"The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#21  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 9:40 am

Mike_L wrote:
If there were reasonable grounds to describe Tucker Carlson as a white supremacist, it would be on his page.


Oh right, so Wikipedia is to be the judge, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Ca ... n_and_race

Carlson has been accused by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and by writers for Vox of demonizing immigrants

...

Terry Smith, law professor at St. Thomas University, has characterized Carlson's rhetoric as an example of white identity politics.

...

According to University of Michigan professor Alexandra Stern, Carlson propagates demographic fear.

...

In 2018, Carlson suggested that mass immigration makes the United States "dirtier", "poorer" and "more divided."

...

In December 2019, he falsely claimed that immigrants were responsible for making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier."

...

Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the U.S.]," and accused him of promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, the idea that white people are under attack by minorities and immigrants.

...

Carlson has described "white supremacy" as a "hoax", something that is "actually not a real problem in America"

...

Critics have accused Carlson's show of promoting racism

...

Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described the views Carlson expressed on his show with these words, "I don’t know if it’s racism exactly — but ethno-nationalism of some kind, let’s call it."

...

In June 2020, Carlson cast doubts on the intentions of Black Lives Matter protestors in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, stating: "This may be a lot of things, this moment we're living through, but it is definitely not about black lives, and remember that when they come for you, and at this rate, they will."

...

Days after the 2019 El Paso shooting, which was committed by a man who released an anti-immigrant manifesto complaining of a "Hispanic invasion," Carlson described white supremacy as a "hoax" and "a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power." He asked rhetorically, "the combined membership of every white supremacist group in America — would they be able to fit inside a college football stadium?"[167][168][169] According to The Washington Post, "Carlson's argument is belied by many experts and seemingly contradicted by a recent wave of deadly attacks by men motivated by those views."[170]


So according to your own argument, there are reasonable grounds to consider Tucker Carlson a racist who is at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#22  Postby Mike_L » Jan 06, 2021 10:56 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Mike_L wrote:
You diminish the term "white supremacist" when you misapply it. That only serves the interests of actual white supremacists.


Want to fill in the logic gap there Mike_L?

How does it 'serve the interest' of white supremacists when you call a white nationalist (for example) a white supremacist? You make it sound like that's a key motivation for them.

Because it ultimately renders the term meaningless, along the lines of: "If everybody's guilty, then nobody is guilty".
White nationalism is not white supremacism, no matter how determined the smear campaign. Blatantly left-leaning Wikipedia even admits that "analysts" and "journalists" deliberately conflate the two terms...
Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism. White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts. White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state" while supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them, taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism. White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism
(Emphasis added)
It does have negative connotations, and properly so. This is why the white-bashing leftists like to use the terms "interchangeably". Once you've settled on a scapegoat for all the world's ills, it well serves the narrative to make the numbers as sinisterly large as possible. (They're everywhere man!)

Spearthrower wrote:Anyway Mike_L, was Tucker Carlson being 'excellent' when he called 40 million Iraqis a bunch of semi-literate primitive monkeys?

No, but that less-than-excellent comment doesn't nullify his overall excellence.

Spearthrower wrote:
Mike_L wrote:
If there were reasonable grounds to describe Tucker Carlson as a white supremacist, it would be on his page.


Oh right, so Wikipedia is to be the judge, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Ca ... n_and_race

Carlson has been accused by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post and by writers for Vox of demonizing immigrants

...

Terry Smith, law professor at St. Thomas University, has characterized Carlson's rhetoric as an example of white identity politics.

...

According to University of Michigan professor Alexandra Stern, Carlson propagates demographic fear.

...

In 2018, Carlson suggested that mass immigration makes the United States "dirtier", "poorer" and "more divided."

...

In December 2019, he falsely claimed that immigrants were responsible for making the Potomac River "dirtier and dirtier."

...

Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the U.S.]," and accused him of promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, the idea that white people are under attack by minorities and immigrants.

...

Carlson has described "white supremacy" as a "hoax", something that is "actually not a real problem in America"

...

Critics have accused Carlson's show of promoting racism

...

Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol described the views Carlson expressed on his show with these words, "I don’t know if it’s racism exactly — but ethno-nationalism of some kind, let’s call it."

...

In June 2020, Carlson cast doubts on the intentions of Black Lives Matter protestors in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, stating: "This may be a lot of things, this moment we're living through, but it is definitely not about black lives, and remember that when they come for you, and at this rate, they will."

...

Days after the 2019 El Paso shooting, which was committed by a man who released an anti-immigrant manifesto complaining of a "Hispanic invasion," Carlson described white supremacy as a "hoax" and "a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power." He asked rhetorically, "the combined membership of every white supremacist group in America — would they be able to fit inside a college football stadium?"[167][168][169] According to The Washington Post, "Carlson's argument is belied by many experts and seemingly contradicted by a recent wave of deadly attacks by men motivated by those views."[170]


So according to your own argument, there are reasonable grounds to consider Tucker Carlson a racist who is at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists.

Ah, so he doesn't rise to Wikipedia's very low bar for qualifying as a white supremacist, so you'll just go for the next best thing: "at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists."
Points for dogged tenacity, I guess... even if you only get the consolation prize.
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14369
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#23  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 11:49 am

Mike_L wrote:
Because it ultimately renders the term meaningless,...


Oh I see. You're concerned that not obeying a strict taxonomy of bigotry may render a term meaningless. Your concern thus is purely semantic.


Mike_L wrote:
White nationalism is not white supremacism, no matter how determined the smear campaign.


Smear campaign? :doh:

I think we need to call on Lassie as you've clearly fallen down the well.

One doesn't need to 'smear' white nationalists by association with white supremacists - both are human excrement. Is that clear for you? You note how I am actually separating them into two groups, but rather than trying to say one is like the other and therefore bad, I am saying they are both execrable human waste? Just to make sure you understand my argument rather than any phony caricatures you might want to employ.


Mike_L wrote:Blatantly left-leaning Wikipedia even admits that "analysts" and "journalists" deliberately conflate the two terms...


Wait, you're having some trouble here Mike_L - you just deferred to Wikipedia to adjudicate whether or not Carlson should be considered a white supremacist, but now you're saying Wikipedia isn't to be trusted... and of course, not just Wikipedia, but let's start tossing in some expert opinions into the mix too - expertise, after all, shouldn't be trusted! Those hoity toity academics and their smear campaigns! Of course, trust no one except the sources you credulously regurgitate, innit? You've been well trained!


Mike_L wrote:
Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism. White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts. White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state" while supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them, taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism. White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.


How confusing. You're making a point about how Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted because of its bias, but you're citing Wikipedia as your source for this point! :grin:

Where the fuck is Lassie when you need him?

