How many nationalists/neo-Nazis/fascists do we have on here?

[The best and greatest]

I'm generally against the butchering of children, yes. Yes, that includes the butchering of white children. How will I ever recover now that you have found out my terrible secret?!


When people say "indefensible" they mean "morally indefensible". It's true that it requires a moral fundament in the first place. Otherwise everything is justifiable. But then, if everything is equally justifiable, why talk about what is morally right and wrong in the first place? At that point you've abandoned all group moral effort and are just in yolo world until someone fucks your shit up and you realize nobody is there to help you protect it, because that requires moral duty and a shared moral understanding.

Your attempts to spin this as being "About children" do you no credit. Further I know what you meant by "Indefensible" do you know what I mean by "Virtue signalling?"

So allow me to ask you again: Why do slaves have a moral obligation to the people who either enslaved them or abided their enslavement, but then those very people don't also have an equal obligation to the slaves such that their transgressions against the rights of others makes their fate deserved? That you can find individual persons who might not have deserved what happened to them does nothing to undermine the question you have yet to answer.

 

[JoshPlz]

I'm a true patriot.
Where's "race realist"

Agreed. The poll is missing a Race Realist option, so I just chose the obvious (7) instead.

 

[The best and greatest]

Agreed. The poll is missing a Race Realist option, so I just chose the obvious (7) instead.

Isn't that just a form of supremacy that presupposes its own validity by asserting that it is "Real" in the title?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Your attempts to spin this as being "About children" do you no credit. Further I know what you meant by "Indefensible" do you know what I mean by "Virtue signalling?"

So allow me to ask you again: Why do slaves have a moral obligation to the people who either enslaved them or abided their enslavement, but then those very people don't also have an equal obligation to the slaves such that their transgressions against the rights of others makes their fate deserved? That you can find individual persons who might not have deserved what happened to them does nothing to undermine the question you have yet to answer.

It is not spin. They murdered children. You find it morally justifiable. I don't. I think you should stop trying to justify the murder of children. That's not virtue signalling, it's a request for you to be more virtuous.

You have completely ignored the deeper and fundamentally necessary argument that I have made. I'm willing to answer questions, but what is the point of answering a question if you continue to hold the position that everything is morally justifiable and defensible? If everything is justifiable, I don't need to give an answer to your question. Your question has already been answered by the presupposition that everything is defensible.

Unless you discard the position that everything is justifiable, there's literally no point in discussing this.

 

[JoshPlz]

Isn't that just a form of supremacy that presupposes its own validity by asserting that it is "Real" in the title?

I don't think I would agree with your assessment. As opposed to Racism, Race Realism is based on (granted: uncomfortable and unpopular) scientific facts.

Somene has yet to convince me otherwise.

Here is a simple definition.

 

[The best and greatest]

It is not spin. They murdered children. You find it morally justifiable. I don't. I think you should stop trying to justify the murder of children. That's not virtue signalling, it's a request for you to be more virtuous.

You have completely ignored the deeper and fundamentally necessary argument that I have made. I'm willing to answer questions, but what is the point of answering a question if you continue to hold the position that everything is morally justifiable and defensible? If everything is justifiable, I don't need to give an answer to your question. Your question has already been answered by the presupposition that everything is defensible.

Unless you discard the position that everything is justifiable, there's literally no point in discussing this.

I only assert that "everything is justifiable" because you sought to declaim me as "Defending the indefensible" (oh my bloody heart strings!) presumably because you didn't have a better argument at the time. Which is only an argument you can make if we presume that what they did is indefensible. Clearly it is not. Clearly I have defended their position quite competently on an equivalent moral basis to your own (That people have a right to kill and destroy those who would literally physically oppress them, enslave them, steal their labor, steal their children, and deny their humanity and those who would otherwise uphold or enable such activities.)

So you see, its not a disagreement of opinion. You were just wrong to say that I am "Defending the indefensible."

Again, instead of answering the question you get increasingly upset and deploy increasingly dishonest arguments. It sounds to me like you simply wish not to acknowledge my argument because it highlights an incongruity in your own beliefs. That you prioritize groups of people differently in your personal value system.

