MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
<blockquote>And my position is that the Southport Stabber may have been radicalised by online anti-feminist reactionary content. </blockquote>
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
<blockquote>The riots in the UK were from white people, primarily. </blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Most UK crime has decreased in the last decade:</blockquote>
Doesn't change the fact Blacks commit more of it.
<blockquote>Higher taxes?</blockquote>
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.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/benefits/state-support/latest/#by-ethnicity-and-type-of-support
<blockquote>What do you mean "less political power"?</blockquote>
Diluting the voting power of Whites from minorities who vote for their ethnic interest (Labor)
<blockquote>The concept 'race' is seen as obsolete in the biological sciences.</blockquote>
Oh look, a dodge! Call them ethnic group or populations, the same question applies. I'm waiting for an answer
<blockquote>And why all you offer is just that one quote by Dawkins. Given the current consensus on the matter he seems an outlier.</blockquote>
Only in the West do most scientist claim there are no races. In Eastern Europe, China and Japan, the view is the opposite. Overwhelming majority thinks there are races.
<blockquote>No more or less than it is true of those violent whites in the UK of late, which you seem to defend over others.</blockquote>
I could easily defend White riots from them having perfectly legit grievances, but that's not the point here. You dodged it again.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
It actually would suggest the genetic cause. They fail to build prosperity due to low IQs and thus they riot although one could excuse them since the media does lie to them that they're oppressed.
<blockquote>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,</blockquote>
What pre formed views? I judge them by data and behavior.
<blockquote>It is, especially if you are deliberately pursuing an obsolete scientific notion to repeatedly attack the same peoples.</blockquote>
Obsolete scientific notion like IQ? Criticizing needless importation of bad behaving ethnic groups and criticizing their behavior is just "irrational attacking peoples"?
<blockquote>the point is whether they are significant. Science certainly thinks they are not enough so to make of different ethnic groups 'races',</blockquote>
Again with repeating the idea group differences aren't likely but providing no evidence for it. What studies were done to inquire weather there are differences in the brain and what data came out suggesting they aren't likely?
<blockquote>That migrants do not materially make an overall positive contribution to the [UK] economy.</blockquote>
Brown migrants are a cost. EEA (White) migrants are a benefit. This is the case basically in every country we have data.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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, then there is a different story. With immigration there's a cost. With Taxi picking up Black customers there is also a cost.
<blockquote>your repeated assertion that the expectation of (always ethnic) minorities who face problems is that they should all, rationally, just leave or relocate.</blockquote>
They're the ones who complain (2011 riots, BLM riots....) despite having privileges and despite being a cost on us. The argument "either respect us or go back" is a perfectly valid one.
<blockquote>If only we could find a reason for whites rioting in their racial genes though eh?</blockquote>
Yes prosperity which comes from IQ is the reason for peace and lack of rioting. Very possible or in fact probable.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
Whites are on average smarter than most (most) ethnic minorities. Immigration is only desired because of low native births which can be mitigated with immigration from better behaving ethnic groups like other Europeans, high caste Indians or Chinese. No need for Africans or Muslism.
<blockquote>Yes and we can see that, er, in people risking their lives in small boats all the time, can't we?</blockquote>
Exactly. 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.
<blockquote>Some of the supporting quotes were from a link you provided.</blockquote>
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/benefits/state-support/latest/#by-ethnicity-and-type-of-support
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. As for all state benefits, Whites are much OLDER than minorities so they are more likely to be pensioners.
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. <b>On the other hand, the fiscal contribution of
non-EEA immigrants is slightly negative in all years</b>."
There are many reasons yes,
Ok so you admit it.
"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.
<blockquote>'Race' is not by consensus seen as true biological science,</blockquote>
The context of our particular debate here is correlation of external appearance and behavior and weather or not can be useful information. Race does not have to biologically exist here (I am NOT conceding it doesn't btw).
<blockquote>You also seem to be showing double standards: whites riots because of external reasons it </blockquote>
How many such White riots in Iceland, Finland or Estonia (ethnically homogenous). I can show you plenty of riots in brown countries. You think current UK riots would be happening if the UK was 99% White?
<blockquote>while bad behaviour is put down to 'genes'. Another example to add your initial OP request, in fact..</blockquote>
Lost of evidence suggesting genes are the reason for Black violence.
<blockquote>I think you'll find the courts did that already. Is Viking helmet wearing by whites down to genes or social pressure btw?</blockquote>
Evasion noted
<blockquote>[excuse followed]</blockquote>
Thank you for admitting you don't have a comeback by ignoring the argument and simply labelling it "excuse".
