Posted: Jan 06, 2021 8:45 pm
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.
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
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.
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.
Mike_L wrote:Homeland Security gathers 'crap intelligence' and spies on Americans (RT.com, Oct 2012)
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