Consider that while you're asking me to think of the poor whites who dindunuffin you have yet to consider that not all the slaves might have massacred the whites and creoles. Really showcases your bias i'd say. Hell some of the slaves were women and children too, don't see you getting all misty eyed here though.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

The whole proposition nation thing you learn in school is kinda a farce.

What? Why would Ben Shapiro lie to me about something like that...

 

[The best and greatest]

I don't think I would agree with your assessment. As opposed to Racism, Race Realism is based on (granted: uncomfortable and unpopular) scientific facts.

Somene has yet to convince me otherwise.

Here is a simple definition.

So if you prescribe to race realism, how does it inform how you view people who would fall into these various categories?

 

[UQ 770]

What is really odd as well is that people drift toward topics they hate. So the incel thread and Roosh thread are full of SJW's and internet troons. There is a guy in the race realism thread saying 15th century Africa was nearly as advanced as 15th century Europe.

Nothing odd about that to me. This is clearly a site for people to just show up and complain about things. We're like a gossip website except you can say nigger, kike, spic, troon and call another user a dickface choirboy if you get tired of their shit.

 

[Sped Xing]

I'm a Jacksonian Democrat. The only thing I have in common with nazis is racism.

15th Century Africa did host several civilizations on essentially the same technological and organizational level as 15th Century Europe. That's why 1492 started the conquest of the Americas, but the scramble for Africa had to wait for the late 1800s.

 

[UQ 770]

I'm also personally offended that there's not a "People are shit" option on the poll. I can't do a good enough Eastwood impression to say I hate everyone equally but I'd still like a bit of representation for us misanthropes.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I only assert that "everything is justifiable" because you sought to declaim me as "Defending the indefensible" (oh my bloody heart strings!) presumably because you didn't have a better argument at the time. Which is only an argument you can make if we presume that what they did is indefensible. Clearly it is not. Clearly I have defended their position quite competently on an equivalent moral basis to your own (That people have a right to kill and destroy those who would literally physically oppress them, enslave them, steal their labor, steal their children, and deny their humanity and those who would otherwise uphold or enable such activities.)

Again, instead of answering the question you get increasingly upset and deploy increasingly dishonest arguments. It sounds to me like you simply wish not to acknowledge my argument because it highlights an incongruity in your own beliefs. That you prioritize groups of people differently in your personal value system.

Consider that while you're asking me to think of the poor whites who dindunuffin you have yet to consider that not all the slaves might have massacred the whites and creoles. Really showcases your bias i'd say.

So far I've only defended that it is a morally bankrupt position to justify massacring children and the ultimate meaninglessness of trying to carry an argument with someone who believes essentially that everything is relative and everything can be defensible.

The assumption that I would find it morally wrong for slaves to kill their masters is created in your own mind out of whole cloth, much like your presumption of my emotional state.

Also, a bit of heads-up, if the necessary moral justification for murdering children is that they would (potentially) murder or oppress you, then you've just made the argument that the slave owners were justified in killing any of the slaves they had, children or otherwise, considering they did go on to murder them. It's a pretty shake ground to build your moral foundations on.

 

[The best and greatest]

So far I've only defended the morally bankrupt position of justifying massacring children and the ultimate meaninglessness of trying to carry an argument with someone who believes essentially that everything is relative and everything can be defensible.

Please stop trying to make this about the chilluns. Because its very obviously so much bigger than "Wont someone think of the children!?" Let me level with you some, I appreciate the innocence of children and that they do not inherent the crimes of their parents. I also think that if people valued the lives of their children they should have created a better society that wouldn't inspire the lowest segment of that society to homicidal rage. Maybe by not engaging in slavery. When you accept slavery you accept the resulting outcomes of it too. Sometimes you get a bad draw and get a revolt that kills you and your entire family.

The assumption that I would find it morally wrong for slaves to kill their masters is created in your own mind out of whole cloth, much like your presumption of my emotional state.