I love the idea that white nationalists avoid the term 'supremacy' because it has "negative connotations", as if white nationalism doesn't have negative connotations. :grin:


Mike_L wrote:It does have negative connotations, and properly so. This is why the white-bashing leftists like to use the terms "interchangeably". Once you've settled on a scapegoat for all the world's ills, it well serves the narrative to make the numbers as sinisterly large as possible. (They're everywhere man!)


Hold on, let me go find the windmill you're tilting at here.

White-bashing leftists like to use the terms interchangeably... something you're attempting to accuse me of even though the textual evidence shows you're completely mischaracterizing what I've written, but which necessarily also infers that I am meant to be a 'white-bashing leftist'.

Care to show where I've bashed anyone on the grounds of them being white? :)

If not, then probably best you stick to addressing what I write rather than regurgitating uncritically the guff you've been brainwashed with when the right buttons are pushed.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Anyway Mike_L, was Tucker Carlson being 'excellent' when he called 40 million Iraqis a bunch of semi-literate primitive monkeys?


No, but that less-than-excellent comment doesn't nullify his overall excellence.


So not 'always-excellent' then? Perhaps a better designation might be: 'the sometimes-excellent-except-when-being-a-racist-prick Tucker Carlson'? Might be too late to amend your prior post now, but at least you can show you've changed your position in light of new evidence.


Mike_L wrote:
Ah, so he doesn't rise to Wikipedia's very low bar for qualifying as a white supremacist, so you'll just go for the next best thing: "at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists."


Are you saying that your previous contention that Wikipedia should be the adjudicator of whether or not Carlson is a white supremacist or not was poorly conceived on your part?

If so, of course I agree - it was a fatuous argument it took all of 30 seconds to show untenable.

And who's 'going for the next best thing'? You should probably take some care here Mike_L - you wouldn't want to willfully misrepresent what I've written, would you?

For example, were it to be the objective fact that I'd written quite clearly in the thread that spawned this one:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2765531

Spearthrower wrote:I don't think he's a white supremacist - although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists - I do think that he is a lazy bigoted racist though, and I think that's quite easily seen across many years of programing.


So for chronology's sake, I think it's firmly established that I didn't 'go for the next best thing' as a result of anything to do with Wikipedia, not least because I wrote this before you stated that Wikipedia should adjudicate this, but also because I clearly stated that I don't think he's a white supremacist and even went further by distinguishing between racism and white supremacy in that thread:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 0#p2765539

Spearthrower wrote:I would define 'white supremacy' as the belief that white people should hold dominion over non-white people, whereas 'racism' is concerned with the belief that negative behavioral and moral traits are genetically predisposed by race. I know plenty of racist people who think X non-white group are Y negative trait without thinking that they should be subject to white people. All white supremacy is racism, but not all racism is white-(or other 'race')-supremacy.



Mike_L wrote:Points for dogged tenacity, I guess... even if you only get the consolation prize.


Given your woeful discursive incompetence, I would imagine such an award coming from you to be ironically quite worthy. I'd be more worried if you thought I was right given how far into cuckoo extremism land you've been manipulated by the internet.

Wanna talk about white nationalism then, Mike_L? It does seem you want to use this as a means of evasion. I do think it will be intriguing and enlightening, if somewhat ironic, to have a discussion about ethno-nationalism with a white South African proponent of white-nationalism, if that's the angle you'd be hoping to take. I guess that's the kind of thing certain people use the internet for; anonymity is such a balm for being in possession of an anti-social belief system.

Did I mention that I consider white nationalists to be human excrement? That's aside from white supremacists, who are also disgustingly moronic fuckwits. Just being crystal clear in my taxonomy here as we wouldn't want to render any terms meaningless, or provide cover for white supremacists. That would be awful. Of course, nowhere fucking near as awful as being a white nationalist. :)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#24  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 11:58 am

Do you believe in race realism, Mike_L?

Do you believe there's a 'white race', Mike_L?

If yes to either: how long would you say you've been in possession of that belief. Can you recall a time when you didn't possess that belief?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#25  Postby Mike_L » Jan 06, 2021 1:39 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
...
One doesn't need to 'smear' white nationalists by association with white supremacists - both are human excrement. Is that clear for you? You note how I am actually separating them into two groups, but rather than trying to say one is like the other and therefore bad, I am saying they are both execrable human waste? Just to make sure you understand my argument rather than any phony caricatures you might want to employ.

That was evident at the outset. All you've done is to state it more explicitly. Some clarification is still needed, though: are all nationalists "human excrement" to you, or just the white nationalists?


Wait, you're having some trouble here Mike_L - you just deferred to Wikipedia to adjudicate whether or not Carlson should be considered a white supremacist, but now you're saying Wikipedia isn't to be trusted...

My point is that even left-leaning Wikipedia has been unable to label Tucker Carlson a white supremacist. They'd have leapt at the opportunity if it had been there. They haven't, because he isn't.


Hold on, let me go find the windmill you're tilting at here.

White-bashing leftists like to use the terms interchangeably... something you're attempting to accuse me of even though the textual evidence shows you're completely mischaracterizing what I've written, but which necessarily also infers that I am meant to be a 'white-bashing leftist'.

Care to show where I've bashed anyone on the grounds of them being white? :)

"You've" in that sentence refers to "white-bashing leftists" (previous sentence) in general, not to you specifically. "One has" would've been clearer than "you've", but still... the sentences follow an entire paragraph and quote that is very obviously not directed at you specifically.


So not 'always-excellent' then? Perhaps a better designation might be: 'the sometimes-excellent-except-when-being-a-racist-prick Tucker Carlson'? Might be too late to amend your prior post now, but at least you can show you've changed your position in light of new evidence.

As I said before, it was a derogatory remark, not a racist one. He loses points for it, but is still mostly excellent. So very mostly that it may as well be "always". :)


And who's 'going for the next best thing'? You should probably take some care here Mike_L - you wouldn't want to willfully misrepresent what I've written, would you?

No, and I didn't. Nowhere have I claimed that you presented Carlson as a white supremacist. You haven't, but you've been yearning to do so...
"...although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists..."
and
"...at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists".
And when all else fails...
"One doesn't need to 'smear' white nationalists by association with white supremacists - both are human excrement. Is that clear for you? You note how I am actually separating them into two groups, but rather than trying to say one is like the other and therefore bad, I am saying they are both execrable human waste?"
Just as long as you can get "white" and "excrement" together in the same paragraph as often as possible, it seems.


Wanna talk about white nationalism then, Mike_L? It does seem you want to use this as a means of evasion. I do think it will be intriguing and enlightening, if somewhat ironic, to have a discussion about ethno-nationalism with a white South African proponent of white-nationalism, if that's the angle you'd be hoping to take. I guess that's the kind of thing certain people use the internet for; anonymity is such a balm for being in possession of an anti-social belief system.

Anti-social, eh? According to whom?


