It's Okay To Be White campaign

[FelrikTheDeleted]

There's something quintessentially Australian about being the one country that lost a war with its own local fauna.

Quite. No worries though, we got our revenge.

[Liriena]

There's something quintessentially Australian about being the one country that lost a war with its own local fauna.

Quite. No worries though, we got our revenge.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I mean he's also going to get the Muslim ban in place.

Maybe if the constitution ceases to exist, but the likelihood of that happening is astronomical so the Muslim ban is gonna have to stay a pipe dream.

[Computer Lab]

Having read all of that... I don't think you can really claim that there's no white supremacism at play here.

A history, I might add, that has brought about the very civilization that you all take for granted. The wood and steel mills that founded the very chair that you're sitting on, the drywall and insulation that keeps you nice and toasty, the tar and shingles of the roof that keeps the rain and snow from falling on your head.... Everything was built by whites.

Jealous haters, enabled by Jews (seeking not to be a minority themselves) want to claim that being White is a bad thing. Remember this, it was Whites who ended slavery and a host of other calamities. We're not the bad guys.

Effing lol on that link

pulling a Colbert over and over and over?

John Oliver's better.

The reference here was to Colbert playing the conservative character Colbert, not his current role as himself. The question was whether all of these people are liberals acting like they are conservative for comedic effect.

They're a bunch of edgy 15-25 year olds who find pleasure in being different and trolling people. They are trying to amuse themselves. Not everything is political.

Are there some who subscribe to white nationalism? Yes, that is pretty likely. Are some of them a part of this campaign? Yeah, pretty likely given how the internet works.

There aren't very many white nationalists in the US though. They get an excessively large presence in the media because it gets views/clicks/sells papers. Same with Antifa and leftist groups. Anything done gets blown up, not out of malice, but out of chasing profits.

At a certain point, you have to recognize that ideas and campaigns can be decent regardless of source. Many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners and elitists. That doesn't make the American experiment invalid. They might not have wanted to give women or nonwhites rights, but large portions of their philosophies are acceptable. By now, we should be able to recognize what is good and acceptable in things and remove/ignore the bad parts... You don't have to swallow 100% of a concept to accept that some parts of it have merit.

You shouldn't glorify people who wanted to keep women and non-whites 'in their place' either.

Alright, let's just throw the US Constitution out then. I can respect people for some of their intellectual pursuits without glorifying their failings. I personally appreciate the existence of the Constitution and it's philosophical basis. I don't support slavery or restricting the rights of women and people of color. It isn't difficult to do such a thing. Pardon me for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Liriena]

Alright, let's just throw the US Constitution out then.

Sounds like a nice start. ;3

I can respect people for some of their intellectual pursuits without glorifying their failings. I personally appreciate the existence of the Constitution and it's philosophical basis. I don't support slavery or restricting the rights of women and people of color. It isn't difficult to do such a thing. Pardon me for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Eh, the thing is... you're actually cherry-picking aspects of the Constitution and its philosophical basis to suit your own contemporary metanarrative, and acting like the oppression of women and of people of colour were just a few distinct, anomalous peculiarities separate from the core of the philosophical basis. The bad news is... they weren't. Not really. They were an integral part of that philosophical basis. So, in truth, you are not so much keeping the baby while throwing out the bathwater, so much as you are trying to secretly replace the original baby with a genetically altered clone.

[Computer Lab]

Alright, let's just throw the US Constitution out then.

Sounds like a nice start. ;3

I can respect people for some of their intellectual pursuits without glorifying their failings. I personally appreciate the existence of the Constitution and it's philosophical basis. I don't support slavery or restricting the rights of women and people of color. It isn't difficult to do such a thing. Pardon me for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Eh, the thing is... you're actually cherry-picking aspects of the Constitution and its philosophical basis to suit your own contemporary metanarrative, and acting like the oppression of women and of people of colour were just a few distinct, anomalous peculiarities separate from the core of the philosophical basis. The bad news is... they weren't. Not really. They were an integral part of that philosophical basis. So, in truth, you are not so much keeping the baby while throwing out the bathwater, so much as you are trying to secretly replace the original baby with a genetically altered clone.

Pray tell, what is wrong with cherry picking intellectual concepts as long as the result is internally consistent? I think you are doing a huge disservice by requiring the complete adoption or rejection of philosophies. Not to mention most philosophies that people consider insular are the result of someone synthesizing existing philosophies and their own ideas some time in the past. I guess we can only accept philosophies fully-formed and uncorrupted by others?