<blockquote>Thank you for your unevidenced opinion.</blockquote>
The point was leftist hypocrisy of demanding racial equality of Whites and Blacks, but having no problem of differences between Whites and Asians (US).
<blockquote>Er.. so this difference one of the reasons you implied caused the recent immigration riot? ("Taking our jobs,benefits and homes" etc) Thought so.</blockquote>
Those are all legit grievances. If Whites were poring to Sri Lanka and becoming a majority, the left would scream of ethnic injustice to native Sri Lankans. Not to mention if they would be committing more crime, taking more from the government...etc
<blockquote>LOL</blockquote>
Seriously dude? DEI is not being better. It's artificial political favoritism.
<blockquote>As of 2018, there were over 600 white-supremacist organizations recorded in the U.S. </blockquote>
Yet none of these are seen as respectable by mainstream society. Once the idea of White supremacy becomes dominant, then you can use it to hold Whites to higher standards. Until....
<blockquote>There is no Arab guilt' today was what you said. I showed there is.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Proponents of anti-Arab black nationalism have demanded reparations from the Arab League for “Afro-Arab slavery”. eg Nigerian Nobel laureate </blockquote>
Ok two statements. It still stands that the Black agitation over slavery is WAY more focused on the West than to Arabs. And if we ignore historical context and unjustifiably apply modern morality to the past, then Blacks also owe Pygmies for stealing their land as well as Kalahari Bushmen, not to mention how they treat them TODAY
<blockquote>It is not,</blockquote>
OK so you admit I have a point?
<blockquote>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</blockquote>
Black Africa was 30-50% slaves before European colonization. They had slaves for as long as they existed. Even if some people ended up being captured by Blacks due to White demand that doesn't justify modern guilt since it ignores historical context, applies modern moral standards to a very different world in the past and is more disproportionately focused on Whites.
<blockquote>Hey, perhaps blacks have a gene predisposing them to be enslaved?</blockquote>
Yes very possible. Low intelligence means less civilization and less useful goods produced which could be used for trade, creating a situation where slaves are the only commodity.
<blockquote>As already said, if we are considering whites as supposedly 'superior' to anyone else, then we ought to be held to higher moral standards.</blockquote>
They are currently not seen as superior by any anyone respected...yet still held to higher standards. Pick one, you can't have both
<blockquote>an earlier post where I helpfully posted dictionary definitions.</blockquote>
You provided no such distinctions. You just copy pasted the definition of "hate" but YOU DIDN'T DISTINGUISH from legit ethnic grievances which is what I asked.
<blockquote>Thank you for your opinions</blockquote>
Not my opinion. All Black/minority grievances are based on unproven premise of genetic and cultural as well as behavioral equality which all the data contradicts as well decontextualized history and holding Whites to higher standards
<blockquote>your reasons have been shown as dubious and suggestive of prejudice against a 'race'.</blockquote>
How are my reasons dubious and how are they pre judging any group? (PRE-JUDICED)?
<blockquote> I have never called you hateful</blockquote>
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"?
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
Why derailment? That's not what I asked for. I asked for one prominent White identatarian leader (Taylor, Duke, Spencer...) who supported Jan. 6. Also it's not a conspiracy theory if the demographic experts say it's happening.
<blockquote>And I've given you the data.</blockquote>
Yes, you've given data out of context which all could be explained by behavioral differences. In other word, you have totally failed to provide proof of racism CJS
<blockquote>It was a case of double standards another example of that which you asked for.</blockquote>
No I asked for current double standards. Apartheid is 30 years old. Show me a prominent WN who currently supports White rule over Blacks (David Duke, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor....) Besides, they weren't necessarily against Black independence or self rule. They just opposed current Black rule over Whites which is a disaster for both Whites and Blacks.
<blockquote>In a post-colonial era one would naturally not expect any. </blockquote>
That's exactly the point.
<blockquote>However</blockquote>
1. Never heard of him. He's no name.
2. Show me evidence he currently supports White rule over Blacks.
<blockquote>And yet, how many times have you used it of late? </blockquote>
I said I don't care about the term because philosophy over semantics leads to nowhere. The point is regardless what term you use (race, population, genetic cluster...) there are group differences.
<blockquote>when science thinks the differences are not really significant?</blockquote>
No, science has never disproved racial/ethnic IQ differences. In fact it has never disproven differences in other psy traits such as antisocial behavior, work ethic...etc. We know from twin studies they are heavily genetic.
<blockquote>still, is that enough to discriminate</blockquote>
Every ethnic group has a right to have intergroup preference ie discriminate. Even more so when other groups behave worse.
<blockquote>to justify prejudice.</blockquote>
If group A behaves worse than group B, then this information can be useful to people when deciding to avoid trouble. Not prejudice, but postjudice.
