Yup, I got that badge with distinction Ed. On a side note I heard on the radio the other day that Kerrygold butter is now the number 2 selling butter in the US. You might also be interested to hear that Ireland is now the 6th biggest foreign investor in the US. We'll take over yet Ed.
I heard an interesting hypothesis at least regarding the Muslim migration into Europe. It may be engineered (and it appears it is to me) to incite a reaction from Europeans to salvage the EU and solidify a common European culture opposing Muslims. I am not sure that conclusion is true, but it is worth considering as we see things unfold. It does line up with speculation I expressed quite some time ago on here. We have all of these strange groups supporting Islam or shaming Islamophobia, yet after 9/11 the media had everyone super suspicious of Muslims, so there does seem to be engineering to allow Muslims to immigrate. I don't think it would take much for the media to shut down the voices defending Islam and start propogating a fear narrative. Idk, I am uneasy about it, hope all these Muslims aren't being used as pawns and I especially hope they don't get sacrificed for the endgame.
I think you're off point there friend, which is a rarity for you. Islam and Muslims have always been in Europe. There's been a surge of newcomers of late but that's mainly down to the actions of the West in Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia (the US sponsored number 1 terrorist state) is the reason many of our Muslim countries are fleeing their homelands for sanctuary in Europe. Eliminate that parasitical regime and everything would change but sadly the US is now arming those genocidal fanatics with nukes so things are only going to get a lot worse.
Who cares? People move around and they always have. I can't imagine Germany without all the foreigners
It's not a matter of opinion that whites will become a minority, it's a fact -- hence why you had to backtrack to "plurality" in the same breath. I can see the bloodlust on the left toward whites, especially straight white cis males. They make no effort to hide it whatsoever. Many of them form their entire worldview around their deranged hatred toward us and seem to have nothing else to do besides screech about how we're a cancer on humanity on social media 24/7. This is the main reason for the rise of Trump and the alt right -- you can only kick a dog so many times before it bites you. Just search "white guys", "white men" and worst of all, "white dudes" in the Twitter search bar and it will sound like Nazi propaganda against Jews. I say that without one iota of hyperbole: a group smeared as inherently evil and the cause of all things wrong in the world that they allegedly control. What will happen is that whites will be the first victims, and then blacks and Hispanics will start vying for power. Since neither of them have the pathetic guilt complex that whites do, neither will ever fold. Hispanics will take it by sheer numbers though.
I am not ignoring any of these things, nativetongues. You've wrote lots of things up here as if I do not acknowledge them, and it's typical of the new brand of leftist tribal ideology to do this kind of thing in defense when they are called out for race-centric thinking. I am not saying 'black people haven't suffered', and you know that. I am pointing out that answering the crimes of the past by being racist against white-skinned people today is not a valid solution. Despite what the left has been telling itself, judging entire groups of people by their skincolour is not a good way forward - just as the political tribalism you now self-admittedly embrace is not the way forward. I am glad to see you regret your language - but examine how often you do this. It happens with increasing regularity, man. You make a completely insane statement, always in favor of far-left ideology, and then you are dragged back to reason by sound argument. And you do eventually walk back or alter your extremist statements, and I give you credit for this, even if it's disconcerting to see how often it happens. You really must stop this identity politics shit on the American left! It is racism, no matter how you want to characterize it - and as we see in the state of the modern American mindstate, things are worse now in race relations because of the radical leftist push to highlight what skincolour, gender, or ethnicity someone has. It's not entirely to blame, of course not - but it's a massive contributing factor to the current partisanship and polarization of American society, and you are not contributing to a solution of that by trying to out-racist the real racists. None of this exists in a vacuum. Calling for white genocide just so white people can 'feel what its like' is incredibly stupid and short-sighted. The right wing does not drive the racial discussion - from what I see, they were forced into it, and more often than not I see the leftists cry about skincolour, as you so often do, while the right wing stresses the importance of looking past skincolour. To their great credit. The left has suffered catastrophic setbacks in the last half a decade, and is currently in a fractured, bickering, immature state. There is a stunning refusal to self-reflect on why this is so - coupled with a religious mindstate of attacking any criticism of leftist ideology, and hatefully mocking any opposition, rather than meeting it in respectful discourse. 'But the right also does it' is not a valid reason to do it yourselves - you have to look to rise above this kind of thinking, instead of becoming racists to fight racism, as the left has done over there. As a colleague here remarked sarcastically, I'm against racism, sexism, and white men. I desperately wish to see a smarter, less racially manic left going forward. Trump is an easy opponent to unseat, but not as long as you're being poor reflections of him. Don't mistake my critique of leftist racism as a defence of rightist racism. I'm against racism entirely - something the far left often confuses with racism, because of how extreme it has become in this department. If one refuses to aim critique at white-skinned people (or acknowledge their superior status in society, which I find so mind-numbingly counter-productive), then one is also a racist. It's become parody - and the right wing capitalizes on this political tactical error all the time.