Did I mention that I consider white nationalists to be human excrement? That's aside from white supremacists, who are also disgustingly moronic fuckwits. Just being crystal clear in my taxonomy here as we wouldn't want to render any terms meaningless, or provide cover for white supremacists. That would be awful. Of course, nowhere fucking near as awful as being a white nationalist. :)

Yes, but how do you feel about other (non-white) nationalists?


Spearthrower wrote:Do you believe in race realism, Mike_L?

Do you believe there's a 'white race', Mike_L?

No to the former, yes to the latter.

...
Can you recall a time when you didn't possess that belief?

Obviously not. I have no recollection of my thoughts as a nine month-old infant. Do you?
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14369
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#26  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 06, 2021 1:46 pm

Mike_L wrote:Some clarification is still needed, though: are all nationalists "human excrement" to you, or just the white nationalists?


Nationalists are chasing fictions to begin with. When they want to found their nationality on racism, yes, that's human excrement. Too deluded (if not too dumb) to survive in the bush. You'll eagerly defend nationalism by mere reflex. Can't you follow the play without a plot summary?

Mike_L wrote:it was a derogatory remark, not a racist one. He loses points for it, but is still mostly excellent.


You won't say what you denote by 'excellent'. I think you just mean that you like him, although I'm guessing you don't like him enough to open any of your available orifices to receive his seed.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#27  Postby Mike_L » Jan 06, 2021 2:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Mike_L wrote:Some clarification is still needed, though: are all nationalists "human excrement" to you, or just the white nationalists?


Nationalists are chasing fictions to begin with.
...

Yes, but are open borders as good as no borders?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Mike_L wrote:it was a derogatory remark, not a racist one. He loses points for it, but is still mostly excellent.


You won't say what you denote by 'excellent'. I think you just mean that you like him, although I'm guessing you don't like him enough to open any of your available orifices to receive his seed.

I observe sexual distancing rules, Cito.
Nevertheless, my Tucker Carlson poster is right next to my Vladimir Putin poster on my bedroom ceiling.
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14369
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#28  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 3:15 pm

Mike_L wrote:That was evident at the outset. All you've done is to state it more explicitly. Some clarification is still needed, though: are all nationalists "human excrement" to you, or just the white nationalists?


If it was evident at the outset - why did you try and play silly buggers pretending that I was saying one is the other? Hmmmm? Every time you try this kind of bullshit Mike_L, it just exposes that you're either unwilling or unable to engage in good faith.

As for your 'question' (good faith? HA!) I think it's pretty safe to say I consider all forms of nationalism to be absurd.

Just in case you are skeptical that I hold this position, you will find I've been consistent on this point over many years. For example, here's a post of mine from 10 years ago:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/updat ... ml#p116337

Personally, I find nation states as much of an imagined entity as cosmic fairies.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/updat ... ml#p115921

I'm surprised to see so many rationalists/atheists getting worked up about imagined entities.


As far as I am concerned, nationalism is just a secular religion.

So yeah, all forms of nationalism, but when you add the 'ethno' part to it, then it's actually much darker - the very worst aspects of tribalistic, xenophobic humanity elevated to a social virtue - again, much like religion.



Mike_L wrote:
Wait, you're having some trouble here Mike_L - you just deferred to Wikipedia to adjudicate whether or not Carlson should be considered a white supremacist, but now you're saying Wikipedia isn't to be trusted...


My point is that even left-leaning Wikipedia has been unable to label Tucker Carlson a white supremacist. They'd have leapt at the opportunity if it had been there. They haven't, because he isn't.


Yes, I clearly followed that 'argument' and then promptly had you espousing the exact contrary when Wikipedia clearly showed plenty of reason to consider Carlson a racist prick. Given how you say that the supposedly 'left-leaning' Wikipedia would label Carlson a white supremacist if it were even remotely true, then your argument becomes completely bereft of any sense when you ignore the fact that Wikipedia does actually highlight sufficient degrees of his racist dreck and contains sources of critics speculating that he's a racist ethno-nationalist who makes arguments which very much please white supremacists. So according to your established criteria, that's a hit. However, as it was never my argument, I am not sure quite what you think you're going to achieve.

You do, however, appear to be confounded by your own poor argument, whereas I'm not. Either a) Wikipedia is the source we're meant to use to adjudicate this (a patently absurd position, but whatever...) in which case Wikipedia does in fact provide ample citations of Carlson's racism which you seem to want to simply ignore... or b) Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source, which then damages beyond redemption the argument you are trying to make. You can't actually have this both ways - you're trying to square the circle, falling foul of one of the most elementary rules of logic and language: noncontradiction. Mutually contradictory positions held by the same person are indicative of that person being completely bereft of any understanding of their own thought processes - it's what you always do when you've dug for yourself a pit of shit Mike_L - you just keep on digging. :dunno:

Really, it should be easy for you to look at the Carlson videos above and review your support for him assuming that you don't agree with his racist prickery; instead, you seem to think you're running interference with all these distractions. That's not happening at all. Nothing you're saying changes what's evidently his position - all you're doing is exposing yourself, or more particularly, exposing the lack of reasoning which leads you to these positions.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Hold on, let me go find the windmill you're tilting at here.

White-bashing leftists like to use the terms interchangeably... something you're attempting to accuse me of even though the textual evidence shows you're completely mischaracterizing what I've written, but which necessarily also infers that I am meant to be a 'white-bashing leftist'.

Care to show where I've bashed anyone on the grounds of them being white? :)


"You've" in that sentence refers to "white-bashing leftists" (previous sentence) in general, not to you specifically.


Wait... what? :lol:

You're using the 2nd person singular pronoun, but now it's meant to be referring to a group of other people?

And you're purportedly worried about proper semantic usage lest we irrevocably pollute our means of discourse? C'mon chap - own it, for fuck's sakes.


Mike_L wrote:"One has" would've been clearer than "you've", but still... the sentences follow an entire paragraph and quote that is very obviously not directed at you specifically.


Um no, I would say it's pretty clearly directed at me, just as your other attempts at ad hominem arguments have clearly been directed, albeit in a snide indirect way, at me personally.

It's also a facet I've encountered many times. People on the extremist fringes - right or left - view everyone not sharing their extreme position to be the opposite end of the binary political spectrum. That's because, once you've settled in down the rabbit hole, complexity and nuance can't exist any more. Any and all criticism of the beliefs you've been inculcated with must be treated as being politically partisan. The centre becomes invisible, any motivation that isn't predicated on political ideology is undetectable, us and them binaries are all you (and by you, I mean you not Ms Larkins at number 24 and her budgerigar Fred) have left to protect against reasoned criticism.


Mike_L wrote:
So not 'always-excellent' then? Perhaps a better designation might be: 'the sometimes-excellent-except-when-being-a-racist-prick Tucker Carlson'? Might be too late to amend your prior post now, but at least you can show you've changed your position in light of new evidence.