Slavery doesn't exist solely for the benefit of masters who directly own and trade slaves. It also exists to benefit the people those masters produce for. Why shouldn't those who consume sugar made from slave labor be considered guilty? You can either acknowledge you are inextricably apart of something bigger than yourself when you live as a member of a society or you...can't I guess. That was the point I am making. Societies are judged together because everyone is accountable to one degree or another, either as slavers or as consumers.

Also, a bit of heads-up, if the necessary moral justification for murdering children is that they would (potentially) murder or oppress you, then you've just made the argument that the slave owners were justified in killing any of the slaves they had, children or otherwise, considering they did go on to murder them. It's a pretty shake ground to build your moral foundations on.

I just think its fascinating that you're willing to judge "The slaves" as a hegemonic group but when it comes to people of a wealthier position in society and with a paler complexion by comparison suddenly you want to stipulate on all these individual actors. Are you conscious of that discrepancy in your thinking or is this just me "Trying to psycho-analyze you" again? Hrrrrm. HRRRRRM!

Also yeah slave owners were "justified" in that they were ultimately correct weren't they? Of course the risk to themselves could more easily be mitigated by not having slaves at all but whatever.

 

[UQ 770]

I'm not really convinced that minor biological differences between the races actually equals the kinds of social and cognitive differences that Race Realists like to sperg about. Also it seems like everyone who buys into that crap is constantly railing against miscegenation because it raises the immediate and obvious question everyone should have: How precisely do these differences interact in mixed races? We're all already mutts made up of a bunch of extinct progenitor races and you have to travel to some really fucking isolated places to find anyone who shows signs of being racially pure on the genetic level. People who bitch and moan that everybody is going to look the same in the future seem to be ignoring the fact that we've kind of already reached that stage. Autists probably have trouble telling faces apart because we're not actually that different from one another.

I also find Race Realism laughable because its actually really easy to just sit around and think of justifications for why X race or ethnicity isn't technically white. I used to troll a couple of places and do this for the hell of it. Most Americans tend to have some kind of Jewish, Slavic or wop ancestry in their backgrounds and failing that there's always Mediterranean heritage you can use to be a dick to people. With Europe is even easier since there was a whole lot of war rape in WW2 and just about every Eurofag probably has some Glorious Soviet, Amerimutt or Colonial Conscript DNA in their genetic line.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I just think its fascinating that you're willing to judge "The slaves" as a hegemonic group but when it comes to people of a wealthier position in society and with a paler complexion by comparison suddenly you want to stipulate on all these individual actors

Show me where I judged the ex-slave children or the ex-slaves that didn't partake in the massacres.

You're talking to a straw man.

Also I'm not saying the slave owners were justified; I'm saying they would be justified under the moral precept you were proposing.

We're all already mutts made up of a bunch of extinct progenitor races and you have to travel to some really fucking isolated places to find anyone who shows signs of being racially pure on the genetic level.

If everybody was equally mutted, then the word would have no meaning. If people are mutted to different degrees, then the word does have meaning.

Just because it's easy to push people to purity spiralling doesn't negate the underlaying meaning of the word or that a more balanced perspective of it is possible and sensible.

People who bitch and moan that everybody is going to look the same in the future seem to be ignoring the fact that we've kind of already reached that stage.

No, we haven't. For the majority of people it's not hard at all to judge, even at a glance, what continent the majority of their genetics is from.


edit:
Here I'll take a step back and show why.

You always have to use the right level of magnification to look at a problem to solve it. The point of race isn't to draw a line and sort every single person into one or the other. They're intentional broad categories and there are going to be people who are so close to that line that it's not really sensible to sort them wholesale into one or the other.

But with that said, there is still value in the classification. For example, we don't remove all names of colors, red blue green yellow, because they're all the same and they exist on a continuous spectrum anyways. There is value in being able to name the colors of the rainbow. To designers, there is value in more precise granularity, so they use words like mauve, aquamarine and other color names that make my head spin.

Now then of course is the next question, I think you've said it: "What's the point of mentioning the differences?"