I think you're on to something to the extent that allowing masses of people with completely contradictory culture into a region will produce predictable results - but as to it being engineered, I really don't think so. I've followed the Muslim migration into Europe closely for years - I don't think that the people who made the decisions at the time had any idea of the ramifications of it, as the people who made those decisions are the ones now suffering from the consequence. Every party that supported the migration has suffered setbacks, every major politician that supported it, and the Union as a whole has been split over its consequences. If someone wanted to destabilize the EU, maybe, but even then - I'm not sure exactly which forces those would be. You're right that the fear narrative could be easily seized on. It's one of the reasons I was so opposed to it in the first place - we're opening a Pandora's box with this experiment. That said, I think the European response has been swift and decisive - every country is limiting migration, every population has an awareness of the issue, and that in and of itself has calmed me down. We're a far cry from 2015, when European leftists were looking the other way and apologizing for rape and terror - just as in USA and the leftist movement there, the forces that were once feared for their ability to wield the racist/nazi/bigot label are greatly diminished.
Talking to you is becoming increasingly frustrating because you refuse to actually engage with what I’m saying and just start making general critiques of the left which are not easy to respond to in any meaningful manner. 1. This was the post I was responding too which you seemingly just chose to ignore “I think you make a massive mistake, both in factual truth and political tactics, in claiming this has to do with skin color. The exact same mistake that I've desperately been trying to teach the leftists about when they were on the dumbshit march to Trump's election with their white privilege nonsense. All of this has to do with culture, not skincolor.” 1. You were responding to vicious at the time but this comment jumped out at me. You’re very clearly implying that first the theory of white priviledge is nonsense or at the very least something not worth discussing. Next your comparing me talking about historical disadvantages certain groups faced over the years to this guy who is openly white nationalist and believes in the supremacy of a certain skin color. This type of thinking is the enlightened centrist BS that you do. 2. “I am not ignoring any of these things, nativetongues. You've wrote lots of things up here as if I do not acknowledge them, and it's typical of the new brand of leftist tribal ideology to do this kind of thing in defense when they are called out for race-centric thinking. I am not saying 'black people haven't suffered', and you know that. I am pointing out that answering the crimes of the past by being racist against white-skinned people today is not a valid solution. Despite what the left has been telling itself, judging entire groups of people by their skincolour is not a good way forward - just as the political tribalism you now self-admittedly embrace is not the way forward.” 2. First I think you misssed my point. I was bringing up the idea of iq and race as an example to show how many people who were supposedly critical of generalizing white people and generalizing based on race were the exact same people who many times have argued that African Americans are worse off because they have low intelligence or bad culture (I.e. a generalization about black people based on their skin color). But pointing out hypocrisy does nothing to defend my first principles. It just shows that many in this thread are being disengenous when they pretend to be offended. But I’ll take you up on this line of argument anyway since hypocrisy is not really a meaningful point. Can you show me specific examples where I have proposed policy that would be racist against white people?Can you show me a specific quote where I am racist against white people that isn’t me obviously making fun of white genocide or the one post in this thread where I said white people would be catatonic if they experienced the same level of abuse that African Americans faced for their skin color. In this same post I said I don’t support discrimination against white people but that in context it is not a major issue and still far less than the discrimination that AA still face to this day. You can recognize the severity of two problems are not on the same level and still think both are issues. If I say that we need to focus more on cancer treatment than measles treatment it doesn’t mean I don’t think measles are bad. I just think the scale of the measles problem is far more contained. In cases of white bigotry I’m not a fan. But I can recognize the truth that these examples of racism against white people are largely just people saying mean shit about white people on twitter and very ineffectual. Is that a problem that’s worth calling out sure, but not nearly the level of chicken little the sky is falling reactions you get from people. 