That synthesis of differing ideas is the whole point of philosophy, and a huge basis for giving a fuck about history. If you think that is unacceptable, we can't really have a debate, because any compromise between our positions would be cherry picking.

[Zanera]

In what way has it worked?

The plethora of people online and at universities losing their shit over the statement and saying things like "it's not okay to be white" have given the far right more than a small amount of recruitment material. Which was the entire point of the campaign, to redpill more white people.

But what if this campaign has truly inspired me to be anti-white? What if this campaign has made me realize the truth of the situation: That white ain' right? WHAT. IF.

[USS Monitor]

The plethora of people online and at universities losing their shit over the statement and saying things like "it's not okay to be white" have given the far right more than a small amount of recruitment material. Which was the entire point of the campaign, to redpill more white people.

But what if this campaign has truly inspired me to be anti-white? What if this campaign has made me realize the truth of the situation: That white ain' right? WHAT. IF.

That sounds like a personal problem.

[Zanera]

But what if this campaign has truly inspired me to be anti-white? What if this campaign has made me realize the truth of the situation: That white ain' right? WHAT. IF.

That sounds like a personal problem.

Shit, I'll have to solve it myself then. Time for Vaseline and a lawn mower.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You over generalized 4chan.

I'm sooooooooorry. I guess /lgbt/ and /y/ are pretty okay places.

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

[Ism]

I'm sooooooooorry. I guess /lgbt/ and /y/ are pretty okay places.

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

Disney.com?

[The East Marches II]

I'm sooooooooorry. I guess /lgbt/ and /y/ are pretty okay places.

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

/int/ :^)

[Washington Resistance Army]

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

Disney.com?

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

/int/ :^)

Absolutely disgusting

[Herador]

>forgetting the most magical place on the internet

/int/ :^)

If by "magical" you mean "/mlp/ level" then sure.

[Azurius]

That's cute and all, but we really should stop being so generous to them. We're giving that sort of "ironic" garbage too much of a free pass, and we keep dismissing it as just "trolling" and "satire" when it's pretty obvious most of them are at least sympathetic to the underlying rationale of the ideas they "ironically" express.

I think you’re crediting /pol/ with way too much planning, plotting, and scheming. There seems to be very little of that. Just massive irl and online trolling.

They keep doing it because you keep falling for it.

The reason why comedians like Louis CK seldom got much hate even when they were creating extreme humour was because they always did a fairly good job of signalling that, in fact, they still thought stuff like rape or racism were awful. The people whose speech we are dismissing as just "trolling" and "satire" never do that.

And I never mark the news I post as satire or legit. That doesn’t mean I can’t tell the difference.

Here is the thing with /pol:

While it is decentral and there in itself is not much scheming, there is quite a lof of that behind the scenes actually. Done by groups(which are often far right, or far left, but the far right ones are more organized and active, probably larger too) who regularly use /pol for exactly these kind of things. This campaign is yet another result of it. Behind it were far right groups that planned this whole campaign well and /pol just happens to piggyback off of it like /pol always does(which is why such groups use /pol to scheme in the first place).

That way such radical groups can easily spread their campaigns beyond the internet, by using /pol. While /pol is of course first and foremost a trolls paradise, it is also a plattform that far right and left groups regularly use to launch campaigns such as this one. As of such boards like /pol or also 4chan are often hijacked for political agendas.

That's cute and all, but we really should stop being so generous to them. We're giving that sort of "ironic" garbage too much of a free pass, and we keep dismissing it as just "trolling" and "satire" when it's pretty obvious most of them are at least sympathetic to the underlying rationale of the ideas they "ironically" express.

The reason why comedians like Louis CK seldom got much hate even when they were creating extreme humour was because they always did a fairly good job of signalling that, in fact, they still thought stuff like rape or racism were awful. The people whose speech we are dismissing as just "trolling" and "satire" never do that.

The magic would go away if they had to put disclaimer in every post.

Think: would devout racists who sincerely despise miscegenation and foreign cultures post on a website devoted to anime tiddies?

Yes they would you´d be surprised. A lot of them would actually use anime avatars too for that matter and yet continue to spread white surpremacy all over the place, yes in their private servers too, it´s no different there either for that matter.

[Azurius]

*sigh*

I hate provocation-based politics. It's turned most political discussions into malicious garbage and buttholes everywhere are exploiting it.