Well, first of all, simply looking different would in itself be point enough. If people look different, they are going to be treated differently. If you don't believe that to be the case, go and travel to a country where nobody looks like you, particularly if you leave the capital and go more inland. Every time you go out on the street, people will stare at you.

You can't sweep that difference under the carpet. If you do, you remove the fundamental basis for being able to combat racism itself. If we together would all pretend like there aren't visible differences, then we also can't claim to be treated differently based on visible differences (and we are).

Now of course there's a lot of other consequences and they're worth discussing too.

I think that people that are curious about whether such a concept of race (should) exist or not, should watch this Norwegian documentary (you can turn on subtitles).

It really is both entertaining and informative as a Norwegian comedian interviews various people, mostly academics. Then he let's those academics respond to his interview of the others. Very entertaining and some people get properly rustled. The show is called "Hjernevask", which means "Brainwash" and it's a series about topics that are taboo in contemporary culture.

 

[Freedom Fries]

I also find Race Realism laughable because its actually really easy to just sit around and think of justifications for why X race or ethnicity isn't technically white. I used to troll a couple of places and do this for the hell of it. Most Americans tend to have some kind of Jewish, Slavic or wop ancestry in their backgrounds and failing that there's always Mediterranean heritage you can use to be a dick to people. With Europe is even easier since there was a whole lot of war rape in WW2 and just about every Eurofag probably has some Glorious Soviet, Amerimutt or Colonial Conscript DNA in their genetic line.

Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.

 

[The best and greatest]

Show me where I judged the ex-slave children or the ex-slaves that didn't partake in the massacres.

You judged them implicitly through your judgement of "The slaves" as a group without specifying further. Which frankly I'm perfectly fine with since ultimately they still participated in an incident of rebellion that helped make the massacre possible. You do not hold the rest of society in then Saint Domingue to that standard though. When discussing the massacre of non slaves you want to start picking out exceptions here and there that didn't deserve this or that when i'm pretty sure none of the slaves deserved what they got. But when you consider that almost all of the slaves were themselves directly from Africa because Saint Domingue would chew through slaves like they were paper towels. Really wtf were you expecting from them? Most of them couldn't even read. You expect people like that in the situation they were in (Hatian slavery is often considered the most hellish and brutal in all the new world) to adhere to our enlightenment sensibilities on proper war conduct? In what way is that a reasonable expectation? That would be like me expecting western slavers to not have slaves...Oh wait, the voluntary giving up of slavery in Europe showcases that as a reasonable expectation.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.

You'd be surprised how easily people get baited about their ancestry

 

[Lemmingwise]

Really wtf were you expecting from them?

What I expect from people is completely independant of what is moral.

For example, I expect you to continue to make false assumptions about what I believe and claim I said things I haven't said and then retreating behind "implicitly" and I expect you to continue to not apologize for doing so.

See? What I expect is completely seperate from what would be the moral thing to do.

 

[UQ 770]

Does that actually work? People have known what "white" was in America since at latest the Naturalization Act passed in 1790.

Just because some law says some thing or other about how American or white you are doesn't stop race realists from trying to parse it down even further. Obviously dicking with people about their ancestry only works in certain communities but, unsurprisingly, the people who care the most about quantifying how white they are tend to be the most insecure about it. They always have a bunch of statistics and factoids they can trot out to justify how superior their heritage is, and its different depending on what race their whiteness was contaminated with.

I think it has to do with some kind of uncertainty regarding family trees. Sure, your records might say your family stayed 100% white over the years, but you can never know if your great-great-great-great-great grandmother was fucking the Jewish serving boy or, especially in the South, if you have some Passing in your bloodline. Genetics can give you a report but the decent services are expensive and the cheap ones are unreliable. On top of that, a lot of race realists are convinced that genetic tests are intentionally rigged by (((them))) to trick you into thinking you're not pure.

A lot of race realists also maintain a One Drop philosophy where *any* racial mixing in your line automatically contaminates you which inevitably leads to them having a mental breakdown when some revelation about their ancestry comes out. There's some kind of neurosis involved in the whole thing, its not just people being Rayciss just to be assholes from what I can tell.