3. You really must stop this identity politics shit on the American left! It is racism, no matter how you want to characterize it - and as we see in the state of the modern American mindstate, things are worse now in race relations because of the radical leftist push to highlight what skincolour, gender, or ethnicity someone has. It's not entirely to blame, of course not - but it's a massive contributing factor to the current partisanship and polarization of American society, and you are not contributing to a solution of that by trying to out-racist the real racists. 3. Once again what I have I said or done with the exception of an obvious joke and one poorly worded post that would be racist. If you’re talking about the entire left I can’t really defend the entire left, because that’s so broad I’m sure there’s a bunch of racist garbage I would disahrrr with. That doesn’t invalidate the entire left wing spectrum of ideology just because nutters also happen to share that ideology. Your reasoning behind why racial relations are worse is so painfully reductionist and just historical revisionism at its finest. Racial relations were affected by so many factors, I’m sure the left’s rhetoric being one of many factors. Some other factors your leaving out. AA’a are pissed off because they still to this day receive worse treatment. They’re pissed off because they constantly see innocent people shot and the officers not only go free but either continue their job or find a new one after. They’re pissed off because they know many people who are being railroaded by the criminal justice system for no meaningful reason. The final straw on the camels back was the massive amount of pushback AA experienced every time they tried to talk about these issues. When Obama tried to talk about issues of police abuse he was completely dismissed out of hand by many. This is going to obviously radicalize many people who feel their voices are unheard. I know I’ve heard you say that if you make talking about limiting Muslim immigration for example impossible to do it radicalized people. I think something similar with racial relations happened. The calm stoic rhetoric didn’t work and it lead to the burn it down fuck all white people response you see from a portion of the internet. This lead to self defeating over the top anti racist language that scared off a lot of winnable moderates, but I think those winnable moderates are actually far fewer than we all think. So yes I do think the left played a role. But I also think systemic racism played a role. I also think a fucked up criminal justice system played a role. The sad part is that I don’t think much would have changed even if the left was better rhetorically. Not to say I don’t think we should try. I don’t think the language around ideas like white priviledge are what trigger classical liberal types and right wing people. It’s actually the idea itself that being white gives you an advantage over being African American which bothers them. So basically you’re in a no win situation as an AA. You either face the unjust treatment without complaining or you get accused of worsening racial relations even if you talk about the issue in a calm rational manner. Someone like TaNahisi Coates is fairly level headed in his rhetoric but he often gets referred to as a race hustler and accused of sowing discord, which I think will happens to anyone on the left who talks about these issues in a meaningful manner. I also think that dishonest actors will try to point out the most extreme cases of bad rhetoric from the left and generalize the whole left with those statement which also goes in the opposite direction as well towards the right. 4. “None of this exists in a vacuum. Calling for white genocide just so white people can 'feel what its like' is incredibly stupid and short-sighted. The right wing does not drive the racial discussion - from what I see, they were forced into it, and more often than not I see the leftists cry about skincolour, as you so often do, while the right wing stresses the importance of looking past skincolour. To their great credit.“ 4. Come on man you’re better than this. My posts about white genocide were an obvious joke. It’s called satire. I obviously do not want the white race to end considering I am white and enjoy living. If you couldn’t tell that you’re being purposely obtuse. I did it to make fun of the ridiculousness of the theory and the name. People who say becoming a plurality is equivalent to genocide are dummies and deserve to be made fun of. People who are legitimately worried about demographic changes are wrong and need to be argued with. My post was clearly making fun of people who consider what’s happening white genocide. You can say we should look past I honestly don’t want to misrepresent you so I need to understand this last point a little better. Do you think any talk about skin color is invalid and racist? Do you think pointing out certain disadvantages certain groups may face based on their skin color is problematic? Do you think it’s simply a tactical mistake for the left to talk about race or do you think it’s actually wrong to talk about race in any context? I would just like for you to expand on why you think the left should avoid racial discussions. Whether it’s more about the tactics or the principles your opposed to. 5. “The left has suffered catastrophic setbacks in the last half a decade, and is currently in a fractured, bickering, immature state. There is a stunning refusal to self-reflect on why this is so - coupled with a religious mindstate of attacking any criticism of leftist ideology, and hatefully mocking any opposition, rather than meeting it in respectful discourse.” 