Well, if you can't beat them, join them. Better start posting Stalinist memes and advocating for white genocide, I guess?

Stalin was a genocider and a left one to boot. He certainly reflected this when he genocided. Why? Because he genocided equally (although he did have a religion bias). Equality is great right?

If that is the definition of a genocider then hell... actually name me one person in politics who isn´t one? Executor would be the more correct term. But it seems everything is genocide nowadays... Like that BS about "white genocide" in South Africa...

At some point you're going to goof up and troll a Buddhist with cancer.

Counterpoint: all bald people should be trolled, regardless of the reason for their baldness

Lol you ain´t taking away my shaolin bald you racist

[Washington Resistance Army]

Stalin was a genocider and a left one to boot. He certainly reflected this when he genocided. Why? Because he genocided equally (although he did have a religion bias). Equality is great right?

If that is the definition of a genocider then hell... actually name me one person in politics who isn´t one? Executor would be the more correct term. But it seems everything is genocide nowadays... Like that BS about "white genocide" in South Africa...

While it might not fit the perfect definition of genocide it is a pretty serious case of ethnic cleansing. It really bothers me how a lot of people seem to act like there's nothing wrong there.

[Azurius]

If that is the definition of a genocider then hell... actually name me one person in politics who isn´t one? Executor would be the more correct term. But it seems everything is genocide nowadays... Like that BS about "white genocide" in South Africa...

While it might not fit the perfect definition of genocide it is a pretty serious case of ethnic cleansing. It really bothers me how a lot of people seem to act like there's nothing wrong there.

No it´s not ethnic cleansing either. Ethnic cleansing(pretty much the same as genocide) means the purposefull removal of an entire ethnicity of people, the word genocide merely extends that outside of ethnicity to include things such as religion, i.e. religious genocide for example.

And sorry, what happened in the Sovietunion wrong or not, simply was not genocide, nor was it ethnic cleansing. And I will say it again like on the South Africa "genocide" issue: Doing that is being extremely offensive to people who actually faced true genocide, such as native americans, kurds, australian aboriginees, the jews in nazigermany etc. It would be highly offensive to these people if you compare mass executions to actual genocide, the later being even more horrid as it normally also goes hand in hand with really bad abuse of the victims before they are finally killed. Not to mention that it explicitly targets an ethnicity or religion. While stalinism frankly did not do that, it target a wide range of people equally. So mass executions it is, not genocide. We can now argue which is worse, but i´m not here to do that and that´s not my point either.

So not genocide?

All genocide means is killing a large sum of people. It is typiclally ethnic and nation wise, but religious genocide can happen. The sum of executions and deaths Stalin did against orthodox Christianity is quite a large number, and take note that the death toll he did is estimated to be 9 - 60 million, and there was a large number of orthodox Christians...

Problem is that since 1989 that death toll is officialy around 1 million for stalin, and around 7-20 million for the entire Sovietunion. So that article is old cold war propaganda that has been actually long debunked. Also if so many churches were destroyed, it begs the question why Russia or the entire former Sovietunion still has so many old church buildings..?

Obviously that article is way overblown. However, during the cold war this kind of overblowing things was very common on both sides of the iron curtain. 100 million people didn´t die in the Sovietunion it´s just a fact, one that is mathematically impossible too btw. Just like that it´s a fact that people didn´t starve en masse in America either. These are mere remnants of cold war propaganda and it is about time we treated them as such and stopped treating them as facts.

Once again: I am not saying what the Sovietunion did was right, I am just saying that you should stick to the official data, and not what cold war propaganda pulled out of their arses back then.

[Proctopeo]

All genocide means is killing a large sum of people. It is typiclally ethnic and nation wise, but religious genocide can happen. The sum of executions and deaths Stalin did against orthodox Christianity is quite a large number, and take note that the death toll he did is estimated to be 9 - 60 million, and there was a large number of orthodox Christians...

Problem is that since 1989 that death toll is officialy around 1 million for stalin, and around 7-20 million for the entire Sovietunion. So that article is old cold war propaganda that has been actually long debunked. Also if so many churches were destroyed, it begs the question why Russia or the entire former Sovietunion still has so many old church buildings..?

Obviously that article is way overblown. However, during the cold war this kind of overblowing things was very common on both sides of the iron curtain. 100 million people didn´t die in the Sovietunion it´s just a fact, one that is mathematically impossible too btw. Just like that it´s a fact that people didn´t starve en masse in America either. These are mere remnants of cold war propaganda and it is about time we treated them as such and stopped treating them as facts.

