@SkyCore: I edited my post to "almost entirely false" because I don't doubt that at least one powerful person happens to be simultaneously Jewish and racist against white people.
The link had far more than one person listed. But if you thats how you want to rationalize things so you arent 'wrong', i guess i cant stop you. I would just hope you try to be a bit more objective and less biased.
I visited your link. Literally the second paragraph was this nonsense:
"
“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…”
— Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache
[Removed by Support] Yes, corruption exists and bad things happen, but not to Illuminati levels.
Who said anything about illuminati or a conspiracy? You assume things and then blame me for your assumptions. [Removed by Support] Regardless of who i am or not, what was said should be taken on its own merits.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Gee, I don't know, maybe the "article" you linked to?
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by Allen_GGG on Nov 5, 2017, 5:36:36 PM
DL, nothing I ever say could possibly bring you to reason. The completely irrational ways you dismiss arguments makes it impossible to have an honest conversation with you.
You are a master at mental gymnastics, I’ll give you that. Kinda reminds me of Trump, actually...
You literally said “It is okay if I am a terrible person, because I think you are a terrible person.”
The paradox of tolerance. Being "bigoted" against the intolerant is perfectly reasonable. Allowing intolerance to run rampant is irrational and dangerous. Also, boogeymen don't exist. Racists do.
"
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
There is no paradox here. Intolerance does not run rampant*, and absolute tolerance is not something we should strive for. The absence of tolerance is not intolerance as described by this quote; rather this quote suggests combatting thought crimes with actual crime (or institutionalized violence, if drawn to its natural conclusion).
If you think this sounds like a good idea, then I encourage you to look back throughout history to other groups which held similar beliefs.
To the emboldened part: check behind you, I think something went over your head.
*Edit: ...among normal, rational people, that is. You know, the actual majority of people—the ones who don’t need you to tell them intolerable ideologies are intolerable because it is self evident, and who (I’d imagine) find your moral superiority against intolerance likewise intolerable.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
Last edited by CanHasPants on Nov 5, 2017, 5:19:23 PM
Scrotes, not every white supremacist is a white nationalist, but I doubt you'll find a single white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist. Being a white supremacist is why they become white nationalists. I'm also not sure how that Spencer quote is supposed to demonstrate that he isn't a white supremacist. It shows that he supports racial separatism. No shit, he's a white supremacist and a white nationalist.
Your bullshit false equivalency is still a bullshit false equivalency. The two forms of "racism" we're discussing aren't remotely the same. We're going to disagree on the merits of Affirmative Action, but even you should still be able to see how foolish it is to equate people with views worthy of the Klan or a white nationalist militia group with people who favor practices that have a goal of correcting historical inequalities and creating a society where we're all equal.
[Removed by Support]
Last edited by Allen_GGG on Nov 5, 2017, 4:28:35 PM
To Scrotes, the definition of racism you're using for the left is asinine (people advocating and fighting for equality are racists in your eyes). It's not remotely the same as the definition of racism used to describe the right (hating others and believing they're inferior because of their race).
1. If one attempts to fight discrimination for Ethnicity A and against Ethnicity B by advocating for special privileges for Ethnicity B at the expense of Ethnicity A, then they are attempting to fight racism with racism. This is commonly known as reverse racism.
2. Although white supremacists believe whites are superior to other peoples, white supremacy is not a popular ideology even among racists. Richard Spencer, for example, is not a white supremacist; he is a white nationalist.
A Richard Spencer quote, showing that he supports Israel
Among the racist right, there is a popular (and almost entirely false) conspiracy theory that Jews control major social institutions and enact institutional racism against white people. This conspiracy theory was also popular in Nazi Germany. So understand this: from the perspective of much of the racist right, they must fight racism that persecutes white people and favors people of color, by advocating for racism that persecutes people of color and favors white people. They, these people you hate so much, also believe it's okay to fight racism with racism. That's what they believe they are doing.