As I said before, it was a derogatory remark, not a racist one. He loses points for it, but is still mostly excellent. So very mostly that it may as well be "always". :)


Fuck off Mike_L - of course it's derogatory like all racist hate speech against other groups, but it's manifestly racist too. That you would even think to argue against that means you're beyond range of reason.



Mike_L wrote:
And who's 'going for the next best thing'? You should probably take some care here Mike_L - you wouldn't want to willfully misrepresent what I've written, would you?


No, and I didn't. Nowhere have I claimed that you presented Carlson as a white supremacist. You haven't, but you've been yearning to do so...


Actually, you have indeed tried hard to do so - spending considerable number of words on the attempt. And your 2nd sentence just puts paid to the coherence of your first. If I was 'yearning' to do so, I would have done so... rather than saying the exact fucking opposite. But if you want to opt for the wilful misrepresentation of what I've written, then you've probably just about run out of yammer. What's next Mike_L? Another big dramatic flounce? No chance of you reevaluating your argumentation or the clarity of reasoning behind your positions; maybe have a nice cathartic lashing out at me on whatever grounds you opted for last time.


"...although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists..."
and
"...at least providing cover and justification to white supremacists".

And when all else fails...


Oops MIKEY... stop lying through your teeth. You've explicitly elided from one of those sentences something you can't possibly elide from that sentence. You know, quote-mining.

You can't characterize those sentences as me yearning to call Carlson a white supremacist when the bit you elided was me saying:

I don't think he's a white supremacist - although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists - I do think that he is a lazy bigoted racist though, and I think that's quite easily seen across many years of programing.


Jesus, talk about discursive malfeasance. I guess it makes sense though when your position is so fucking dire that you couldn't possibly have arrived at it through reason: you naturally then can't be expected to employ reason when discussing it.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:"One doesn't need to 'smear' white nationalists by association with white supremacists - both are human excrement. Is that clear for you? You note how I am actually separating them into two groups, but rather than trying to say one is like the other and therefore bad, I am saying they are both execrable human waste?"

Just as long as you can get "white" and "excrement" together in the same paragraph as often as possible, it seems.


Race is your obsession, not mine. When I talk about 'white nationalists' I am using a particular phrase indicative of a major problem in our societies. I am not talking about Indian ethnic nationalism, although that's very problematic too, and just as depraved and absent reason... however, there are no cunts here espousing Indian ethno-nationalism, otherwise I think you'd find me just as pointed on that. Of course, it's another absurd attempt at distraction on your part to suggest that the existence of two words in a paragraph suggests some ulterior motive. That's full on batshit Mike_L - never go full on batshit!

Incidentally, you've just clocked up another fundie argument. The Christian fundie whining about how the non-believer isn't criticizing other religions when the reason for that is fucking obvious: context.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Wanna talk about white nationalism then, Mike_L? It does seem you want to use this as a means of evasion. I do think it will be intriguing and enlightening, if somewhat ironic, to have a discussion about ethno-nationalism with a white South African proponent of white-nationalism, if that's the angle you'd be hoping to take. I guess that's the kind of thing certain people use the internet for; anonymity is such a balm for being in possession of an anti-social belief system.


Anti-social, eh? According to whom?


Wanna talk about white nationalism then, Mike_L? It does seem you want to use this as a means of evasion. I do think it will be intriguing and enlightening, if somewhat ironic, to have a discussion about ethno-nationalism with a white South African proponent of white-nationalism, if that's the angle you'd be hoping to take. I guess that's the kind of thing certain people use the internet for; anonymity is such a balm for being in possession of an anti-social belief system.



Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Did I mention that I consider white nationalists to be human excrement? That's aside from white supremacists, who are also disgustingly moronic fuckwits. Just being crystal clear in my taxonomy here as we wouldn't want to render any terms meaningless, or provide cover for white supremacists. That would be awful. Of course, nowhere fucking near as awful as being a white nationalist. :)


Yes, but how do you feel about other (non-white) nationalists?


I already answered your obsessive attempts to deflect. Feel free to process those responses in your own time.



Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Do you believe in race realism, Mike_L?

Do you believe there's a 'white race', Mike_L?


No to the former, yes to the latter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time


If you don't believe in race realism Mike_L, then you can't believe in a 'white race' or a 'black race' or any other colour race. To believe that they are real categories is to believe in race realism. This confusion is, as I've mentioned, to be expected. It really is sad to see how far you've fallen.

Also, I'm fascinated. I'm always fascinated by hokey belief systems. I studied and taught human evolution for many years, but I've never once managed to get any clarity from people like yourself regarding what races are meant to exist. At best I've got a list of colours "white, black, brown, yellow" - but these are so laughably childish, it's impossible to take someone espousing them seriously. Are your categories more sophisticated, Mike_L? If there is a white race, then what are the other races?


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:...
Can you recall a time when you didn't possess that belief?


Obviously not. I have no recollection of my thoughts as a nine month-old infant. Do you?


So you're trying to say, albeit in as indirect and obfuscatory manner as possible, that you have believed in the existence of races, and particularly of the 'white race' since you were an infant.

I find it odd that you managed to spend so many years here without ever feeling the need to discuss your white fears, but not long after you got sucked into a vortex of disinformation, you suddenly seem positively horny for the subject. I wonder if there's a flaw not just in the recollection of your thoughts at nine months old, but rather that a new normal has crept up on you without you stopping to notice.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#29  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 3:21 pm

Mike_L wrote:Nevertheless, my Tucker Carlson poster is right next to my Vladimir Putin poster on my bedroom ceiling.


A racist demagogue and a murderous autocrat as poster boys.

And you're proud of this.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#30  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 3:28 pm

I wonder what colour Mike_L thinks I am. He seems unsure whether to infer I am a white snowflake liberal wringing his hands with white guilt, or of some darker persuasion with a racially partisan dislike for the white man.

I'm not sure he even needs that resolved though. Fling dat shit.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#31  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 3:56 pm

That bastion of liberal snowflakery: the Department of Homeland Security, once again considers white supremacist extremists to be the most prominent terrorist threat to the USA as they have for many years:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/0 ... dhs-409236
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... ssment.pdf

Not at all surprisingly, the DHS also considers Russia to be the primary purveyor of manipulative disinformation.

Isn't that an intriguing pattern.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#32  Postby SafeAsMilk » Jan 06, 2021 5:56 pm

Mike_L wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:

It's guilt by observation. If it goose steps like a goose, honks like a goose and looks like a goose, but says it isn't a goose, then then any reasonable person would still conclude it's a goose. Unless you confuse open mindedness with letting your brains fall out, which seems to be something you struggle with.

White supremacists (or, more specifically, what the leftist media define as "white supremacists")

David Duke isn't a white supremacist now?

