POLL: Which scenario spreads racism more quickly?

[Hiryuu]

Nice weasel you got there.

"the extreme focus that they [proponents of diversity] have on race is itself racist."

And that's not even beginning to address the discombobulated nonsense, like accusing proponents of diversity of perpetuating collectivism. Because, one has to presume, diversity and collectivism are somewhat synonymous, right?

But hey, no pretzel is too twisted if it gets you the conclusion you prefer, right?

Diversity could only affect a collective, because it defines adding variables to a group. It is also only measured in comparison to the group and to which degree it exists.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm looking for someone to engage on the bullshit theory that media coverage and counterprotesters showing up to oppose white supremacists creates new racists.

I think you and I agree that it does not.

I wish I had your certainty.

Assume a calm, disciplined demonstration by racists, attacked by ill-groomed, violent, inarticulate counter-protesters. That may not exactly create "new racists", but ...

That's not what happens. That's a RW fantasy.

Still, that would not compel a person to turn into a hateful bigot.

Do you think it’s productive or counter productive when the “counter protestors” resort to violence and vandalism in the process of their protest?

The problem I see is while I agree with their anti racism views I also see them giving fuel and strengthening the division between themselves and the racist groups. They may not be adding new racists people but I think they are making the racist groups feel more emboldened and justified in their beliefs when they act out. This is why I ask questions about the goals of the protestors

 

[Hiryuu]

Do you think it’s productive or counter productive when the “counter protestors” resort to violence and vandalism in the process of their protest?

The problem I see is while I agree with their anti racism views I see them giving fuel and strengthening the division between themselves and the racist groups. They may not be adding new racists people but I think they are making the racist groups feel more emboldened and justified in their beliefs when they act out.

The problem resides in choosing which group of hateful bigots deserves the most support. If racism is what you oppose, it is easier. If hateful bigotry is what you oppose, there are more people present than the racists in that category.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think it’s productive or counter productive when the “counter protestors” resort to violence and vandalism in the process of their protest?

The problem I see is while I agree with their anti racism views I see them giving fuel and strengthening the division between themselves and the racist groups. They may not be adding new racists people but I think they are making the racist groups feel more emboldened and justified in their beliefs when they act out.

The problem resides in choosing which group of hateful bigots deserves the most support. If racism is what you oppose, it is easier. If hateful bigotry is what you oppose, there are more people present than the racists in that category.

I think a question that floats around is if it’s wrong to be a hateful bigot towards racists?

Another example, if a group of priests who molested children all got together to express a desire to make their molestations righteous. And a group gathered to condem their views... would hate and bigotry towards these priests be viewed as wrong or justified? Productive or counter productive?

 

[Hiryuu]

I think a question that floats around is if it’s wrong to be a hateful bigot towards racists?

Another example, if a group of priests who molested children all got together to express a desire to make their molestations righteous. And a group gathered to condem their views... would hate and bigotry towards these priests be viewed as wrong or justified? Productive or counter productive?

Hateful bigots begets hateful bigots. If someone thinks hateful bigotry is going to defeat itself in any productive manner, it doesn't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm looking for someone to engage on the bullshit theory that media coverage and counterprotesters showing up to oppose white supremacists creates new racists.

I think you and I agree that it does not.

I wish I had your certainty.

Assume a calm, disciplined demonstration by racists, attacked by ill-groomed, violent, inarticulate counter-protesters. That may not exactly create "new racists", but ...

That's not what happens. That's a RW fantasy.

Still, that would not compel a person to turn into a hateful bigot.

Do you think it’s productive or counter productive when the “counter protestors” resort to violence and vandalism in the process of their protest?

The problem I see is while I agree with their anti racism views I also see them giving fuel and strengthening the division between themselves and the racist groups. They may not be adding new racists people but I think they are making the racist groups feel more emboldened and justified in their beliefs when they act out. This is why I ask questions about the goals of the protestors

No. I do not think that it is productive when counterprotesters resort to violence and vandalism.