5. I don’t actually disagree with this. I think this accurate. Ben Burgis has a good take on this. Many on the left refuse to engage with empirical or rational arguments in a meaningful manner. They use moral condemnation and insults rather than arguments. So when the time comes for internal policy discussion on the left it leads to a circle firing squad. Because now instead of turning that moral condemnation and mockery onto the right the center left does it to the left wing and vice verse. This is why I think the left does have a tendency to eat itself. We’re not in didagreemnt about this. I myself use mockery because honestly half the time I know these conversations are meaningless and this forum is more an area to vent my frustrations with politics than anything f. It’s very unlikely anyone reading a politics subreddit is very open to new ideas but I will try to be less juvenile in my responses. 6. “Don't mistake my critique of leftist racism as a defence of rightist racism. I'm against racism entirely - something the far left often confuses with racism, because of how extreme it has become in this department. If one refuses to aim critique at white-skinned people (or acknowledge their superior status in society, which I find so mind-numbingly counter-productive), then one is also a racist. It's become parody - and the right wing capitalizes on this political tactical error all the time.” 6. I don’t think you’re defending racism by the right so I don’t want to give off that false impression. I don’t think you’re a racist I just think you’re wrong on many things. But I think you are creating a situation where no meaningful work can be done to try and end systemic racism. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems you do believe that AA in America are worse off than their white counterparts in part due to past and current systemic racism? Your issue is more with the tactical mistake of the left constantly bringing this up which alienates white voters? Is that fair to say. Does this mean basically that the entire AA community should just stop talking about this issue in hopes that they regain these moderate white voters? Or that basically politicians should stop taking about the issue? Like tactically in your perfect world does the left just never talk about this issue?
@SmokinP did you ever get a chance to listen to that citations needed episode. If you haven’t I really can’t recommend it enough.
Are you a machine or algorithm? Some type of simulation created to make the right seem amicable? If so you're malfunctioning, badly. You've totally lost the run of yourself and clearly have become so focused on trying to undermine "the left" that you're twisting every conversation in an attempt to undermine the right. This phoney intellectual persona is totally undermined when you do this.
Alright, lets get into it! 0) As for your initial critique, I feel the exact same way about you. You've ignored several of my most salient posts in the past. You disappear for a few weeks, I never get a response, and you're back to talking about race in other threads. Which should be reflected on - this being an example. Of all my commentary on this issue, and my thorough argumentation against Vicious' race ideology, you picked a single line and blew it up into a massive issue filled with accusations that I find unfair. Perhaps you feel the same way. I feel that in several of our engagements now, you've simply ignored me when I make a hard-hitting point, such as knowing more, rather than less on terrorists, or more importantly, and what I'm still dying to hear about, why do you feel comfortable being a tribalist? This you never answered me on, and I'm very curious to hear it. Or was that too, perhaps, a joke? 1) You were responding to vicious at the time but this comment jumped out at me. You’re very clearly implying that first the theory of white priviledge is nonsense or at the very least something not worth discussing. Next your comparing me talking about historical disadvantages certain groups faced over the years to this guy who is openly white nationalist and believes in the supremacy of a certain skin color. This type of thinking is the enlightened centrist BS that you do. I think that the left has hyper-focused on issues of skincolor to a point in which it has become borderline racism in and of itself. I was referring to your post about white genocide, and a pattern you have exuded of exclusively focusing on the troubles of racism, and expanding them into being a much larger problem than I believe they are. I think that the current state of racism isn't nearly as bad as you, and other far-left racialists blow it up to be. Yes, people of color do face issues. But to twist this into white superiority - which white privilege is a semantic twist of - I think is far more damaging than it is good. The context of my post was in direct relation to Trumps victory. A big part of the reason why so many white-skinned people flocked to the right, rather than the left, is because the left's broad-scale attacks on white-skinned people. The ideal to do good - to combat the troubles faced by certain segments of the black population - was transformed in that time into a racist ideology of revenge against white-skinned people. This was a terrible idea, and still is. I object to white privilege because it casts a massive blanket of judgement over people for their skincolour, be