Blow your sniveling, mealy-mouthed apologetics out your ass, Mike.

We'll find a snow goose on every pond, SaM!

Claiming that any identification at all is too much certainly seems to be one of your primary strategies. It's also the strategy of dopey internet teenage edgelords who've decided their identity is being offended by Wolfenstein 3D. Because nazis are people too, right? How dare anyone call out white supremacy, they should be ashamed of themselves! If you're going to virtue signal, at least pick something that's actually a virtue.

We have an army of liberals to point them out and single them out!

Of course by liberals, you mean literally anyone who isn't looking for a reason to embrace their views. All they've got to do for you to jump aboard is to make it just sufficiently palatable. And isn't it funny how that limit becomes less and less as time goes on...almost like it's a strategy!

From Wikipedia...
An ADL profile of Duke states: "Although Duke denies that he is a white supremacist and avoids the term in public speeches and writings, the policies and positions he advocates state clearly that white people are the only ones morally qualified to determine the rights that should apply to other ethnic groups."

If that's an accurate representation of David Duke, then yes, he's a white supremacist.

Maybe you should investigate instead of bending over backwards to give white supremacists the benefit of the doubt. I know I know, that would mean not blaming something on liberals for once, and that would just be too much to bear. You've got your ironic villain narrative set, and not a thing will distract from this prepackaged agenda.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14647
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#33  Postby Mike_L » Jan 06, 2021 6:25 pm

Spearthrower wrote:As for your 'question' (good faith? HA!) I think it's pretty safe to say I consider all forms of nationalism to be absurd.

Why? Is nationalism not simply the inevitable result of human differences... in history, in culture, in religions, in beliefs, in values, etc.
The only way to eradicate nationalism would be to eradicate those differences and turn all humanity into some sort of homogenous mass. Then again, that's precisely what the globalists would like to see, if only they could live long enough.

Spearthrower wrote:
Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Hold on, let me go find the windmill you're tilting at here.

White-bashing leftists like to use the terms interchangeably... something you're attempting to accuse me of even though the textual evidence shows you're completely mischaracterizing what I've written, but which necessarily also infers that I am meant to be a 'white-bashing leftist'.

Care to show where I've bashed anyone on the grounds of them being white? :)


"You've" in that sentence refers to "white-bashing leftists" (previous sentence) in general, not to you specifically.


Wait... what? :lol:

You're using the 2nd person singular pronoun, but now it's meant to be referring to a group of other people?

And you're purportedly worried about proper semantic usage lest we irrevocably pollute our means of discourse? C'mon chap - own it, for fuck's sakes.


Mike_L wrote:"One has" would've been clearer than "you've", but still... the sentences follow an entire paragraph and quote that is very obviously not directed at you specifically.


Um no, I would say it's pretty clearly directed at me, just as your other attempts at ad hominem arguments have clearly been directed, albeit in a snide indirect way, at me personally.

It's also a facet I've encountered many times. People on the extremist fringes - right or left - view everyone not sharing their extreme position to be the opposite end of the binary political spectrum. That's because, once you've settled in down the rabbit hole, complexity and nuance can't exist any more. Any and all criticism of the beliefs you've been inculcated with must be treated as being politically partisan. The centre becomes invisible, any motivation that isn't predicated on political ideology is undetectable, us and them binaries are all you (and by you, I mean you not Ms Larkins at number 24 and her budgerigar Fred) have left to protect against reasoned criticism.

I own the error ("you've" instead of "one has"), but I'm not going to admit to an intent that was genuinely not there.
I haven't previously accused you of "scapegoating whites for all the world's ills", and I don't do it there either.

Spearthrower wrote:
So not 'always-excellent' then? Perhaps a better designation might be: 'the sometimes-excellent-except-when-being-a-racist-prick Tucker Carlson'? Might be too late to amend your prior post now, but at least you can show you've changed your position in light of new evidence.


As I said before, it was a derogatory remark, not a racist one. He loses points for it, but is still mostly excellent. So very mostly that it may as well be "always". :)


Fuck off Mike_L - of course it's derogatory like all racist hate speech against other groups, but it's manifestly racist too. That you would even think to argue against that means you're beyond range of reason.

The Carlson comment you're describing doesn't become racism just because you can find a way to use the word "racist" twice in one sentence.


Nowhere have I claimed that you presented Carlson as a white supremacist. You haven't, but you've been yearning to do so...


Actually, you have indeed tried hard to do so - spending considerable number of words on the attempt. And your 2nd sentence just puts paid to the coherence of your first. If I was 'yearning' to do so, I would have done so... rather than saying the exact fucking opposite. But if you want to opt for the wilful misrepresentation of what I've written, then you've probably just about run out of yammer. What's next Mike_L? Another big dramatic flounce? No chance of you reevaluating your argumentation or the clarity of reasoning behind your positions; maybe have a nice cathartic lashing out at me on whatever grounds you opted for last time.

You couldn't do so, because it wasn't there. So you just used "white supremacist" as often as possible next to Carlson's name. Trying for the subliminal route of making him out to be something he's not.

Spearthrower wrote:
Oops MIKEY... stop lying through your teeth. You've explicitly elided from one of those sentences something you can't possibly elide from that sentence. You know, quote-mining.

You can't characterize those sentences as me yearning to call Carlson a white supremacist when the bit you elided was me saying:

I don't think he's a white supremacist - although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists - I do think that he is a lazy bigoted racist though, and I think that's quite easily seen across many years of programing.

The 'louder' you say it, the less convincing it becomes.

Race is your obsession, not mine. When I talk about 'white nationalists' I am using a particular phrase indicative of a major problem in our societies.
I am not talking about Indian ethnic nationalism, although that's very problematic too, and just as depraved and absent reason...

Depraved? Why?
I mean, FFS, why can't you just accept that Indian ethnic nationalism and white ethnic nationalism are equally inevitable and equally normal?


Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Do you believe in race realism, Mike_L?

Do you believe there's a 'white race', Mike_L?


No to the former, yes to the latter.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time


If you don't believe in race realism Mike_L, then you can't believe in a 'white race' or a 'black race' or any other colour race. To believe that they are real categories is to believe in race realism. This confusion is, as I've mentioned, to be expected. It really is sad to see how far you've fallen.

Type in "race realism" and it redirects to 'scientific racism' (which is what you wrote initially)
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

One can acknowledge the existence of different races without embracing scientific racism.

Also, I'm fascinated. I'm always fascinated by hokey belief systems. I studied and taught human evolution for many years, but I've never once managed to get any clarity from people like yourself regarding what races are meant to exist. At best I've got a list of colours "white, black, brown, yellow" - but these are so laughably childish, it's impossible to take someone espousing them seriously. Are your categories more sophisticated, Mike_L? If there is a white race, then what are the other races?