Once again: I am not saying what the Sovietunion did was right, I am just saying that you should stick to the official data, and not what cold war propaganda pulled out of their arses back then.

If you count official killings, like executions, the number is somewhere between one and two million deaths under Stalin, which is still reprehensible.
Millions more died under repressive policies and governmental neglect, like for instance the Holodomor. The Holodomor, which killed at least 2.4 million people, and is recognized by 16 countries as an outright genocide, was an example of, at best, the Soviet command being aware that a famine would happen without intervention and then just outright letting it happen. At worst, it was manufactured by the government to keep down the Ukrainians.

[Azurius]

Problem is that since 1989 that death toll is officialy around 1 million for stalin, and around 7-20 million for the entire Sovietunion. So that article is old cold war propaganda that has been actually long debunked. Also if so many churches were destroyed, it begs the question why Russia or the entire former Sovietunion still has so many old church buildings..?

Obviously that article is way overblown. However, during the cold war this kind of overblowing things was very common on both sides of the iron curtain. 100 million people didn´t die in the Sovietunion it´s just a fact, one that is mathematically impossible too btw. Just like that it´s a fact that people didn´t starve en masse in America either. These are mere remnants of cold war propaganda and it is about time we treated them as such and stopped treating them as facts.

Once again: I am not saying what the Sovietunion did was right, I am just saying that you should stick to the official data, and not what cold war propaganda pulled out of their arses back then.

If you count official killings, like executions, the number is somewhere between one and two million deaths under Stalin, which is still reprehensible.
Millions more died under repressive policies and governmental neglect, like for instance the Holodomor. The Holodomor, which killed at least 2.4 million people, and is recognized by 16 countries as an outright genocide, was an example of, at best, the Soviet command being aware that a famine would happen without intervention and then just outright letting it happen. At worst, it was manufactured by the government to keep down the Ukrainians.

No it´s not, you may wanna look up the KGB and stalin documents that were made public in 1989 by Gorbatchov.

Oh jesus not the holdomor issue again... Yes by 16 countries(1 of them being the Ukraine itself ) against... what? 180+ other countries?

Historians all to 99% come to the conclusion that: There was no genocide in Ukraine, this especially includes ironically enough leading experts of history in the west. Most historians who claim otherwise are, surprise suprise, Ukrainian historians, often right wingers too who go for the entire Ukraine victim complex. Just recently German historians ruled it out to not be genocide once again. Were there deaths? Yes. Was it deliberate? No. Was there a great deal of bad weather plus really bad planning of the economy? Definitely yes again.

So, they let in happen you say? Then explain why they increased grain imports for the Ukraine fivefold during the holdomor? Stuff like that is why 99,9% of all historians rule genocide out. And only dubious "historians" are the ones who still promote the entire idea of a genocide(historians with a very bad international reputation, why? Well because they are known to spew garbage that´s why), once again most of them being Ukrainian historians again, and most of them having good ties to the Ukraines far right too.

[Proctopeo]

If you count official killings, like executions, the number is somewhere between one and two million deaths under Stalin, which is still reprehensible.
Millions more died under repressive policies and governmental neglect, like for instance the Holodomor. The Holodomor, which killed at least 2.4 million people, and is recognized by 16 countries as an outright genocide, was an example of, at best, the Soviet command being aware that a famine would happen without intervention and then just outright letting it happen. At worst, it was manufactured by the government to keep down the Ukrainians.

No it´s not, you may wanna look up the KGB and stalin documents that were made public in 1989 by Gorbatchov.

Yeah, I trust that as far as I can throw a gulag.

Oh jesus not the holdomor issue again... Yes by 16 countries(1 of them being the Ukraine itself ) against... what? 180+ other countries?

The number nor the composition of the people who recognize the Holodomor don't affect its validity.

Historians all to 99% come to the conclusion that: There was no genocide in Ukraine, this especially includes ironically enough leading experts of history in the west. Most historians who claim otherwise are, surprise suprise, Ukrainian historians, often right wingers too who go for the entire Ukraine victim complex. Just recently German historians ruled it out to not be genocide once again. Were there deaths? Yes. Was it deliberate? No. Was there a great deal of bad weather plus really bad planning of the economy? Definitely yes again.

