NationStates

Perhaps this is simply anecdotal evidence, but why is it that most white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and advocates of aggressive eugenics tend to be rather pitiful specimens? Why are the advocates of white superiority usually the least educated, least fit, dumbest examples of white people one can find? How come I never see actual examples of really excellent and superior people advocating for white supremacy? Why is it always people who really have absolutely no reason to be proud of themselves whatsoever who tend to advocate for racist ideologies? It would seem that their own inferiority would be a reductio ad absurdum against their own claims.

Stupid people usually argue for stupid things.

It's simple. Why do you ask such questions when you know the answer? To pick on someone weaker and worse (in the moral sense) than you are. Why would you do that? Because by making others feel smaller or alternatively making other others around you aware of your superiority over the first others you make your self feel larger.

It's essentially the weakest members of the pack trying to assert them self as above and beyond what they are by bullying others. And being stupid enough to believe it works. And ending up forming groups of people who parrot the same thing due to a mixture of sheepish herd mentality and the afore mentioned stupidity.

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Stupid people usually argue for stupid things.

It can't be that simple. 100 years ago there were an embarrassingly large number of scientists, industrialists, and other intellectual elites who advocated for eugenics and/or Social Darwinism. Now it seems like it's only white trash or teenagers trying to act tough. Just look at Stormfront or Vanguard News Network.

CVT Temp wrote:

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Stupid people usually argue for stupid things.

It can't be that simple. 100 years ago there were an embarrassingly large number of scientists, industrialists, and other intellectual elites who advocated for eugenics and/or Social Darwinism. Now it seems like it's only white trash or teenagers trying to act tough. Just look at Stormfront or Vanguard News Network.

Exactly. It turned out to be wrong and stupid.

So now only people who are stupid do it.

Purpelia wrote:It's simple. Why do you ask such questions when you know the answer? To pick on someone weaker and worse (in the moral sense) than you are. Why would you do that? Because by making others feel smaller or alternatively making other others around you aware of your superiority over the first others you make your self feel larger.

But that accomplishes nothing. It is irrational to think that being relatively better off than another makes you better off in absolute terms. In addition, it's counter-productive. These people would actually be better off if they worked with marginalized groups instead of fighting against them. Why be so needlessly self-destructive? It doesn't make any rational sense.

You know that old joke about how there aren't really any women on the internet, it's all just creepy dudes in their thirties pretending to be women while sitting in a filthy room in their underwear?

This is actually my impression of the Internet White Supremacist. That Stormfront is in fact full of a bunch of middle class kids pretending to be white supremacists because they can't think of anything else that would be so instantaneously offensive. It's basically kids who have heard of trolling, think that racial humor is funny, and then head off to the internet.

Somewhere there's like four actual white supremacists thinking that their numbers are swelled while a bunch of kids taking a break from X-Box live give this 'trolling' thing their friends keep talking about a whirl.

CVT Temp wrote:Why are the advocates of white superiority usually the least educated, least fit, dumbest examples of white people one can find?

Come on, you know the answer to this. This thread is just an excuse for you haters to make fun of the poor oppressed racists and thickheads.

How dare you.

CVT Temp wrote:

Purpelia wrote:It's simple. Why do you ask such questions when you know the answer? To pick on someone weaker and worse (in the moral sense) than you are. Why would you do that? Because by making others feel smaller or alternatively making other others around you aware of your superiority over the first others you make your self feel larger.

But that accomplishes nothing. It is irrational to think that being relatively better off than another makes you better off in absolute terms. In addition, it's counter-productive. These people would actually be better off if they worked with marginalized groups instead of fighting against them. Why be so needlessly self-destructive? It doesn't make any rational sense.

Actually what you said might seem like the logical thing but its wrong. Posturing and generally forming tight packs of like minded individuals is a decent tactic for attracting mates and generally prospering. Sure you end up alienating everyone outside the group but you also end up with much tighter bonds within said group. You need look no further than small gangs of school bullies, various biker gangs, political parties and others to see the same mechanisms in action, just less extremely pronounced.

Being a member of a group of pariahs does not make you any better than a decent well socialized individual in the absolute sense. But it beats being a lone pariah any day of the week. And once you reach that conclusion the rest is social dynamics.

Purpelia wrote:Actually what you said might seem like the logical thing but its wrong. Posturing and generally forming tight packs of like minded individuals is a decent tactic for attracting mates and generally prospering. Sure you end up alienating everyone outside the group but you also end up with much tighter bonds within said group. You need look no further than small gangs of school bullies, various biker gangs, political parties and others to see the same mechanisms in action, just less extremely pronounced.

Being a member of a group of pariahs does not make you any better than a decent well socialized individual in the absolute sense. But it beats being a lone pariah any day of the week. And once you reach that conclusion the rest is social dynamics.

But game theory shows that cooperation is almost always the best tactic in non-zero sum conflicts. These individuals are acting against both their own good and, more importantly, against the collective greater good of society.

CVT Temp wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Actually what you said might seem like the logical thing but its wrong. Posturing and generally forming tight packs of like minded individuals is a decent tactic for attracting mates and generally prospering. Sure you end up alienating everyone outside the group but you also end up with much tighter bonds within said group. You need look no further than small gangs of school bullies, various biker gangs, political parties and others to see the same mechanisms in action, just less extremely pronounced.

Being a member of a group of pariahs does not make you any better than a decent well socialized individual in the absolute sense. But it beats being a lone pariah any day of the week. And once you reach that conclusion the rest is social dynamics.

But game theory shows that cooperation is almost always the best tactic in non-zero sum conflicts. These individuals are acting against both their own good and, more importantly, against the collective greater good of society.

IIRC Doesn't game theory also show that people are least likely to pick cooperation and more likely to betray the other guy?


Also you have to remember that these people are NOT in fact acting against their own greater good. Chances are that they are incapable of being regular well adjusted functioning members of society in the fist place. Basically that they were scum before they became racists or what ever. And that they chose racism or what ever as a way of grouping together with other scum to increase their chances. For them the "be normal person" option was likely newer on the table to begin with due to their limited mental capabilities and other factors.

CVT Temp wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Actually what you said might seem like the logical thing but its wrong. Posturing and generally forming tight packs of like minded individuals is a decent tactic for attracting mates and generally prospering. Sure you end up alienating everyone outside the group but you also end up with much tighter bonds within said group. You need look no further than small gangs of school bullies, various biker gangs, political parties and others to see the same mechanisms in action, just less extremely pronounced.

Being a member of a group of pariahs does not make you any better than a decent well socialized individual in the absolute sense. But it beats being a lone pariah any day of the week. And once you reach that conclusion the rest is social dynamics.

But game theory shows that cooperation is almost always the best tactic in non-zero sum conflicts. These individuals are acting against both their own good and, more importantly, against the collective greater good of society.

You've defined "their own good" arbitrarily. If they perceive "their own good" to be booting out the darkies, then they're pursuing that end by being white supremacists.

Because they are the visible, vocal ones.

It's the ones who are dressed in suites and are CEOs, lawmakers, police officers etc who do the real damage but are 'smart' enough to do it on the low and avoid public backlash.

CVT Temp wrote: their own inferiority

There's your answer.

One thing I'd like to know is why do Neo-Nazis say they are the most American of all Americans? It makes no sense. Then again, look who we're talking about.

There's one or two intelligent, educated and well-spoken ones I can think of; Jared Taylor for instance. Anyway, while I understand how repulsive their worldview is, I'm not comfortable dismissing them all as uneducated idiots, mostly because I think it can be dangerous to under-estimate bigots. Of any stripe. Ayatollah Khomeimi wasn't a stupid man. The late Thakarey wasn't a stupid man. But they sure as hell were bigots with some repulsive views of groups they deemed inferior.

Most supremacists of any race usually aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
Except for Asians...

Srboslavija wrote:Because they are the visible, vocal ones.

It's the ones who are dressed in suites and are CEOs, lawmakers, police officers etc who do the real damage but are 'smart' enough to do it on the low and avoid public backlash.

True, I forgot about the subtle racism of the elites.

Srboslavija wrote:Because they are the visible, vocal ones.

It's the ones who are dressed in suites and are CEOs, lawmakers, police officers etc who do the real damage but are 'smart' enough to do it on the low and avoid public backlash.

So everyone's a white supremacist but is lying about it?

If people have something to offer as individuals, then they can just use that to make themselves feel good, and they don't need the race myths.

The world changes. It ebbs and flows. Peoples' heads, where their beliefs are concerned, tend to remain thick.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:There's one or two intelligent, educated and well-spoken ones I can think of; Jared Taylor for instance. Anyway, while I understand how repulsive their worldview is, I'm not comfortable dismissing them all as uneducated idiots, mostly because I think it can be dangerous to under-estimate bigots. Of any stripe. Ayatollah Khomeimi wasn't a stupid man. The late Thakarey wasn't a stupid man. But they sure as hell were bigots with some repulsive views of groups they deemed inferior.

I'll personally say that Thackeray was not a stupid man. He was indeed highly intelligent and a capable leader.

He also had very bigoted views and it's a good thing he's gone.

Threlizdun wrote:

Srboslavija wrote:Because they are the visible, vocal ones.

It's the ones who are dressed in suites and are CEOs, lawmakers, police officers etc who do the real damage but are 'smart' enough to do it on the low and avoid public backlash.

So everyone's a white supremacist but is lying about it?

Obama is a white supremacist.

Threlizdun wrote:

Srboslavija wrote:Because they are the visible, vocal ones.

It's the ones who are dressed in suites and are CEOs, lawmakers, police officers etc who do the real damage but are 'smart' enough to do it on the low and avoid public backlash.

So everyone's a white supremacist but is lying about it?

I think what he's saying is that it's the ones with power who keep their racism silent who do the most damage.

CVT Temp wrote:Perhaps this is simply anecdotal evidence, but why is it that most white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and advocates of aggressive eugenics tend to be rather pitiful specimens? Why are the advocates of white superiority usually the least educated, least fit, dumbest examples of white people one can find? How come I never see actual examples of really excellent and superior people advocating for white supremacy? Why is it always people who really have absolutely no reason to be proud of themselves whatsoever who tend to advocate for racist ideologies? It would seem that their own inferiority would be a reductio ad absurdum against their own claims.

Ever started a cult? All you need is a group of people down on their luck. Those who are depressed, those who are so desperate to cling to something that justifies why they should continue to live.

White supremacy, is like that.

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:So everyone's a white supremacist but is lying about it?

Obama is a white supremacist.

Hey, Obama is half-white.
And Hitler was half Jewish...