The goal of counterprotesters is to be heard and let bigots and fascists know their place. On the fringes of society. If they want to become mainstream, they will be denied.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nice weasel you got there.

"the extreme focus that they [proponents of diversity] have on race is itself racist."

And that's not even beginning to address the discombobulated nonsense, like accusing proponents of diversity of perpetuating collectivism. Because, one has to presume, diversity and collectivism are somewhat synonymous, right?

But hey, no pretzel is too twisted if it gets you the conclusion you prefer, right?

Well, you're in luck, Old Europe. I'm in the mood to learn today. And I do thoroughly enjoy learning. It's one of my favorite things to do.

Teach us the difference between collectivism and racism. Show us your wisdom. If you believe my assessment was incorrect, then, how so? And why? Explain, please.

Thanks!

Thanks for not addressing any aspect of my argument, which obviously is your way of conceding. That's appreciated.

What's the difference between specific weight and luminosity? Between density and height? The answer to all these questions is, they do not make any sense, as the concepts have nothing to do with one another.

I keep admiring your willingness to learn, though you could start with learning how, while focused like a laser on the racism of proponents of diversity, the racism of proponents of mono-racial societies escaped your attention. I, for one, found that puzzling.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks for not addressing any aspect of my argument, which obviously is your way of conceding. That's appreciated.

I'm not generally one to concede functional debate, my friend. You didn't offer an argument, however. All you really did was complain.

What's the difference between specific weight and luminosity? Between density and height? The answer to all these questions is, they do not make any sense, as the concepts have nothing to do with one another.

I keep admiring your willingness to learn, though you could start with learning how, while focused like a laser on the racism of proponents of diversity, the racism of proponents of mono-racial societies escaped your attention. I, for one, found that puzzling.

Heh heh. Alright, Old English. I'll tell you something. I spend a great deal of my time picking on my conservative peers around here. At times I feel bad about it. But we're all adults here. And what's a little friendly jabbing among peers? At the end of the day I think most of my peers have the right vision. But we tend to live in the here and now and this often blinds us to the bigger picture, especially given the constant onslaught of flotsum and jetsom from media and other mainstream narration. I, myself, am guilty of becoming susceptible to it if I'm not careful. But, you know, we just have to ask ourselves what we can do better. It's the nature of Individualism. While we try to maintain some semblance of synergy, we're all led by our own demeanor. But it's a process of continuing growth.

But. But...Don't go thinking for one second that I'm not fully capable or so led to dig a hole and bury an underinformed, overly eager, snot nosed, left-wing, statist, knothead as such which you demonstrate yourself to be here. And in front of all of your friends, no less. That's just my thing, Old English.

Old English, you'd do well to learn how we do things in America. America, contrary to the populist notion that many people have across the globe, is not a single race collective. America is the only nation in all of the history of the world to premise its very form of government on the idea that all men are created and that all men are created equal. That all men are endowed by their creator. That rights are Individual. That rights don't come as groups. Rights come as Individuals. At times there have been backsteps. But we amend and we overcome, despite the constant onslaught of the false premise that that the role of government in America is to cater to group claims. That isn't its role. Its role is patently the opposite of that claim. To protect Individua lrights.

Something that fewer and fewer people tend to ask today is what the proper role of government is.The Founders asked the question, they had a revolution, and they wrote a Constitution. What they decided and how they answered the question was that the proper role of government was to protect Individual liberty. Not group claims. I'll say that again. Individual liberty.

What we see in threads like this is a constant flow of whites this and whites that. Blacks this and blacks that. This is counterintuitive to our very form of government. And it's the racists/collectivists who tend to do that. They seperate humans into groups rather than viewing them as Individuals. This, of course, is meant to encourage Americans to adopt a mainstream group mentality and to shift away from the concept of Individual liberty and Individual rights.