So race just suddenly becomes real when you want to accuse someone (like Tucker) of racism? You're like those people who insist that demographic replacement is just a conspiracy theory... right up until the moment they start celebrating demographic replacement...



So you're trying to say, albeit in as indirect and obfuscatory manner as possible, that you have believed in the existence of races, and particularly of the 'white race' since you were an infant.

As the Science Daily article shows, race differences are perceived even by infants.
It takes a whole lot of liberal brainwashing to convince oneself otherwise.

Spearthrower wrote:
Mike_L wrote:Nevertheless, my Tucker Carlson poster is right next to my Vladimir Putin poster on my bedroom ceiling.


A racist demagogue and a murderous autocrat as poster boys.

And you're proud of this.

Those posters help me to get out of bed each morning and drag myself to the keyboard. Stop mocking my inspiration, Spearthrower.

Spearthrower wrote:I wonder what colour Mike_L thinks I am. He seems unsure whether to infer I am a white snowflake liberal wringing his hands with white guilt, or of some darker persuasion with a racially partisan dislike for the white man.

I'm not sure he even needs that resolved though. Fling dat shit.

You posted a selfie on the forum many years ago.

Spearthrower wrote:That bastion of liberal snowflakery: the Department of Homeland Security, once again considers white supremacist extremists to be the most prominent terrorist threat to the USA as they have for many years:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/0 ... dhs-409236
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... ssment.pdf

Not at all surprisingly, the DHS also considers Russia to be the primary purveyor of manipulative disinformation.

Isn't that an intriguing pattern.

Nothing has changed in more than eight years...

Homeland Security gathers 'crap intelligence' and spies on Americans (RT.com, Oct 2012)
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 14369
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#34  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 8:45 pm

Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:As for your 'question' (good faith? HA!) I think it's pretty safe to say I consider all forms of nationalism to be absurd.


Why? Is nationalism not simply the inevitable result of human differences... in history, in culture, in religions, in beliefs, in values, etc.


That's a bit like saying that oppression of women is the inevitable result of physical differences between men and women.

Of course, the fact that historically women were oppressed doesn't mean that we're obliged to continue doing that ad nauseam. The fact that some men still want to oppress women doesn't mean that we should just accept it and continue on. That something has happened or does happen isn't justification for its occurrence. Remember reason?

And of course, it's not in the slightest bit inevitable anyway. Plenty of societies both present and historical managed perfectly well to include diverse peoples with different traditions - we even have a word for it with respect to such societies: "tolerance".

If it were 'inevitable' then why don't I share this view? Why don't others? Why do so many people not share this view? The only logical answer is that it is not inevitable - you're just using that as an excuse to not inspect your own prejudice.

Alternatively, perhaps we should ask why some people can't bear differences in other humans, why they immediately assume the worst about 'others', and if their concerns are so drastic and determinate, then why would it logically stop just at history, culture, and religion - why not political persuasion, or musical tastes, or football teams. Perhaps, to continue the reduction to absurdity, we should have miniature states comprised solely of uniform individuals who never need to experience the horror of encountering someone slightly different to them.

Or, we could just not pander to such emotionally stunted bigotry because it doesn't originate from any reasoned perspective - it's just fearful people who have no right to decree what our societies should look like just so they can protect their little comfort zones.


Mike_L wrote:The only way to eradicate nationalism would be to eradicate those differences and turn all humanity into some sort of homogenous mass. Then again, that's precisely what the globalists would like to see, if only they could live long enough.


Utter bollocks and save the raving conspiracy claptrap of the spooky globalists for a more appropriate venue. Keep pulling this ad hominem bullshit and I'll start repeatedly implying you're a fucking Nazi and see how you squeal then. And you will squeal Mike_L. Cut the shit, or find yourself drowning in it.


I've spent the majority of my adult life living in other countries with people who don't share my ancestors' history, language, culture, religion etc., and I've never once been afraid of those differences, instead actually finding them fascinating and refreshing - the bemusing spectacle of human life. I don't need to share their culture, history, language, religion or (scare-quote) values to live peacefully, lawfully, and contentedly among them.

So why is it that your small blinkered view of life should be vaunted? Where are the 'values' of liberty, tolerance, and shared humanity in your impoverished world view?

Perhaps the distinction is in experience. Perhaps if someone selectively surrounds themself with people just like them, then they always fear the other, whereas once they leave the little cage they've manufactured for themselves, they'd find the wider world is not a scary place full of incomprehensible aliens, but really just other people with a preponderance of shared values.

I had a discussion once with my grandad which I found enlightening. He's 98 years old and I had always assumed, due to his age and generation, that he was Christian. It was a Sunday and I asked him if he was going to church - he laughed at the idea and said he'd never really believed in all that stuff - which I found genuinely astounding having never realized that about my own grandad. He'd only ever gone to church to attend with his more devout wife. However, he remarked, he did believe in Christian values. I asked him what they were and he said something along the lines of 'honesty, compassion, neighborly love'. So I asked him whether he thought that non-Christians didn't possess those values... and here's the kicker that perhaps sets him and you apart... he paused for quite some time then admitted that while he hadn't really ever thought about it despite all his experiences traveling the world and meeting people from other cultures, but that yeah, they probably were shared human values.

To put it another way. Why does having white skin link someone in France to someone in Russia? What's the shared history, religion, language, culture, values blather there? Give me some substantive reasoning to fill the chasms in your contentions because in all honesty, despite years of studying humans and wide travel around the world, I don't recognize your implications as having even a modicum of truth to them.


Mike_L wrote:
I own the error ("you've" instead of "one has"), but I'm not going to admit to an intent that was genuinely not there.


Then you'd best work on your discourse because this thread is littered with insinuation and ad hominem. If you're talking to me, address my points... not some fucking boogeymen shadow on the walls of your cave.


Mike_L wrote:The Carlson comment you're describing doesn't become racism just because you can find a way to use the word "racist" twice in one sentence.


No, it's racist because he's referring to a group of foreigners by calling them semi-literate primitive monkeys, and it's not 'not racist' just because you recognize that the epithet 'racist' isn't positive and don't want it applied to someone you admit to placing on a pedestal. If you can't acknowledge that's an overtly racist statement, then I very much doubt you're capable of holding any degree of genuine discussion about racism. Plus, you need to work hard on overcoming your misplaced reverence.



Mike_L wrote:
You couldn't do so, because it wasn't there. So you just used "white supremacist" as often as possible next to Carlson's name. Trying for the subliminal route of making him out to be something he's not.


Again, outright crackpottery Mike_L - I don't know who you think you're going to fool with this gibbering spray of saliva, but clearly you're not going to convince me that I was attempting to subliminally manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what I wrote.

What I can say though is that as part of engaging with me on this website, you have agreed not to intentionally misrepresent what I write. So if I explicitly say "I don't believe X" - you don't get to repeatedly tell me that I secretly do believe X.

