of yours?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

I asked a simple question. YOu choose to evade.

My defined group is irrelevant. ALL groups have value and a right to want to survive.

Unless, you have different rules for different groups? Cool for some groups to work to advance their interests, but not for others?

I would ask about what you meant, but you have shown you don't answer tough questions.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well you don't answer any questions... so I guess I beat you there:-)

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

YOu asked if I thought it would be a problem, and I said YES.

I asked you if you thought that made me a bad person and you dodged.

You are the one afraid to answer questions. and you are lying about it.

Standard for lefties.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

I didn't dodge s***... I have no idea if you are a bad person... I don't know you...

And what kind of question is that anyway: "Do you share the belief that my wanting my people to survive makes me a bad person?"

You could might as well have asked... if eating dinner makes you a bad person...

You keep calling me a lefty or liberal but you don't know anything about me...

I don't know what you are... but you are fast to draw the victim card... that I can see...

But then expand your answer a bit... why is it bad if all humans are brown in 500 years?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Because my group has value. There are plenty of groups that have value and when that distinctiveness is lost, the world will be poorer for it.

My point stands. A fair number of people in today's world, thinks that is wrong of me to want my people to survive.

That is extreme hostility, based on race.

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Okay... are your group all white people? Or how do you define your group?

Another questions... do you believe in evolution? If so, do you believe white people are more evolved than other races/groups?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Why do you ask that? Is your response different depending on the racial make up of my group?

Do white groups have different standards to be allowed to survive as opposed to black or brown groups?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

You keep going on about your people/your group I have tried to ask you before but you do not want to answer?

I do not even want to know what you mean about 'different standards'... because I do not divide people in groups who has to survive...

And my 2nd question you just ignored?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Why do you care about the color of my group? Does it change your answer as to whether or not it is ok or not for me to want them to survive?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Again no answer... why are you so sensitive? It is fine that you want them to survive and just don't know who they are?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

I don't understand your answer. You say that it is fine that I want us to survive, but then you put a question mark at the end of the sentence.

Is it ok for me to want my group to survive or not? Are you part of those that think that me wanting us to survive is racist?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

I still don't know who your group are... am I part of your group?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Why does it matter what my group is? DOes your answer change depending on what my group is?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

It is interesting what criteria you use to define your group...

For example a group could be 'all humans' but I guess your group is smaller than that?

You also never answered my questions about evolution?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

My group is interesting to me. You refuse to address why you need to know, BEFORE you give your answer. Do you have different rules for different people? Based on what?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Because it is interesting how you define your group... You claim you want your people to survive... but you won't tell who those people are... What are you afraid of?

Furthermore you won't answer if you belive in evolution... a very simple question?

Earlier you complained about me evading a question... you have done nothing but evade...

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

I think what is interesting is that you asking me to define my group, BEFORE you answer, demonstrates pretty clearly that FOR YOU, wanting to survive is WRONG for SOME groups, depending on who they are.

iN the context of the former discussion, my group was WHITES.

So, will you address teh point now, or more evasion?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

I have no problem with survival... But when we start to use our resources to fight for survival for different groups of colour (and that doesn't matter what colour that group are black, white, brown etc.) it is a waste of our human capacity... And you still haven't answered if you believe in evolution?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Funny. I ask about my group surviving and you assume conflict.

ANd if it doesn't matter, why did you make such a point of knowing?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

It did matter that your criteria was as ignorant as colour so I wanted to make sure instead of just presume what your group consist of... Well it is pretty easy to create conflict when you favour people based on the colour of their skin... But then explain to me how you want to fight for your groups survival without creating conflict?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) 3 years ago

Funny. YOu are the one that brought up conflict and fighting, not me. I just want to survive. Peace works fine for me. Why do you discount it?

reply

[–] OldG (853) 3 years ago

Well I asked you to explain your peaceful methods of survival for your group... But again you chose to evade...

reply

[–] blue1981 (8165) 3 years ago

When they are actively trying to replace us by open borders and pedaling the "white guilt" nonsense I'd say yes.

reply

[–] maximmm (3405) 3 years ago

I suspect the main idea is to create division between people - divided people are easier to control.

reply