they the superior whites and their privilege, or the inferior blacks and their lack thereof, and implies they have a far bigger advantage because of it than they do. There are so many problems with this - it feeds into a whole set of ideas that are entirely detrimental to the progress of racial relations. We can discuss this seperately, and point by point, if you wish. More points I wish to make on this will become apparent as we go down the list, here. Many of which you cede, which will be helpful in attaining a consensus between us. The short of it is that the hyper-focus on people's position in society based on their skincolour is destructive. Evidence of this is in who and why you have Trump as President, and in the deterioration of race relations following the leftist campaign of race-focus. Returning to this below. 2. First I think you misssed my point. I was bringing up the idea of iq and race as an example to show how many people who were supposedly critical of generalizing white people and generalizing based on race were the exact same people who many times have argued that African Americans are worse off because they have low intelligence or bad culture (I.e. a generalization about black people based on their skin color). But pointing out hypocrisy does nothing to defend my first principles. It just shows that many in this thread are being disengenous when they pretend to be offended. But I’ll take you up on this line of argument anyway since hypocrisy is not really a meaningful point. Can you show me specific examples where I have proposed policy that would be racist against white people?Can you show me a specific quote where I am racist against white people that isn’t me obviously making fun of white genocide or the one post in this thread where I said white people would be catatonic if they experienced the same level of abuse that African Americans faced for their skin color. In this same post I said I don’t support discrimination against white people but that in context it is not a major issue and still far less than the discrimination that AA still face to this day. You can recognize the severity of two problems are not on the same level and still think both are issues. If I say that we need to focus more on cancer treatment than measles treatment it doesn’t mean I don’t think measles are bad. I just think the scale of the measles problem is far more contained. In cases of white bigotry I’m not a fan. But I can recognize the truth that these examples of racism against white people are largely just people saying mean shit about white people on twitter and very ineffectual. Is that a problem that’s worth calling out sure, but not nearly the level of chicken little the sky is falling reactions you get from people. It was not obvious that you were joking, and you have confused more than one person with that. It's of course easy for you now to say that it was an attempt at comedy, but you should choose your jokes with care on this issue. I don't think racial genocide is a good place for jokes. Especially not in the context of the topic, and in the context of your line of argumentation. It fit in the narrative As I argue above, I think that obsessively furthering the concept of white privilege, and putting focus on skincolour over the myriad of other factors that determine someone's position in society is a trait of judgement against people on basis of their skincolour. Claiming that white people don't have anything to complain about, whilst minorities are the sufferers of hundreds of years of misery (as if people with white skincolour have not endured similar treatment of authoritative suffering under monarchies, dictatorships, etc) deserve special attention, is not conductive of this. I would not joke about wishing all Muslims to be slaughtered, especially not in a thread related to it, given my line of critique against this religion. It would make me an easy target for people claiming that I'm not joking. I'll take you on good faith that you were indeed making a joke. However, people from your political sect make these kinds of anti-white statements on a regular basis. You can't have missed this, nativetongues. As BlueCalx points out, simple searches provide plentiful evidence of the far lefts anger-campaign against people with white skincolour, particularly men of that skincolour. Just as people freely associate my critique of Islam with Anders Breivik, white supremacists, Adolf Hitler and so forth, you must expect people to associate you with the racist left when you constantly defend minorities for their disadvantages, and constantly critique white-skinned people for their advantages. As for race and IQ, an argument I don't seek to make because I think its entirely destructive (though the facts behind it are undeniable), I would turn this back on you. If you are so intent on the differences between the races, and claim scientific objectivity as the reason for why blacks have it worse than whites, then you must also take the IQ question on board. You swing a double-edged sword, nativetongues, but you ignore the science that goes against your political ideology, and exaggerate that which furthers it - this being in constant defence of one skincolour, and in constant attack of the other. I think this is an important point to reflect on. 3. Once again what I have I said or done with the exception of an obvious joke and one poorly worded post that would be