Historically, popular racist movements use the narrative of racism, real or imagined, to justify their own reverse racism. That is how racism becomes seductive. That is how it has seduced you.
Your first point is wrong.
If Ethnicity A (now called EA) get 3 apples a day and Ethnicity B (now called EB) only get 1, making both get 2 wouldn't be racism or reverse racism. It would just be egalitarian.
Reverse Racism isn't racism from the other side. Reverse racism is essentially favoritism to a group that's perceived as the victim(s) of frequent racism/discrimination. A good example of that would be schools that needs to have a certain amount of black students to receive extra funding/tax breaks. This leads to some subpar students being picked over better candidates because of this. This is reverse racism.
Now, what you were thinking as reverse racism would be if after the end of the segregation, the roles were reversed. IE, white people at the back of the bus or they would face insults and discriminating acts. That's just plain racism but from the other side.
Personally, I'd say that anyone that's racist is somewhat a supremacist. I haven't seen anyone that's racist that doesn't see the ethnicity they hate as being inferior to themselves. I'd say a better definition of supremacist is someone that view some ethnicity as inferior rather than seeing their own as superior (one that do so would be a full-blown supremacist though)
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
You literally posted a link to an antisemitic article on an antisemitic hate site with antisemitic writing, images, videos, and comments in order to make a point about Jews controlling the media, a favorite talking point of antisemites. If you're not antisemitic, you have a really strange way of showing it.
For reference, saying "Jews control the media" because Jewish people own some media companies and linking a right-wing hate blog full of conspiracy theories and lies as your "proof" is irrational, dishonest, conspiracy-fueled bigotry.
You literally posted a link to an antisemitic article on an antisemitic hate site with antisemitic writing, images, videos, and comments in order to make a point about Jews controlling the media, a favorite talking point of antisemites. If you're not antisemitic, you have a really strange way of showing it.
For reference, saying "Jews control the media" because Jewish people own some media companies and linking a right-wing hate blog full of conspiracy theories and lies as your "proof" is irrational, dishonest, conspiracy-fueled bigotry.
To be absolutely honest, i didnt read the article. I google the questions do jews control the media. Picked one on the first page, skimmed through it to see if it mentions specifics...it did. So i linked it.
On the other hand, telling someone they dont belong here and should go elsewhere is a low fucking blow. If you had done that in real life i would break your fucking nose.
If it makes you feel better, ill remove the link. I dont support it at all just to be clear.
For years i searched for deep truths. A thousand revelations. At the very edge...the ability to think itself dissolves away.Thinking in human language is the problem. Any separation from 'the whole truth' is incomplete.My incomplete concepts may add to your 'whole truth', accept it or think about it
Also, I've been going through that blog you linked. It's batshit insane on every page. Raise your standards of belief. Even the briefest skimming of the page you linked revealed it as the rankest antisemitism. There was nothing there besides the hate and conspiracies. If you could glance at that page and not immediately know it was garbage, you have some pretty rancid views you need to cast aside.
Here's a fun selection from that blog. For anyone who likes it, there's a hell of a lot more available:
"
RELIGION. All religions are based on hoaxes. Jesus was a king of Edessa who fought against Rome and lost. He was captured in AD70 and sent to Chester in England by Vespasian and kept there until he died in AD 98. Read Ralph Ellis’ histories for the details. The Jews/Israelites were from Egypt originally, the Hyksos, a people with a complex history of internal and external strife, their principle cultural identity being the guardians of the pyramids. Moses (Tuthmoses) was Pharoah Akenahton’s brother. The Israelites were not in Egypt in bondage. They were Egyptians who lost a civil war, and had to leave. Although they came back again, and ruled Egypt for generations. King David and Solomon his son were Egyptian Pharoahs, not Judaeans, although they ruled Judaea from Egypt.
