MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
Everything. 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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
This was allowed in the South prior to civil rights act. In any case you just provided an excellent argument why Blacks shouldn't live in the same country.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
I've given you many examples of things that clearly aren't "prejudiced" but postjudiced (juding Backs by data) is still called "racism"
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
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.
<blockquote>Sure. But blasphemy actually isn't that subjective. We just don't care about it in the west. It's a poor example.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Because specific racist groups are overrepresented in particular classes.</blockquote>
What are you referring to? Any evidence that people who hate Blacks wrote tests?
<blockquote>Sorry, are you of the opinion that black people, collectively, should "admit" that they're somehow not equal?</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>And despite unfair practices like affirmative action, black people are still disproportionately born into poverty in the USA.</blockquote>
Bingo!
So you're saying liberals don't have an anti White bias?
<blockquote>but then, from you elsewhere only just recently</blockquote>
quote bombing fallacy. Yawn.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>https://www.jstor.org/stable/48623311 A few seconds work. Google in your friend,</blockquote>
So in arguing against my stance that race mixing shouldn't be celebrated you source a link with more proof that race mixing shouldn't be celebrated? Even if psychological issue s of mixed children is 100% environmental, it's still an argument against race mixing.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
LOL no it doesn't. 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. There is no double standard.
<blockquote>But I wasn't being asked for proof for race supremacists in general, just to offer one example. </blockquote>
This is not official position or principle. Just personal hypocrisy of one individual. Name me prominent White nationalists who say Blacks don't have a right to nativism, identity, pride, history...etc. The left in general opposes all this for Whites.
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.
<blockquote>My point really; and so QED. Thank you.</blockquote>
I said 100%. You can prove it with 99% chance. All other circumstantial evidence says it's genetics.
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.
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.
"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.
And the knife crime is still through the roof, Blacks are 58% of murder suspects in London despite being 13% of the population.
"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.
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
And 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.
"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.
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.
My 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.
"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 never said most people believe this. I just listed this as an example of double standards from the left. m
<blockquote>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?</blockquote>
The US could easily split in half by race. There are much historic territorial connections than in Europe or the Middle East.
<blockquote>Many mixed-race people in the UK are not immigrants.</blockquote>
They are descendants of immigrants.