NationStates

Hurdergaryp wrote:

The Solarian States wrote:Either a very coincidental coincidence or DHS are racist...wow this post basically sums up the description.

Whenever you see a username in an online game that contains the number 14 and/or 88, it tends to indicate that the person behind the username is a disgusting little racist/neonazi wretch. Given the simplicity of neonazi numerology, it is not unreasonable to assume that anyone using those two numbers together is a follower of the same ideology as those toxic gamers I mentioned.

Not sure if serious.

Ors Might wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Whenever you see a username in an online game that contains the number 14 and/or 88, it tends to indicate that the person behind the username is a disgusting little racist/neonazi wretch. Given the simplicity of neonazi numerology, it is not unreasonable to assume that anyone using those two numbers together is a follower of the same ideology as those toxic gamers I mentioned.

Not sure if serious.

Sarcasm comes weird here. However, some 'a those gamers are just third graders who don't understand.

The South Falls wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Not sure if serious.

Sarcasm comes weird here. However, some 'a those gamers are just third graders who don't understand.

I mean, in my early gamer years I often incorporated my birth year into my username. Wouldn’t surprise me if in about ten years a fourteen year old is calling themselves BussySlayer14

Kramanica wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:This is some next level Alex Jones type shit, I approve

THEY'RE PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER TO TURN ALL THE BLACK PEOPLE WHITE.

Silly Buckford -- they're putting chemicals in the water to kill the blacks and the browns and the yellows and the blues and the purples and the reds and all the colors of the human rainbow, head to ass.

Olerand wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Or more seriously, why not just 15% instead of 13/88? :V

What does 13 mean? I thought the number was 1488?

I mean, it is 1488, but it could've been a deliberate use of 13 instead of 14 so as to not look explicitly like a Nazi message.

Yeah it's neat how the human brain finds patterns where they often aren't.

Fucking christ man...

Des-Bal wrote:Yeah it's neat how the human brain finds patterns where they often aren't.

Its a real psychological bias in human psychology called 'intentionality bias' (https://conspiracypsychology.com/category/biases-heuristics/intentionality-bias/), we are generally disinclined to chalk things up to random chance or coincidence and are inclined towards reading intentions into animate or inanimate patterns. Hence, why we have posts like that of the OP.

Saiwania wrote:

Purgatio wrote:The 14 words, taken in isolation, are fine. The problem is the context in which it is used, you say that it doesn't justify acting against non-Whites but the 14 words are generally deployed by white supremacist groups, and on Stormfront by forum users to advocate ethnic cleansing of the United States. And the 14 Words were used in David Lane's manifesto (the 88 Precepts) to advocate for banning interracial procreation and going back to Jim Crow-style segregation, so context is key.

I don't want Jim Crow but making interracial marriage illegal would be pretty damned good policy in my view. I'd prevent interracial sex if it were possible but I don't see that as very practical. No government is able to keep track of what people do in their private lives. It is still quite a grave sin. I know it is morally wrong to race mix.

Yeah, I get that it is seen as "uncool" to want to legislate your morality on everyone- but the older I get, the more I want to anyways. I get where social conservatives are coming from now.

You "know".

Knowledge comes from a source. Can you provide one?

Saiwania wrote:

Purgatio wrote:The 14 words, taken in isolation, are fine. The problem is the context in which it is used, you say that it doesn't justify acting against non-Whites but the 14 words are generally deployed by white supremacist groups, and on Stormfront by forum users to advocate ethnic cleansing of the United States. And the 14 Words were used in David Lane's manifesto (the 88 Precepts) to advocate for banning interracial procreation and going back to Jim Crow-style segregation, so context is key.

I don't want Jim Crow but making interracial marriage illegal would be pretty damned good policy in my view. I'd prevent interracial sex if it were possible but I don't see that as very practical. No government is able to keep track of what people do in their private lives. It is still quite a grave sin. I know it is morally wrong to race mix.

Yeah, I get that it is seen as "uncool" to want to legislate your morality on everyone- but the older I get, the more I want to anyways. I get where social conservatives are coming from now.

Wait....race mixing is immoral? Why, exactly? Honestly, I'm genuinely curious how you begin to justify that, from a moral perspective, there's something blameworthy about sleeping with someone who isn't in the same race as you. And how broadly or narrowly do you define 'race'? Is it immoral if someone of French descent sleeps with someone of German descent? What about if a British sleeps with an Irish? What if someone Chinese sleeps with someone Korean? Or a Japanese person sleeps with an Ainu? Do you object to a Native American descended from one tribe sleeping with a Native American of another tribe?

As you can see, anti-miscegeneration laws tend to open up quite a can of worms. Your law about how you define 'race' is gonna have to be pretty darn specific and intricate, otherwise courts and prosecutors are gonna have a massive headache.