So, they let in happen you say? Then explain why they increased grain imports for the Ukraine fivefold during the holdomor? Stuff like that is why 99,9% of all historians rule genocide out. And only dubious "historians" are the ones who still promote the entire idea of a genocide(historians with a very bad international reputation, why? Well because they are known to spew garbage that´s why), once again most of them being Ukrainian historians again, and most of them having good ties to the Ukraines far right too.

>implying they wouldn't try and pretend to help just to save face
also,

[Azurius]

No it´s not, you may wanna look up the KGB and stalin documents that were made public in 1989 by Gorbatchov.

Yeah, I trust that as far as I can throw a gulag.

Oh jesus not the holdomor issue again... Yes by 16 countries(1 of them being the Ukraine itself ) against... what? 180+ other countries?

The number nor the composition of the people who recognize the Holodomor don't affect its validity.

Historians all to 99% come to the conclusion that: There was no genocide in Ukraine, this especially includes ironically enough leading experts of history in the west. Most historians who claim otherwise are, surprise suprise, Ukrainian historians, often right wingers too who go for the entire Ukraine victim complex. Just recently German historians ruled it out to not be genocide once again. Were there deaths? Yes. Was it deliberate? No. Was there a great deal of bad weather plus really bad planning of the economy? Definitely yes again.

So, they let in happen you say? Then explain why they increased grain imports for the Ukraine fivefold during the holdomor? Stuff like that is why 99,9% of all historians rule genocide out. And only dubious "historians" are the ones who still promote the entire idea of a genocide(historians with a very bad international reputation, why? Well because they are known to spew garbage that´s why), once again most of them being Ukrainian historians again, and most of them having good ties to the Ukraines far right too.

>implying they wouldn't try and pretend to help just to save face
also,

Actually you can, because unlike other nations the Sovietunion actually acribically documented everything, similiar to Babylon before and during christ. And there were already scandals as some of these documents were somehow made public, that clearly showed a difference to what the soviet government claimed, and what was officially in their records.

Then why do you bring them up if I may ask?

If they did why did they increase the imports right from the start instead of just waiting and letting it happen as you claim they did? Yet another self contradiction in your claims.

And speaking of citations, you haven´t brought up any citations either so. Because last time I had this discussion and checked, the only historian claiming that was 1 ukrainian. Also one that was discredited by the international historians(gee I wonder why once again?) who also on top of that had good ties to the Ukrainian far right and neither in his article nor his book delivered any viable sources for any claim he made.

As a result, he was rightfully discredited by the rest. If not then show me an historian who can actually back that kind of nonsense up. But like the last discussion I had with people on this topic, I bet you can´t.

[Proctopeo]

Yeah, I trust that as far as I can throw a gulag.


The number nor the composition of the people who recognize the Holodomor don't affect its validity.


(Image)


>implying they wouldn't try and pretend to help just to save face
also,
(Image)

Actually you can, because unlike other nations the Sovietunion actually acribically documented everything, similiar to Babylon before and during christ. And there were already scandals as some of these documents were somehow made public, that clearly showed a difference to what the soviet government claimed, and what was officially in their records.

I'm not inclined to trust an autocracy to properly record its own actions.

Then why do you bring them up if I may ask?

Because I wanted one more sentence.

If they did why did they increase the imports right from the start instead of just waiting and letting it happen as you claim they did? Yet another self contradiction in your claims.

Clearly the imports didn't change matters much, as millions still died.

And speaking of citations, you haven´t brought up any citations either so. Because last time I had this discussion and checked, the only historian claiming that was 1 ukrainian. Also one that was discredited by the international historians(gee I wonder why once again?) who also on top of that had good ties to the Ukrainian far right and neither in his article nor his book delivered any viable sources for any claim he made.

All of my sources are the well-sourced Wikipedia article on the Holodomor. I trust it more than I trust you saying "uhh the only one who said it was a Ukrainian! And a far-rightist! And he had no friends!"

As a result, he was rightfully discredited by the rest. If not then show me an historian who can actually back that kind of nonsense up. But like the last discussion I had with people on this topic, I bet you can´t.

[The Hiberno-Scottish Republic]

it is certainly not okay to be white, seen since the concept of whiteness extends from racial constructs established in the 19th century to further white supremacy.

[Albrenia]

it is certainly not okay to be white, seen since the concept of whiteness extends from racial constructs established in the 19th century to further white supremacy.

So I'm not really white? Cool.

I sure look white though.