I will make it absolutely clear yet again. I don't think Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist - my reasoning for this is quite simple and I've already stated it on record (meaning you cannot pretend my position is otherwise): I have never seen him espouse any position that is explicitly white supremacist. However, there is a large overlap between ethno-nationalist, racial supremacist and plain racist ideology - they're subspecies, members of the same ideological group, so it's hardly a major step up in respect to not call him a white supremacist when I've called him a racist prick and a white nationalist - as a racist white nationalist, he necessarily shares a significant proportion of ideas with white supremacists, and this is presumably why they like him. Acknowledging the last point as an objective fact might not be convenient for you, but fact it remains.

As you keep trying so transparently to divert this, perhaps we should instead seek to understand why you keep evading confronting Tucker Carlson's overt racism and ethno-nationalism by tugging yourself off about imaginary subtext of him being a white-supremacist that only you can perceive - it looks very much like you simply don't want to address the 2 elephants actually present in the room by repeatedly pointing to the absent Proboscidean.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Oops MIKEY... stop lying through your teeth. You've explicitly elided from one of those sentences something you can't possibly elide from that sentence. You know, quote-mining.

You can't characterize those sentences as me yearning to call Carlson a white supremacist when the bit you elided was me saying:

I don't think he's a white supremacist - although he is remarkably popular among white supremacists - I do think that he is a lazy bigoted racist though, and I think that's quite easily seen across many years of programing.


The 'louder' you say it, the less convincing it becomes.


In reality, it's already convincing as it is because if I wanted to call him a white supremacist, I would - and I think you know me well enough to know that I am hardly fucking coy when it comes to sharing my opinion.

Your desperate attempts to pretend I am saying the exact opposite of what I've clearly stated numerous times coupled with your blatantly egregious quote-mining does not present your competence or honesty in a positive light.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Race is your obsession, not mine. When I talk about 'white nationalists' I am using a particular phrase indicative of a major problem in our societies.

I am not talking about Indian ethnic nationalism, although that's very problematic too, and just as depraved and absent reason...


Depraved? Why?


Fuck off Mike - you start answering my questions or go JAQ yourself off somewhere else.


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I mean, FFS, why can't you just accept that Indian ethnic nationalism and white ethnic nationalism are equally inevitable and equally normal?


Well, let's see: because they're not? Yeah, because they're not - that's why.

If you want to claim they are - do feel free to do so, but remember to show your working because just asking questions isn't really very convincing.



Mike_L wrote:
Type in "race realism" and it redirects to 'scientific racism' (which is what you wrote initially)


When I type 'race realism' into Google, I don't get 'redirected' anywhere. Again, it's like you think Wikipedia is the solitary arbitrator of knowledge.

Race realism is similar to, but not actually the same as scientific racism*. A belief in 'race realism' simply means that you believe that humanity can be subdivided into biologically distinct groups, i.e. races. As you believe that there is such a thing as 'the white race' you necessarily believe in race realism - one is predicated on the other.

*yes, you're right that I did type that in initially, but I was also trying to have a telephone conversation at the time and my mind wasn't fully on what I was typing, but the fact that I edited it should indicate to you that I didn't actually mean scientific racism, which is why I changed it.


Mike_L wrote:
One can acknowledge the existence of different races without embracing scientific racism.


Acknowledge?

No, no, no... you're not 'acknowledging' anything. You're knee-jerking from observational prejudice. Genetics completely falsifies your belief in biological races. How do you answer that? With a link to some RT crackpottery? Maybe you can find some fringe scientist to cite while intently ignoring the consensus of generations of biologists? You know, typical pseudoscientific practices.


Mike_L wrote:
So race just suddenly becomes real when you want to accuse someone (like Tucker) of racism?


Perfect! I already addressed this batshit argument before you even made it. You're employing the exact form of the fundie argument that my denial of the existence of God means I necessarily acknowledge the existence of God.

Of course, it's completely incoherent. I can't believe you even managed to write the sentence before realizing how stupid you sound.

Race doesn't somehow become an objectively real component by acknowledging the existence of racism. It's HIS racism that is predicated on his unwarranted belief in race realism, whereas my rejection of race realism is also why I reject his racism - it has no basis in reality, it's just his unexamined unselfcritical bigotry speaking. It's not a hard argument to conceive of, and don't for a moment believe that I think you're too stupid to grasp that.


Mike_L wrote:You're like those people who insist that demographic replacement is just a conspiracy theory... right up until the moment they start celebrating demographic replacement...


I'm like one of which people?

And :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was going to ask you whether you bought into the pseudoscientific concept of racial demographic replacement, but for some stupid reason, I gave you too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.

It's a far-right conspiracy theory Mike_L indicating yet again that you have been radicalized by the internet. It has no basis in reality, and is just plain ignorant of population dynamics and biology in general - you might as well be citing Time Cube, for fuck's sakes.

It's also predictably internally contradictory - how are you supposed to deny race realism and disbelieve in a genetic basis for race while also being afraid that white people will be replaced? Replaced by what? Obviously, language, culture, history are all elements of software - learned elements of our environment which have nothing at all to do with anything biological (readily observable by the fact that a non-white person brought up in, say, the UK can also learn and hold the same language, culture, history etc, and absolutely are not part of any genetic component... so necessarily, you are in possession of a full-on race realist belief. It's no surprise you're confused - you've allowed these ideas to infect your mind, but haven't bothered inspecting them.

Ironically considering my previous warning, I have to also inform you that the origin of this idea was found in 19th century Germany which in turn inspired a book by American eugenicist Madison Grant titled: The Passing of the Great Race. It was very popular with one particular individual who called it "My Bible" - any ideas who that might be, Mike_L? Yes, it was Adolf ad-Hitlerum :) - you've become a parody figure, uncritically swallowing pseudoscientific gibberish through blind belief and brainwashing rather than through honest reasoning. If there was ever any suggestion that membership of a site like this might inoculate people against irrational idiocy, you're living proof that is not true.

I can't be arsed to find a free version for you - go pay for it.

https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Connection- ... nskepti-20

The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, Stefan Kuhl, 2002


Mike_L wrote:


I'm not looking at YT videos for you Mike_L. If you want to cite something, cite something more credible than 'bloke down the pub says'.



Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:So you're trying to say, albeit in as indirect and obfuscatory manner as possible, that you have believed in the existence of races, and particularly of the 'white race' since you were an infant.


As the Science Daily article shows, race differences are perceived even by infants.


Observable differences are indeed perceived by infants. They're not 'race' differences because race isn't a real thing unless we're talking about mushrooms, which given your confusion, might actually be the case. The difference in skin tone between someone from Africa and someone from Europe is pretty bloody obvious, so it's hardly fucking surprising that a child could spot the difference. However, that visible difference doesn't amount to a 'race' - it amounts to a difference in melanin production. Which neatly brings us back to my request that you set about detailing the taxonomy of races you believe in.