On average, out of Heil Hitler claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 Unluckily will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.

defintely White Supremacist Illumanati Catholic Rothchild Aliens

Purgatio wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
I don't want Jim Crow but making interracial marriage illegal would be pretty damned good policy in my view. I'd prevent interracial sex if it were possible but I don't see that as very practical. No government is able to keep track of what people do in their private lives. It is still quite a grave sin. I know it is morally wrong to race mix.

Yeah, I get that it is seen as "uncool" to want to legislate your morality on everyone- but the older I get, the more I want to anyways. I get where social conservatives are coming from now.

Wait....race mixing is immoral? Why, exactly? Honestly, I'm genuinely curious how you begin to justify that, from a moral perspective, there's something blameworthy about sleeping with someone who isn't in the same race as you. And how broadly or narrowly do you define 'race'? Is it immoral if someone of French descent sleeps with someone of German descent? What about if a British sleeps with an Irish? What if someone Chinese sleeps with someone Korean? Or a Japanese person sleeps with an Ainu? Do you object to a Native American descended from one tribe sleeping with a Native American of another tribe?

As you can see, anti-miscegeneration laws tend to open up quite a can of worms. Your law about how you define 'race' is gonna have to be pretty darn specific and intricate, otherwise courts and prosecutors are gonna have a massive headache.

Saiwania clearly wants to reintroduce the race laws from the Third Reich, because the nazis were such moral people.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Purgatio wrote:Wait....race mixing is immoral? Why, exactly? Honestly, I'm genuinely curious how you begin to justify that, from a moral perspective, there's something blameworthy about sleeping with someone who isn't in the same race as you. And how broadly or narrowly do you define 'race'? Is it immoral if someone of French descent sleeps with someone of German descent? What about if a British sleeps with an Irish? What if someone Chinese sleeps with someone Korean? Or a Japanese person sleeps with an Ainu? Do you object to a Native American descended from one tribe sleeping with a Native American of another tribe?

As you can see, anti-miscegeneration laws tend to open up quite a can of worms. Your law about how you define 'race' is gonna have to be pretty darn specific and intricate, otherwise courts and prosecutors are gonna have a massive headache.

Saiwania clearly wants to reintroduce the race laws from the Third Reich, because the nazis were such moral people.

Nazi racial laws are a good example of why race laws are impossible to craft and enforce with any certainty. The Nazis considered all the Slavs non-Aryan Untermensch, if the Reich had survived long enough Nazi courts in Central and Eastern Europe can have a fun time deciding who is Slavic and who isn't. The Nazis also had a huge intra-party debate about whether the Finnish were Aryan or not. Not to mention the Nazis saw the Persians/Iranians as Aryan, but not the Northern Indians, even though both groups are descended from Indo-Iranians, whom the Nazis considered the ancestors of the Aryan race in Europe.

See, that's the 'can of worms' in action.

Purgatio wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Saiwania clearly wants to reintroduce the race laws from the Third Reich, because the nazis were such moral people.

Nazi racial laws are a good example of why race laws are impossible to craft and enforce with any certainty. The Nazis considered all the Slavs non-Aryan Untermensch, if the Reich had survived long enough Nazi courts in Central and Eastern Europe can have a fun time deciding who is Slavic and who isn't. The Nazis also had a huge intra-party debate about whether the Finnish were Aryan or not. Not to mention the Nazis saw the Persians/Iranians as Aryan, but not the Northern Indians, even though both groups are descended from Indo-Iranians, whom the Nazis considered the ancestors of the Aryan race in Europe.

See, that's the 'can of worms' in action.

The whole concept of Germanic people being direct descendants of the Indo-Aryan peoples is not exactly scientifically correct, but totalitarian states tend to care little about such things. Anybody opening the can of worms tends to disappear.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Purgatio wrote:Nazi racial laws are a good example of why race laws are impossible to craft and enforce with any certainty. The Nazis considered all the Slavs non-Aryan Untermensch, if the Reich had survived long enough Nazi courts in Central and Eastern Europe can have a fun time deciding who is Slavic and who isn't. The Nazis also had a huge intra-party debate about whether the Finnish were Aryan or not. Not to mention the Nazis saw the Persians/Iranians as Aryan, but not the Northern Indians, even though both groups are descended from Indo-Iranians, whom the Nazis considered the ancestors of the Aryan race in Europe.

See, that's the 'can of worms' in action.

The whole concept of Germanic people being direct descendants of the Indo-Aryan peoples is not exactly scientifically correct, but totalitarian states tend to care little about such things. Anybody opening the can of worms tends to disappear.