racist. If you’re talking about the entire left I can’t really defend the entire left, because that’s so broad I’m sure there’s a bunch of racist garbage I would disahrrr with. That doesn’t invalidate the entire left wing spectrum of ideology just because nutters also happen to share that ideology. Your reasoning behind why racial relations are worse is so painfully reductionist and just historical revisionism at its finest. Racial relations were affected by so many factors, I’m sure the left’s rhetoric being one of many factors. Some other factors your leaving out. AA’a are pissed off because they still to this day receive worse treatment. They’re pissed off because they constantly see innocent people shot and the officers not only go free but either continue their job or find a new one after. They’re pissed off because they know many people who are being railroaded by the criminal justice system for no meaningful reason. The final straw on the camels back was the massive amount of pushback AA experienced every time they tried to talk about these issues. When Obama tried to talk about issues of police abuse he was completely dismissed out of hand by many. This is going to obviously radicalize many people who feel their voices are unheard. I know I’ve heard you say that if you make talking about limiting Muslim immigration for example impossible to do it radicalized people. I think something similar with racial relations happened. The calm stoic rhetoric didn’t work and it lead to the burn it down fuck all white people response you see from a portion of the internet. This lead to self defeating over the top anti racist language that scared off a lot of winnable moderates, but I think those winnable moderates are actually far fewer than we all think. So yes I do think the left played a role. But I also think systemic racism played a role. I also think a fucked up criminal justice system played a role. The sad part is that I don’t think much would have changed even if the left was better rhetorically. Not to say I don’t think we should try. I don’t think the language around ideas like white priviledge are what trigger classical liberal types and right wing people. It’s actually the idea itself that being white gives you an advantage over being African American which bothers them. So basically you’re in a no win situation as an AA. You either face the unjust treatment without complaining or you get accused of worsening racial relations even if you talk about the issue in a calm rational manner. Someone like TaNahisi Coates is fairly level headed in his rhetoric but he often gets referred to as a race hustler and accused of sowing discord, which I think will happens to anyone on the left who talks about these issues in a meaningful manner. I also think that dishonest actors will try to point out the most extreme cases of bad rhetoric from the left and generalize the whole left with those statement which also goes in the opposite direction as well towards the right. 3. A lot of misdirection here. For one, I've never claimed the left's hamhanded approach to race discredits the entire spectrum. I'll remind you that I'm a social democrat, and vote for parties that Bernie Sanders wishes he was a part of. I could name a long list of left-wing ideologies that I support. I maintain my critique of the left, however. It cannot get better if it refuses to acknowledge its faults. Especially with such vehemence. As to the rest of it, I do not see a disagreement here. Maybe I misunderstand. There are several contributing factors, and what we may disagree on is the degree to which the left has worsened this. 4. Come on man you’re better than this. My posts about white genocide were an obvious joke. It’s called satire. I obviously do not want the white race to end considering I am white and enjoy living. If you couldn’t tell that you’re being purposely obtuse. I did it to make fun of the ridiculousness of the theory and the name. People who say becoming a plurality is equivalent to genocide are dummies and deserve to be made fun of. People who are legitimately worried about demographic changes are wrong and need to be argued with. My post was clearly making fun of people who consider what’s happening white genocide. You can say we should look past I honestly don’t want to misrepresent you so I need to understand this last point a little better. Do you think any talk about skin color is invalid and racist? Do you think pointing out certain disadvantages certain groups may face based on their skin color is problematic? Do you think it’s simply a tactical mistake for the left to talk about race or do you think it’s actually wrong to talk about race in any context? I would just like for you to expand on why you think the left should avoid racial discussions. Whether it’s more about the tactics or the principles your opposed to. 4. I'll restate that it was not obvious that you were joking, to me or to many others, including the ones you were looking to convince. I'll also argue with you on discounting demographic changes. These do happen, and are not to be scoffed at - see if the Native Americans are laughing at demographic change. Hard point to fuck with. As you see from my thorough discounting of Vicious' ideology, I do not agree with it either, but I chose an entirely different line of argumentation than you. Clearly, arguing with satire backfired, man. For future technique. I don't think