Every day we read some screed about gay rights, white rights, black rights, etc. There are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. That's how we do things in America. We view humans as Individuals. We do not place them into groups and approach the issues of the day in group order.

But we see it. We see it here constantly. As collectivist, racists always view humans as members of groups. And there's a reason they do that. There's a shortcoming in understanding the traditional American philosophy of governance. A lot of people today, largely Individual members of arbitrary victim status groups, and modern American liberals, regardles of however well intentioned, seem to have a false illusion that the role of the American government is to cater to group claims. This idea is patently false. But it does come as a consequence of the modern liberal, collectivist, mindset.

To borrow a shared sentiment from peers in the libertarian community on the topic, because unlike many who claim to to adhere to the libertarian philosophy, I actually am one, Individual liberty and the proper role of the American form of governance means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of Individual rights rather than group claims. Individual liberty means free-market capitalism. This concept rewards Individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. Not group claims.

Again, the Founders asked the question. And again, they had a revolution and they wrote a Constitution. And this is what they decided. I tend to agree that they got it right. And I believe that we were left with a very good guide in the Constitution.

In a free society, Old english, every Individual should be the beneficiary of the sacrifices made in order to aquire and enjoy the fruits of Individual liberty. This entails a sense of oneself as an Individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality like we tend to see so often around here. Again, whites this and whites that, blacks this and blacks that, gays this and gays that. a sense of Individualism leads to a sense of Individual responsibility and personal pride. It makes skin color and arbitrary group status claims irrelevant. Instead of looking to the government to correct what is essentially a sin, again, all men are created..all men are endowed by their creator, trustees of collectivist reasoning should understand that reducing racism/collectivism demands a full and complete shift from group thinking and return to an emphasis on Individualism and the proper, constitutional, role of government.

I don't know if you're an American citizen or not, but you clearly lack an understanding of American Civics and the traditional American philosophy of the role of government. You clearly lack an understanding that there are no such things as group rights in America. There are only Individual liberties. That's the beauty of the Republic. And there is none in the world like it.

Limited for Liberty, Old English. That's the way of the American Republic. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

 

[Olde Europe]

In a free society, Old english, every Individual should be the beneficiary of the sacrifices made in order to aquire and enjoy the fruits of Individual liberty.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

You know, it wouldn't be quite as much covered in self-serving crap had you at least mentioned, in passing, how the Founding Fathers' generation made sure that those same liberties were limited to one group, at the exclusion and to the detriment of all other collectives. Had you at least mentioned that those other, excluded groups had to fight ever since to be included into the collective of those who would be granted the full enjoyment of those same liberties propertied white males took for granted from the get-go. Had you at least given a hint of concern that those targeted by the scourge of racism, America's birth defect, rightly saw, and still see, themselves as a disadvantaged group and a collective targeted not just by this or that racist individual but by the power of the state itself, and, as a court recently remarked, with "laser-like precision".

None of that is to be found in your screed, and neither the willingness to learn beyond the limitations of what the Founders thought, or even to learn beyond the filthy, shameful compromises they had to make to get their Constitution enacted.

Instead, in your praise of Individual Rights and derogatory comments about collectivism, you try to deny those disadvantaged groups the benefits of the First Amendment, namely "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", and to strive, collectively, to remedy the ills, disadvantages and outrages that befall their collective(s). That's mighty white of you.

And that's why, regardless of your screed, there's going to be collectives and individuals who continue to think how best collectively to remedy the outrages you would much rather ignore and cover up, how, in particular, to tame the scourge of racism in all its forms. They might even ignore your rearguard struggles to keep up with the advance of society beyond the narrow limitations of acolytes of 18th century thinkers.

 

[JoeB131]

the childish nonsense of calling everyone not you, a Nazi.


you lose the internet

I don't remember the Nazis marching in front of the White House and being called "Fine People" by the President when Obama had the Job. Or Bush. Or Clinton, Or Reagan.

Funny that it seems to happen, now, though.