Mike_L wrote:It takes a whole lot of liberal brainwashing to convince oneself otherwise.


Alternatively, it might take a post-graduate science degree in Human Evolution with a solid foundation in genetics and more than a decade of teaching the subject to know it's utter fatuous shite spouted by ignorant racist cunts who slept through high school. Remind me what your background is again, Mike_L... you're a nutritionist who became an artist, right? So what's your background of knowledge relevant to this? You have fuck all basis for your belief - you've been brainwashed.

Let's try that sentence again: it takes a whole lot of alt-right radicalization through the internet to convince someone that all the scientific knowledge of the last 100 years of knowledge acquisition simply doesn't exist, and that the 1920's is the last word in human knowledge.

You've moved fully into Creationist land now Mike_L - what you're espousing is no different at all to Creationists rattling up here and arguing that evolution is an atheist conspiracy while citing Darwin or some other 19th century contemporary then refusing to acknowledge the preponderance of empirical evidence contradicting the uncritically held ideological belief.



Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

A racist demagogue and a murderous autocrat as poster boys.

And you're proud of this.


Those posters help me to get out of bed each morning and drag myself to the keyboard. Stop mocking my inspiration, Spearthrower.


A racist demagogue and a murderous autocrat as poster boys, coupled with an outdated pseudoscientific belief acquired through internet radicalization. I wish your parents had just introduced you to porn - it would have been far less damaging to your long-term well-being.



Mike_L wrote:
You posted a selfie on the forum many years ago.


Oh I know I did. Doesn't mean you necessarily recollect which I am in your haste to find some ad hominem to evade my arguments though. So which is it? Am I the self-hating white chap full of guilt? Do I seem to be espousing any self-hate or guilt here Mikey? Or am I the brown boy with an equal propensity for foolish belief in crackpot ideas as you?


Mike_L wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:That bastion of liberal snowflakery: the Department of Homeland Security, once again considers white supremacist extremists to be the most prominent terrorist threat to the USA as they have for many years:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/0 ... dhs-409236
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files ... ssment.pdf

Not at all surprisingly, the DHS also considers Russia to be the primary purveyor of manipulative disinformation.

Isn't that an intriguing pattern.


Nothing has changed in more than eight years...


Well no, not with a racist in the White House and the network of racists in the internet pumping out videos to radicalize ignorant people - obviously, the danger has actually grown because terrorizing ideas about having your people replaced and your history wiped has this strange result in dramatically amplifying violent behavior which morons come to believe is justified. Meanwhile, of course, the scientific world still continues along delving into ever greater detail about DNA, haplogroups and ancestry wholly absent any sense of the utility of biological races.




Yeah, not going to look at InfoWars Russia, Mike_L - if you have any aspiration to be considered credible, find some credible sources eh?



Edit: quote tags, quote tags, a typo, then another damn quote tag
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 06, 2021 9:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#35  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 8:57 pm

How many races are there, Mike_L?

Can you list them?

Have you given it some thought in the past?

Did I put you off by saying that when I've asked people espousing the same vapid shit as you in the past, all they've managed to do was come up with a list of skin colours? Maybe you can try eye colours? Or curliness of hair. Show you're a bona fide independent thinker.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#36  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 06, 2021 9:28 pm

Included in How Evolution Shapes Our Lives: Essays on Biology and Society, Princeton University Press, 2016

https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/curr ... pleton.pdf

Conclusions

The genetic data are consistently and strongly informative about human races. Humans show only modest levels of differentiation among populations when compared to other large-bodied mammals, and this level of differentiation is well below the usual threshold used to identify sub-species (races) in nonhuman species. Hence, human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation. A more modem definition of race is that of a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans. The widespread representation of human "races" as branches on an intraspecific population tree is genetically indefensible and biologically misleading, even when the ancestral node is presented as being at 100,000 years ago.

Attempts to salvage the idea of human "races" as evolutionary lineages by invoking greater racial purity in the past followed by admixture events are unsuccessful and falsified by multilocus comparisons of geographical concordance and by haplotype analyses. Instead, all of the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split or separation of the "races'" or between Africans and Eurasians. Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions (with perhaps some local replacements but no global replacement within the last 100,000 years) and recurrent genetic interchange. The 100,000 years ago "divergence time" between Eurasians and Africans that is commonly found in the recent literature is really only an "effective divergence time" in sensu Nei and Roychoudhury (1974, 1982). Since no split occurred between Africans and Eurasians, it is meaningless to assign a date to an "event" that never happened. Instead,the effective divergence time measures the amount of restricted gene flow among the populations (Slatkin 1991). Because of the extensive evidence for genetic interchange through population movements and recurrent gene flow going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is only one evolutionary lineage of humanity and there are no subspecies or races under either the traditional or phylogenetic definitions. Human evolution and population structure have been and are characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common, long-term evolutionary fate.


A whole lot of liberal brainwashing on my part? Or a complete fucking ignorance of genetics coupled with a network of radicalizing far-right racists on your part Mike_L?

I wonder what this website's membership has a tendency to conceive of as more credible? The cocky, self-serving declarations of an ideologue apparently ignorant of the entire field of Biology, or one of the world's leading geneticists exploring the topic in detail with respect to the available empirical evidence?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#37  Postby Spinozasgalt » Jan 07, 2021 12:42 am

Good to see you back, Spearthrower. And good to see you lot still refusing to put up with this nonsense. ;)
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18770
Age: 34
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#38  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 07, 2021 1:01 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:Good to see you back, Spearthrower. And good to see you lot still refusing to put up with this nonsense. ;)


And always a pleasure to see you.

I don't know why Mike_L returned just to trot out more bollocks here. What drives people to post on sites that are antithetical to their motivations? I don't know if anyone recalls back in the day when Dembski-bots used to turn up here for their rite de passage in confronting the evilutionists, but perhaps it's something like that? Certainly the arguments are just as compelling.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28012
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#39  Postby ronmcd » Jan 07, 2021 11:48 am

Mike_L wrote:
So race just suddenly becomes real when you want to accuse someone (like Tucker) of racism? You're like those people who insist that demographic replacement is just a conspiracy theory... right up until the moment they start celebrating demographic replacement...



Wait Mike, an out of context quote created by a youtube channel called "Anti-Whites Exposed" with 99 subscribers? I dread to think which newsletter or forum you found that on.

If you like, you can watch the full original video, which isn't about "celebrating demographic replacement" at all. But you probably knew that.

User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 13332

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: "The always-excellent Tucker Carlson"

#40  Postby Hermit » Jan 07, 2021 12:04 pm

Oh noes. Mike_L indulged in mendacious quote mining.

Say it isn't so.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4391
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests