NationStates

Bardarus wrote:It's ok to be a white Christian male as far as i know, just stay away from radical Liberals or proud Social Justice Warriors or any other type of radical hippie.

It is of course OK to be a white male. Christianity brings weakness though. SJWs are just secular versions of Christians.

Katzenstaat wrote:

Bardarus wrote:It's ok to be a white Christian male as far as i know, just stay away from radical Liberals or proud Social Justice Warriors or any other type of radical hippie.

It is of course OK to be a white male. Christianity brings weakness though. SJWs are just secular versions of Christians.

Here you go with the anti-Abrahamic kneejerking again, Katz. No, SJWs are not "secular Christians".

Aillyria wrote:

Katzenstaat wrote:It is of course OK to be a white male. Christianity brings weakness though. SJWs are just secular versions of Christians.

Here you go with the anti-Abrahamic kneejerking again, Katz. No, SJWs are not "secular Christians".

I'm a harsh Social Darwinist.

Christianity is pathological precisely because it is meek.

Katzenstaat wrote:

Aillyria wrote:Here you go with the anti-Abrahamic kneejerking again, Katz. No, SJWs are not "secular Christians".

I'm a harsh Social Darwinist.

Christianity is pathological precisely because it is meek.

You're a nihilist too......

Humility isn't synonymous with being meek or weak willed.

Albrenia wrote:

Nevada Communes wrote:I don't think you understand where the patriarchy lies in the feminist understanding of the world.

You seem to think feminists regard the patriarchy as some evil malevolent force that insidiously conspires against womankind with sadistic intention. Most feminists - radfems included - do not actually believe this.

Feminists tend to regard patriarchy as simply existing. Not inherently as anybody's fault persey - though feminists do expect men to educate themselves on how to undermine it - but instead manifesting itself as a set of cultural norms, beliefs, and institutions that all intersect to implicitly undermine the value of women in all aspects of their lives. The patriarchy isn't some monolithic juggernaut; it's just the result of centuries of Judeo-Christian and pre-modern misogyny.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but isn't it a little unfair to expect people (in this case men) to educate themselves and change an alleged part of their culture of which they mostly have no idea?

Well, from the feminist perspective, isn't it a little unfair that women are still subdued even when society should be working in productive ways to help them receive full and equal treatment?

Say you were being bullied at school. Would it be a little unfair to expect the school administrator or your friends to educate themselves on what's happening to you, instead of dismissing your complaints as nonsense? Though it may seem like a burden regarding a fight you don't care about, in the feminist perspective, this repression constitutes their entire daily lives so you have to consider this with perspective.

Donut section wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but isn't it a little unfair to expect people (in this case men) to educate themselves and change an alleged part of their culture of which they mostly have no idea?

Men have "privilege". So they don't get any consideration.

As I said, it's so that feminists can claim anything they want, because they are always the victim.

Nice Strawman, but patently untrue. While it is true feminist theory ascribes privilege to men, most feminists schools of though do in fact also regard men as facing unfortunate and collateral damage - some believe even on par with that women face. This is due to the development of toxic masculinity, emotional suppression, and the cultivation of unrealistic conceptions of manhood and success that most people simply cannot achieve.

Feminists tend not to be blatant misanthropes. Many are - especially radfems - but this is specifically why they and others refer to them as 'rad'fems.

Aillyria wrote:

Katzenstaat wrote:I'm a harsh Social Darwinist.

Christianity is pathological precisely because it is meek.

You're a nihilist too......

Humility isn't synonymous with being meek or weak willed.

Peace should be preserved and genocides should be prevented but only due to self-interest-based mutual agreement and prudence instead of morality, namely regardless of how much humans hate each other we are fucking stuck on this planet and need to face the aliens. Any human civil war makes humanity weaker. Anyone who attempts genocides or nuclear wars is even much more harmful because it makes an alien invasion significantly easier.

At least other humans are "the devils we know" while aliens are "the devils we don't". Hence we'd better work together to resist fucking aliens.

When we realize the extant of the problem of aliens we can naturally reject harming other humans as being unwise. Humans will always have some hatred for each other simply for existing. However the alien problem which can never be solved requires humans, AI (and non-genocidal aliens) to at least tolerate each other's existence no matter how intolerable it sounds like.

The universe is a cruel place. However self-interested agents can still sign agreements not to exterminate each other. Agents that do not sign the agreements tend to be destroyed by those who do, hence favoring conditional cooperation over omnicide. Even though morality is just a human invention harming other humans is still harmful to oneself. Hence for the sake of your self-interest don't do it. Evolution favors copykittens http://ncase.me/trust/notes/ over both pushovers and absolute assholes.

Liriena wrote:Your first paragraph is an amazing example of purposefully avoiding the actual argument and going on an irrelevant tangent.

No it's not, you're talking about a "widespread bias" as evidence of white privilege and yet that is less significant than other categories of bias you have no issue discounting. How then, is that widespread bias evidence of anything?

This is still going on? I thought we established this wasn't racism, but a troll attempt to make the left overreact.

Asherahan wrote:Here is a real question:

I am a Greek Caucasian white male and my people were serfs and slaves to the Ottoman turks for a better part of 400 years so if I go to America and meet a black lives matter group and they start yelling of white privilege what should I do?

Offer them a free tour on the Marcus Garvey Express

Holy Tedalonia wrote:This is still going on? I thought we established this wasn't racism, but a troll attempt to make the left overreact.

It's racism if a minority complains about it.

WhatsamattaU wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:This is still going on? I thought we established this wasn't racism, but a troll attempt to make the left overreact.

It's racism if a minority complains about it.

Oh, I see my mistake.

Valgora wrote:I honestly don't see the point in this.
It just sounds stupid.

I've never seen this so called "anti-white racism."

The only thing I've truly considered racism against whites, is the quotas for schools to have minorities.
And I'm pretty sure that was ruled unconstitutional.

Actually I don't think it was

Valgora wrote:I honestly don't see the point in this.
It just sounds stupid.

I've never seen this so called "anti-white racism."

The only thing I've truly considered racism against whites, is the quotas for schools to have minorities.
And I'm pretty sure that was ruled unconstitutional.

To me the "anti white racism" is more like a subconscious thing. Since there is a subconscious outlook that whites have a tendency to be more racist.

Nevada Communes wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but isn't it a little unfair to expect people (in this case men) to educate themselves and change an alleged part of their culture of which they mostly have no idea?

Well, from the feminist perspective, isn't it a little unfair that women are still subdued even when society should be working in productive ways to help them receive full and equal treatment?

Say you were being bullied at school. Would it be a little unfair to expect the school administrator or your friends to educate themselves on what's happening to you, instead of dismissing your complaints as nonsense? Though it may seem like a burden regarding a fight you don't care about, in the feminist perspective, this repression constitutes their entire daily lives so you have to consider this with perspective.

Donut section wrote:
Men have "privilege". So they don't get any consideration.

As I said, it's so that feminists can claim anything they want, because they are always the victim.

Nice Strawman, but patently untrue. While it is true feminist theory ascribes privilege to men, most feminists schools of though do in fact also regard men as facing unfortunate and collateral damage - some believe even on par with that women face. This is due to the development of toxic masculinity, emotional suppression, and the cultivation of unrealistic conceptions of manhood and success that most people simply cannot achieve.

Feminists tend not to be blatant misanthropes. Many are - especially radfems - but this is specifically why they and others refer to them as 'rad'fems.

Feminists, generally, have followed this line of approach.

Proto-feminists such as Wollstonecroft argued that with the industrial Revolution, dividing work between male and female was ultimately going to wither because machines made the former roles increasingly obsolete. Therefore, women who demonstrated the capability of taking on formerly male only occupations ought to be able to do so. This idea gathers a following during the 19th Century among men and women alike, though they are in the minority.

1st Wave Feminists wanted a moral revolution. They fought not only for votes but also for limitation of birth control, reduction of alcohol addiction, and in Canada at least for assimilation into the dominant values on the part of immigrant women. They sought to limit immigration into the West on the basis of race and culture. They generally obtained, with the support of feminist friendly governments, greater property ,social and occupational rights over roughly a 60 year period.

2nd Wave Feminists exploded in resentment following WWII as they challenged ordinary occupations along with Judeo-Christian morality. Where formerly women had gone en masse into male dominated professions only in extreme circumstances either based on class, war or economic necessity, now feminist leaders wanted to have women break into male dominated professions in ordinary peaceful circumstances. They also wanted to undermine family tradition by making it acceptable for women to be publicly known to be having sex out of wedlock, be unmarried with children. This paired up with the libertine Hippie, Beatnik and LGBT movements.

In all the three movements above, the women dominating them and who can be used as strong examples were pioneers, trailblazers, and challengers.

In the 3rd Wave, however, now that the gates are open, the desire is clearly to have feminine values dominate all societies. All ills of society are blamed on patriarchy, and thus on men by proxy. I have never seen even one feminist leader advocate that women should do a better job of moral conduct. It is presumed that women are doing the best they can and simply need to be empowered and freed from patriarchy, while men aid and abet patriarchy. It is men, for example, who are urged to educate themselves about sexual harassment and the glass ceiling.

When people insist that feminists do not see patriarchy as a form of evil, ,and that feminists do not hate men, my response is: nonsense. Of course feminists see patriarchy as evil, and men as evil by proxy. Consider:

1. Patriarchy is presented as the reason for any number of evils exist, from global warming to climate change to pollution to econmic corruption to war to sexual misconduct to domestic violence. Many feminists have insisted that women have had almost nothing to do with power structures that are the cause of such things. Feminists never have anything good to say about history or traditional culture or religion; at best these things have nuggets of goodness in them that feminists claim for their own values.

2. Masculinity is consistently described by feminists as inherently bad. Some feminists do this by trying to get rid of the notion fo gender altogether; others try to do this by describing a form of 'toxic masculinity', attributing wickedness to all things that are traditionally masculine across all civilizations, while lauding as virtuous all things feminine.

3. Feminists frequently publish articles and give lectures, and try to promote policy that demands that male behaviour be curbed and controlled while denouncing any attempt to even discuss curbing female behaviour as evil.

Radical Feminists tend to be honest about all this. I find that other feminists do not want to accept that they see men as the enemy.

Katzenstaat wrote:

Aillyria wrote:Here you go with the anti-Abrahamic kneejerking again, Katz. No, SJWs are not "secular Christians".

I'm a harsh Social Darwinist.

Christianity is pathological precisely because it is meek.

No it isn't. Christianity as it currently exists, and has generally existed since the Enlightenment in the West, is subordinated to capitalism and liberal democracy, which is why it comes across as wishy-washy. If one examines the sagas of Iceland, for example, one finds that they have codes of ethics which include mercy and generosity, charity and fairness. Are the tough trader-adventurers in Njal's Saga really that much different from the conquistadors who took Mexico? No.

Hammer Britannia wrote:>mfw this whole campaign was 4chan's way of showing how racist media is

And it failed on that account, since people generally seem to reject this campaign, not because of its message, but because of its obvious, blatantly expressed malicious intent. But 4chan will gloat because its political discourse has the depth and sensibility of a puddle.

Liriena wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:>mfw this whole campaign was 4chan's way of showing how racist media is

And it failed on that account, since people generally seem to reject this campaign, not because of its message, but because of its obvious, blatantly expressed malicious intent. But 4chan will gloat because its political discourse has the depth and sensibility of a puddle.

Purely anecdotal but I do know more than a few evil white people who have been driven further right after seeing people go full retard over this.

Liriena wrote:

Hammer Britannia wrote:>mfw this whole campaign was 4chan's way of showing how racist media is

And it failed

It's working quite well actually.

on that account, since people generally seem to reject this campaign, not because of its message, but because of its obvious, blatantly expressed malicious intent.

There is no more malicious intent than there is in any campaign that exposes hypocrisy.

But 4chan will gloat because its political discourse has the depth and sensibility of a puddle.

It's everything NSG wants to be.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Liriena wrote:And it failed on that account, since people generally seem to reject this campaign, not because of its message, but because of its obvious, blatantly expressed malicious intent. But 4chan will gloat because its political discourse has the depth and sensibility of a puddle.

Purely anecdotal but I do know more than a few evil white people who have been driven further right after seeing people go full retard over this.

I wish I could help keep them away from that scum, but I'm not sure I have the tools to help prevent or revert radicalization, so... :/

The the structure and social uses of social media have been way too good at creating fairly hermetic and isolated bubbles of political discourse, and most of them are pretty much doomed to fall down the downward spiral of radicalization and increasingly detached circle-jerking.

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks, because it turns any attempt to help into a hell of an uphill battle.

*sigh*

Anyway, I get where your friends are coming from, but I hope you and others are at least willing to make the effort to keep them from embracing really dangerous stuff and losing all sense of perspective?

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Liriena wrote:And it failed

It's working quite well actually.

on that account, since people generally seem to reject this campaign, not because of its message, but because of its obvious, blatantly expressed malicious intent.

There is no more malicious intent than there is in any campaign that exposes hypocrisy.

But 4chan will gloat because its political discourse has the depth and sensibility of a puddle.

It's everything NSG wants to be.

You seem awfully intent on convincing yourself that white supremacists are righteous and winning.

Anyway, I disagree. There is a clear malicious intent, and if this campaign aimed to expose "hypocrisy", all it seems to have exposed how attuned many are to the malice underlying antics like this one. If it has worked to convince others of its proponents' delusional worldview, that's something we need to work on, because it reveals a very troubling lack of ability to see past the superficiality of far right propaganda in many circles.

Liriena wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Purely anecdotal but I do know more than a few evil white people who have been driven further right after seeing people go full retard over this.

I wish I could help keep them away from that scum, but I'm not sure I have the tools to help prevent or revert radicalization, so... :/

The the structure and social uses of social media have been way too good at creating fairly hermetic and isolated bubbles of political discourse, and most of them are pretty much doomed to fall down the downward spiral of radicalization and increasingly detached circle-jerking.

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks, because it turns any attempt to help into a hell of an uphill battle.

*sigh*

Anyway, I get where your friends are coming from, but I hope you and others are at least willing to make the effort to keep them from embracing really dangerous stuff and losing all sense of perspective?

I'm not one to try and push politics in friendships, if you wanna go full ANP Rockwell Did Nothing Wrong 14 Words For Life then more power to em I guess. I can understand where they're coming from and if that's the path they feel is best I'm not gonna try and argue with em about it, that just causes too many headaches.

Liriena wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:It's working quite well actually.

There is no more malicious intent than there is in any campaign that exposes hypocrisy.

It's everything NSG wants to be.

You seem awfully intent on convincing yourself that white supremacists are righteous and winning.

Anyway, I disagree. There is a clear malicious intent, and if this campaign aimed to expose "hypocrisy", all it seems to have exposed how attuned many are to the malice underlying antics like this one. If it has worked to convince others of its proponents' delusional worldview, that's something we need to work on, because it reveals a very troubling lack of ability to see past the superficiality of far right propaganda in many circles.

To be fair, all they're doing is saying, "it's ok to be white."

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Liriena wrote:I wish I could help keep them away from that scum, but I'm not sure I have the tools to help prevent or revert radicalization, so... :/

The the structure and social uses of social media have been way too good at creating fairly hermetic and isolated bubbles of political discourse, and most of them are pretty much doomed to fall down the downward spiral of radicalization and increasingly detached circle-jerking.

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks, because it turns any attempt to help into a hell of an uphill battle.

*sigh*

Anyway, I get where your friends are coming from, but I hope you and others are at least willing to make the effort to keep them from embracing really dangerous stuff and losing all sense of perspective?

I'm not one to try and push politics in friendships, if you wanna go full ANP Rockwell Did Nothing Wrong 14 Words For Life then more power to em I guess. I can understand where they're coming from and if that's the path they feel is best I'm not gonna try and argue with em about it, that just causes too many headaches.

I'm of the opinion that you should push politics in friendships (and family) if you're genuinely worried that the person in question is putting themselves in a dangerous position or becoming particularly toxic.