any talk about skincolour is invalid or racist, no. I don't think calling out racism when there is racism is a bad thing to do, I favor it, as I have done against what I perceive as both sides of the spectrum here - your anti-white (as I see it, perhaps unfairly), and Vicious' pro-white racism. I'll fight racism where-ever I see it. I've made this point already in my post, and many times before, including to you, so I'll re-iterate it briefly: I think the left has made a massive mistake in turning into racists in order to fight racism. Blacks are being mistreated, and looked on as a single-block group, hence we must do the same to everyone else in order to win - this is asinine and counter-productive, in my opinion. It only creates increased racial tribalism and pushback, as evidenced with Trump's unlikely victory in the time of BLM, anti-white, anti-police etc sentiment. It's not that the left should entirely avoid racial discussions - it's that they are going about it in an entirely racist way. Would you like more details on this? 5. I don’t actually disagree with this. I think this accurate. Ben Burgis has a good take on this. Many on the left refuse to engage with empirical or rational arguments in a meaningful manner. They use moral condemnation and insults rather than arguments. So when the time comes for internal policy discussion on the left it leads to a circle firing squad. Because now instead of turning that moral condemnation and mockery onto the right the center left does it to the left wing and vice verse. This is why I think the left does have a tendency to eat itself. We’re not in didagreemnt about this. I myself use mockery because honestly half the time I know these conversations are meaningless and this forum is more an area to vent my frustrations with politics than anything f. It’s very unlikely anyone reading a politics subreddit is very open to new ideas but I will try to be less juvenile in my responses. Excellent, nativetongues. Could have written most of this myself. 6. I don’t think you’re defending racism by the right so I don’t want to give off that false impression. I don’t think you’re a racist I just think you’re wrong on many things. But I think you are creating a situation where no meaningful work can be done to try and end systemic racism. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems you do believe that AA in America are worse off than their white counterparts in part due to past and current systemic racism? Your issue is more with the tactical mistake of the left constantly bringing this up which alienates white voters? Is that fair to say. Does this mean basically that the entire AA community should just stop talking about this issue in hopes that they regain these moderate white voters? Or that basically politicians should stop taking about the issue? Like tactically in your perfect world does the left just never talk about this issue? I may be wrong on many things, I don't discount that. I've been wrong on many things in my succession to where I am now, and reflecting on these mistakes has sharpened me going forward. I never make commentary on things I don't have a solid understanding of, for instance, and there are some topics that don't interest me enough to attain the full understanding of. I'm certain there are things I could know more about. I discount all the absolutist statements in this section 6). A. I don't think I am creating a situation where no progress can be made - my intention is to combat the situations that clearly worsen it, such as excessively pointing the finger at white-skinned people. B. I think some AA are worse-off because of the systematic racism, but that is not the only reason why they are worse off. I hold individual decision-making more responsible than a continuous cudgel of white-skinned racists. I also think all AA are better-off than their cousins in Africa, a continent on which I have lived and I feel does not get nearly enough attention from those purporting to aid the plight of black people. C. I think the way in which segments of the US brings up racial discrimination is tactically foolish, and I think we both know there is strong evidence for this in the current state of politics. D. I do not think that this means the entire conversation should be shut down. It feels like you are straw-manning me, here. E. In my tactically perfect world, the left does not point the finger at white people as a massive block of people for the current ails of some of the black population. In the perfect world, the left seeks to amplify the non-racial elements, as I strongly believe this reduces the racial tribalization. Doing what the left has been doing has clearly made things worse for everyone, including themselves. It's a huge mess now, compared to when Obama was elected as the first half-black, half-white President of the USA. And already then, I'd argue, was a massive mistake made. That was a chance to show that someone born of love between both races could lead the country. Anything else, that I did not address thoroughly enough?
So bottom line - racism is total bullshyt, regardless of the perspective from which it is viewed? And all arguments purporting differently are dumber than the miscreants dreaming them up? Does that pretty much cover it? Holy fawk, I think I just had an epiphany!
Are you saying self preservation is racist or reinforced demographic change is? You're not being very clear.