MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
<blockquote>which according to you cannot be distinguished from hate. </blockquote>
I never said it cannot be distinguished. It can easily, but I'm asking how do leftists and government distinguish it since they accuse us of "hate"? If all White ethnic grievance is hate, then Whites aren't allowed ti raise political grievances which means we are not a democratic society.
If you think my argument depended on the idea that hate and legit grievances cannot be distinguished then you didn't understand my point.
<blockquote>They are certainly not middle ground.</blockquote>
Appeal to the Overton window in this situation is a logical fallacy since the location of the OW depends on who has power in society. Why should they be seen as "extreme"?
They are not White identatarian. They might be authoritarian and "anti-Semitic" but they are different people than who I am defending (Duke, Taylor)
<blockquote>Thank you for pointing up an extra, racial hypocrisy.</blockquote>
Again changing the topic and ignoring the point. My point was never to defend authoritarian brown anti Semites. My point was to defend White nationalism and White identity. Where is a WN double standard on race?
<blockquote>I never said you did, so that is strawman.</blockquote>
Yet you're holding them to such standards
<blockquote>Like not running slaves?</blockquote>
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.
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.
<blockquote>It is not an argument to excuse massive white involvement in an odious trade.</blockquote>
It is an argument against Whites being blamed for slavery. The context isn't "Were Whites always perfect". Nobody was. The context is uniqueness of White guilt
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
So you don't deny mainstream society and the left is hypocritical when it holds Whites to higher standards, but denies their superiority? Also holding someone to higher standards is still unfair even if they are superior.
Fallacies of White guilt:
1. Applying modern moral standards to the past in a totally different world
2. Singling out Whites and failing to hold others who behaved equally to the same standards
3. Blaming modern people who weren't even alive then for the sins of their ancestors
White guilt is easily dismissed as unfair to Whites on any of these points, let alone all of them.
How can I link 10 yo WP? Why weren't Whites buying slaves from Chinese or Indians (at least to the same extent) as with Africans? I think it's because those places were more civilized and had more things to trade and also weren't capturing their own peope.
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.
<blockquote>people will always seek to blame outsiders or newcomers</blockquote>
Then why aren't they blaming the Chinese?
An opinion of a far left newspaper is proof of discrimination of Asians? Also Covid was a special situation because the virus originated there. Also you changing the topic. The point was that higher Asian SES is not seen as a problem while higher White SES is. A double standard against Whites.
<blockquote>It is true though, please see previous posts.</blockquote>
Ok thanks for your opinion on weather races exist, but you are ignoring the point. I'm getting sick of this from you. I never ignore your points or try to change the direction.
<blockquote>Or, check the dictionary for the separate and distinct definitions of 'hate' and 'grievance'.</blockquote>
How about you link them to me?
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?
<blockquote>the legal system distinguishes quite readily between a grievance and a hate crime. </blockquote>
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?
So native Brits aren't becoming a minority? Or is somehow not a legit grievance? How? Arguments please.
<blockquote>By using unhateful speech</blockquote>
Define "hateful". Precise definition please. Examples please. How would they raise all grievances and present good arguments for their politics without being accused of hate?
Again ignoring the point. How do we know that the small genetic difference between populations (or whatever you want to call them instead of "race") cannot be cause of IQ or crime propensity differences? If there are differences in height and lactose intolerance, why not behavoral predispostions?
<blockquote>Unless you are Native American, then so are you.</blockquote>
Aren't we discussing UK?
Data about Black crime and cash benefits isn't "stereotyping". It's reality. Why would they be discriminated unless they behave worse. Also evidence for discrimination please and not just their perceptions they are discriminated. Why aren't there such problems with Chinese and Indians? Answer please
<blockquote>based on data of the positive net contribution of immigrants, necessary not least because of the increasingly pensionable population.</blockquote>
Again why are you ignoring my argument about WHERE do we want to take in immigrants?
"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)
<blockquote>Stuff like freedom from discrimination and hate?</blockquote>
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?
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.
<blockquote>The concept of race classification in physical anthropology lost credibility around the 1960s.</blockquote>
Right around the time culture/society changed it's views on race. What a coincidence
The American Anthropological Association is one organization influenced by society, ideology and politics. Aren't the same "experts" today changing their views on biological sex right around the time the transgender "civil rights" movement is becoming dominant? Another coincidence I suppose? Any category can be deconstructed if you want to deconstruct it and think it makes you a good person doing so.
Name me please examples of affluent Black societies. Colonialism excuse is laughably stupid. Liberia and Ethiopia were never colonized, yet they're shit holes. Haiti has been independent for 220 years. Singapore and Hong Kong are today richer than their former colonizer. Ask yourself how are Honk Kong and Singapore different from Africa?
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.
<blockquote>Again you have your opinion and you are welcome to it.</blockquote>
Again ignoring the whole argument.
When does the far right want to censor or punish Black identity politics? Examples please.
No I mean all examples the left gives like how it's supposedly unfair to Blacks a whole when a Black guy gets followed by security in the supermarket despite the fact it's Black behavior which is the root cause.
<blockquote>Every one is equal under the law.</blockquote>
Not talking about individuals, but ethnic groups. You know the entire leftist narrative.
Public discrimination also isn't immoral if there are good reasons for it. Also ethic separation is not inherently immoral either. The only way an ethnic groups can be "oppressed" is if they are denied sovereignty. No group owes any other group "inclusion" and certainly not when there is a huge cost to them. You can argue they should give it anyways, but they don't owe it.
<blockquote>the latest one was based on white hatred of ethnics based on false news.</blockquote>
So a Black person didn't stab those children and minorities don't commit more crime?
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.
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.
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?
<blockquote>Yes, Chinese people receive a ton more education on average.</blockquote>
Which they would had they been more intelligent. A better IQ is likely to result in better education.
<blockquote>You got data that it's due to their race?</blockquote>
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. Even if it's entirely due to Chinese culture being superior to Syrian culture (and nothing due to genes) it would still mean Syrians are the problem and we shouldn't be taking Syrians.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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. 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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Right, but your characterisation of the UK is just wrong.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Dude that data graph says that 51% of black families receive some state support, and 53% of white families receive some state support.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Labour lost a ton of the Asian vote in the most recent election to third parties. </blockquote>
Indians only don't vote overwhelmingly Labour. Blacks 72% lol.
<blockquote>More evidence that this in itself some negates birth rates, and if it does, what you propose to do about it.</blockquote>
I think you made a typo. I don't understand the sentence.
<blockquote>You got any data points here whatsoever.</blockquote>
https://eppc.org/publication/new-national-survey-finds-that-porn-use-decreases-relationship-satisfaction/
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/09/556606108/research-explores-the-effect-pornography-has-on-long-term-relationships
Porn reduces relationship quality Bad relationships reduce births.
<blockquote>And what should the west do to force that then, exactly?</blockquote>
Change the culture. Ever heard of culture wars?
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
"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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>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)?</blockquote>
Secular Jews still see themselves as ethnically Jewish and have a strong Jewish ethnic identity and survival values. Secular or religious makes little difference.
It doesn't prove but it provides an enable mechanism for them to do so. They couldn't control/influence culture if they were shoe shiners.
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?
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.
<blockquote>All definitions are subject to minor tweaking and alteration organizations like that. </blockquote>
This was the ADL definition of racism until 2020 or George Floyd:
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
This was after George Floyd:
<blockquote>the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people</blockquote>
This is the latest "intern" definition:
<blockquote>racism “occurs when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.”</blockquote>
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. 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.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
It's not always prejudice. THE SITUATION is a very good arbiter weather or not the action or attitude is warranted.
<blockquote>With "unwarranted" a leftist would say its "unwarranted" whilst a conservative would say its not.</blockquote>
No sane person could say not needlessly taking risks for your life to someone you don't owe anything is unwarranted tribalism.
"And how's that been for them?"
Some accepted them, others didn't.
So you think if she handed out flyers "Bangladeshi pride" or "We will soon become a majority" she would be charged?
<blockquote>You've moved the goalposts.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Not arrested</blockquote>
Not arrested, but still outrage over a perfectly valid political grievance. Your own link proves Whites are being attacked for raising legit political points. 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 NOT be legit btw) there is no outrage.
<blockquote>How is it the government can stop whatever social attitudes develop over time?</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Hasn't stopped him though, has it?</blockquote>
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvaGDWrfmmU&list=WL&index=20
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.
<blockquote>You have cherrypicked this data badly.</blockquote>
No, It's not since pensions shouldn't count. Nobody chooses to get told and everyone gets old eventually. You do chose to go on welfare instead of working or to commit crime.
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.
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:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
White immigrants are more beneficial than non White ones and the long term contribution of non Whites shows they take more and pay less taxes:
From the link you gave:
<blockquote>They were also estimated to receive more in family benefits and tax credits</blockquote>
A10 countries that your link says made a contribution are EUROPEAN countries LOL.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
Slightly negative is still negative, and non EEA also includes some European countries and also countries like China. Given the fact those countries have higher IQs than Africa and Middle East it suggests that only counting immigration from Blacks and Muslims would be even more negative.
The whole point of immigration is supposedly economic impact. If you compare them to WHTIE (EEA) immigrants they are MUCH more costly. Also they aren't yet so much of a burden since they are young and haven't retired yet. Everyone gets old. 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.
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.
<blockquote>Another dodge.</blockquote>
They didn't contradict anything. They just worded it too ambiguously because they didn't know the future societal changes.
Seems to me you are angry at perfectly valid concerns stemming from bad behavior if it comes from so called protected groups.
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.