The Talmud was ‘edited’ by Josephus Flavius, the same historian who wrote St Luke’s Gospel and The Acts Of The Apostles and all of St Paul’s letters. Christianity was not Jesus’ creation, but the Roman historian Josephus’. Jesus was not a Christian a gnostic warrior, whose beliefs were based astrology, astronomy, the sun, the moon and the earth and man’s ability to make goodness using his intelligence.
As for the koran, it was written to meet the short term requirements of the Dark Lord, and is the most brutal document ever written in human history, demanding the death and destruction of everyone else bar those supporting the religion, not to mention the destruction of all economies. See Ralph Ellis’ books for more details.
Last edited by Allen_GGG on Nov 5, 2017, 5:28:27 PM
Scrotes, not every white supremacist is a white nationalist, but I doubt you'll find a single white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist. Being a white supremacist is why they become white nationalists. I'm also not sure how that Spencer quote is supposed to demonstrate that he isn't a white supremacist. It shows that he supports racial separatism. No shit, he's a white supremacist and a white nationalist.
I think a better term for "white nationalist" is "white segregationist." There ARE some white segregationists who are not white supremacists; for example, there are white segregationists who would find allies in black segregationists (yes, these exist in small numbers). Some people believe separate but equal is possible. I don't, and I see your point that, in practice, segregation leads to inequality of opportunity, but the whole point of ethnonationalism as a ideology is that they deny this truth and do not necessarily advocate the supremacy of their race.
To Scrotes, the definition of racism you're using for the left is asinine (people advocating and fighting for equality are racists in your eyes). It's not remotely the same as the definition of racism used to describe the right (hating others and believing they're inferior because of their race).
1. If one attempts to fight discrimination for Ethnicity A and against Ethnicity B by advocating for special privileges for Ethnicity B at the expense of Ethnicity A, then they are attempting to fight racism with racism. This is commonly known as reverse racism.
2. Although white supremacists believe whites are superior to other peoples, white supremacy is not a popular ideology even among racists. Richard Spencer, for example, is not a white supremacist; he is a white nationalist.
A Richard Spencer quote, showing that he supports Israel
Among the racist right, there is a popular (and almost entirely false) conspiracy theory that Jews control major social institutions and enact institutional racism against white people. This conspiracy theory was also popular in Nazi Germany. So understand this: from the perspective of much of the racist right, they must fight racism that persecutes white people and favors people of color, by advocating for racism that persecutes people of color and favors white people. They, these people you hate so much, also believe it's okay to fight racism with racism. That's what they believe they are doing.
Historically, popular racist movements use the narrative of racism, real or imagined, to justify their own reverse racism. That is how racism becomes seductive. That is how it has seduced you.
Your first point is wrong.
If Ethnicity A (now called EA) get 3 apples a day and Ethnicity B (now called EB) only get 1, making both get 2 wouldn't be racism or reverse racism. It would just be egalitarian.
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
Also, I wouldn't even encourage you to kill yourself.
Spoiler
Seriously, don't do that.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by Allen_GGG on Nov 5, 2017, 5:45:03 PM
Oh, and since it just came up, please READ YOUR SOURCES before you link them. It's rare that I click a link here and it actually supports the point the person was making. Also, understand that you can find an article supporting practically every position in existence. Showing that some other jackass out there also believes global warming is a Chinese hoax doesn't make your position any more tenable. It just raises the number of jackasses to two. Make sure the source you're using is a good one.
It would also be equality of outcome, and thus communism. I'm not a communist, so when I see that EA has 3 apples and EB has 1 apple, I don't immediately assume racism; I consider the possibility that perhaps EA earned 3 apples, and EB only earned 1. If it could be demonstrated that EA and EB didn't have equal opportunity to earn apples, then I'd describe such a system as racist.
That wouldn't be communism. Communism is the control of the state over every resources and services and then their redistribution to the population. The example doesn't assume it's state driven and as thus, calling it communism is a far stretch of imagination.
The example assumed that both person were identical except for their ethnicity, I should have clarified.
In such example, would you consider it racism to bring both to 2 apples even if it technically is a detriment to EA?
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