<blockquote>You can't remember?</blockquote>
Refresh my memory.
<blockquote>A peculiar assessment; but I am sure one it suits you to make.</blockquote>
OK so all the data that Asians make better decisions and are more successful than Blacks are just my own "assessment"?
<blockquote>Misdirection noted.</blockquote>
What misdirection? You said we (WN) deny someone liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which prominent WN opposes Blacks being free from oppression in their own countries?
<blockquote>One of the oldest racist comments</blockquote>
You can call it "racist", but how is it inherently immoral? They live in countries we built at our expense and THEY complain about being oppressed. If you allow me into your house, I'm a burden to you and then on top of it I am the one who complains, how is it not a valid reply "Ok, then go back"?
<blockquote>We are back to Replacement Theory and one of its variants, i see lol</blockquote>
OK so White people are not on the demographic path to becoming a minority in Western countries? I gues all those demographic experts making projections are secretly working for WN.
<blockquote>That 'all men are created equal' is out of context? What's the context?</blockquote>
So you think people who wrote that believd there are no differences between the races?
<blockquote>That's because often it is, as I have seen a lot on message boards myself.</blockquote>
So you admit I they do as I said.
<blockquote>This is just moral relativism, such as you condemn,</blockquote>
No I don't condemn moral relativism. I am a supporter of it provided it makes sense. I am just pointing out double standards of leftists. Moral relativism for everyone except Whites.
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. <b>On the other hand, the fiscal contribution of
non-EEA immigrants is slightly negative in all years</b>."
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.
<blockquote>but China was one country controlled by an authoritarian party compared to 54 African countries with varying forms of leadership and government types.</blockquote>
Yes it was poorer. Name a single African country out of 54 with any type of governmnet with a high IQ
<blockquote>No, I said Saudi **students** are comparable to Chinese **students**.</blockquote>
Which isn't proof of original pool populations being equal in IQ since there could be different degrees of selection
<blockquote>But the point here is that poorly educated Chinese working class types rarely make it to the UK. The same is not with Syrians.</blockquote>
Yet China's IQ is 103 and Syria's 74
<blockquote>And how does one suddenly change culture, exactly</blockquote>
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?
<blockquote>And again, birth rates are dropping in Islamic conservative countries too.</blockquote>
Western cultural infuence among the youth. Internet...
<blockquote>Or maybe it was just general economically and technological development that fundamentally shift culture surrounding the interest towards people having kids</blockquote>
It was more probably feminism, LGBT, pornography, individualism, atheism, YOLO...etc The media openly encourage people having less kids.
<blockquote>If you do not have such support, trying to force it would cause serious problems.</blockquote>
If people were made aware of the things I am aware, the support would be there. Stop censoring and smearing racial realism.
<blockquote>No, there isn't. You think black people in Jamaica have the same culture as Kenyans?</blockquote>
In America and UK there kind of is.
<blockquote>What? You made the claim that the majority of liberals hold an anti-white biases. </blockquote>
No, I said ON AVERGE they do.
<blockquote>You can't demonstrate it at all. It's thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Literally just "The Joooos".</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>My point was to ask who calls him out for his calls for mass-murder?</blockquote>
Just about everyone. Basically no respected mainstream conservative defends him. Even the supposed White nationalist JD Vance labelled him an incel troll.
<blockquote>Not in the way you prefer to focus on.</blockquote>
In what way? Crime? intelligence? Time spent doing homework? Likelihood of donating blood? All this is undisputed.
<blockquote>Hey, perhaps they are just lying about it and keeping quiet?</blockquote>
LOL if you poll them, they migh say yes. But they aren't making a fuss out of it like Blacks. Also much of this discrimination likely comes from Blacks who are known to attack Asians. The race issue in America isn't over Asians, It's over Blacks (and a lesser extent Hispanics) who behave worse than Asians. You think this is a coincidence?
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Except racism isn't defined badly. No single definition of racism is bad (and most definitions provided regarding racism are similar).</blockquote>
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.
https://odysee.com/@AmericanRenaissance:7/ADLandRacism:b
<blockquote>And again, you still can't get away from the fact that people would regard some things as "unwarranted" that you wouldn't.</blockquote>
Of course some subjectivity would persist, but less than there is now.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>I suspect so yes.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>Nigel Farage won that banking incident. Bad PR for the bank.</blockquote>
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.
<blockquote>How has he been smeared?</blockquote>
Read what lefties write about him
<blockquote>When has he said that about people from the Eastern Europe?</blockquote>
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"
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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. Your argument is like saying "You're allowed to play football and try to score as long as you're not playing effectively"