The Nazis tended to resolve the 'can of worms' by conveniently handing out 'Aryan' status to people who were inconvenient to their racial classifications. Albert Forster, who was Gauleiter of Danzig-West Prussia, literally just offered 'Germanisation' to whole groups of Polish Slavs, putting them onto 'Aryanisation' lists so he wouldn't have to intricately study their genealogies. Poles who claimed they had German ancestry were just taken at face value and added onto the list. Hitler even gave 'Honorary Aryan' status to Emil Maurice, founding member of the SS, when it was discovered he had Jewish ancestry.

So, another way governments like the Nazis get around inconvenient scientific realities about the vagaries of racial classifications is they adopt a highly-convenient 'an Aryan is whoever we say is Aryan' approach to racial laws. Its also how the Nazis justified alliances with Slavic countries like Croatia, by spreading the pseudo-scientific idea that the Croats, as opposed to the Serbs, had sufficient Aryan ancestry and sufficiently-low Slavic ancestry, again more arbitrary and convenient racial classification.

Purgatio wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Saiwania clearly wants to reintroduce the race laws from the Third Reich, because the nazis were such moral people.

Nazi racial laws are a good example of why race laws are impossible to craft and enforce with any certainty. The Nazis considered all the Slavs non-Aryan Untermensch, if the Reich had survived long enough Nazi courts in Central and Eastern Europe can have a fun time deciding who is Slavic and who isn't. The Nazis also had a huge intra-party debate about whether the Finnish were Aryan or not. Not to mention the Nazis saw the Persians/Iranians as Aryan, but not the Northern Indians, even though both groups are descended from Indo-Iranians, whom the Nazis considered the ancestors of the Aryan race in Europe.

See, that's the 'can of worms' in action.

That's not even getting to the whole "You're Jewish but here's this super special piece of paper that says you aren't because it's politically convenient" shenanigans.

Fauxia wrote:Somehow, no one noticed this four months ago, when the following press release was made by the Department of Homeland Security.

The title is: "We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again"

That’s 14 words- the same as the "14 words"- a white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

The opening is the same. The resemblance is, at best, careless. But it gets worse. If you include the part in bold, the release has 14 points- and the penultimate point mentions the number 88- a white supremacist code for Heil Hitler (88=HH). There’s no reason to include 88 in that context, as usually, you either would give a percentage or at least state it out of a round number (50, 100, etc.) Why 88?

Thoughts, NSG? Is there any possible way this is an accident?

I’ve long held that there hasn’t been evidence of the Trump administration being actually racist, or actively attempting to attract white nationalists. I now must reconsider. This cannot be an accident, and if this was some joke made by someone in the department, shame on them, and shame on all those who didn’t notice something was wrong. There’s at least a lot of explaining to do. Gross and unhelpful coming from an unpopular department.

Grasping for straws ?

Purgatio wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:The whole concept of Germanic people being direct descendants of the Indo-Aryan peoples is not exactly scientifically correct, but totalitarian states tend to care little about such things. Anybody opening the can of worms tends to disappear.

The Nazis tended to resolve the 'can of worms' by conveniently handing out 'Aryan' status to people who were inconvenient to their racial classifications. Albert Forster, who was Gauleiter of Danzig-West Prussia, literally just offered 'Germanisation' to whole groups of Polish Slavs, putting them onto 'Aryanisation' lists so he wouldn't have to intricately study their genealogies. Poles who claimed they had German ancestry were just taken at face value and added onto the list. Hitler even gave 'Honorary Aryan' status to Emil Maurice, founding member of the SS, when it was discovered he had Jewish ancestry.

So, another way governments like the Nazis get around inconvenient scientific realities about the vagaries of racial classifications is they adopt a highly-convenient 'an Aryan is whoever we say is Aryan' approach to racial laws. Its also how the Nazis justified alliances with Slavic countries like Croatia, by spreading the pseudo-scientific idea that the Croats, as opposed to the Serbs, had sufficient Aryan ancestry and sufficiently-low Slavic ancestry, again more arbitrary and convenient racial classification.

And don't forget the 'Aryan' status of the Japanese, which is even more hilarious than the Germanic peoples being that very same thing. Not that there was much hilarity when those malevolent bastards inflicted immense suffering upon the world because of their totalitarian dogmas.

Your extremely paranoid you see "white supremacists" everywhere even when Trump and co are just capitalist liberals in your mind they are like the literal KKK it seems

Purgatio wrote:Is it immoral if someone of French descent sleeps with someone of German descent? What about if a British sleeps with an Irish? What if someone Chinese sleeps with someone Korean? Or a Japanese person sleeps with an Ainu? Do you object to a Native American descended from one tribe sleeping with a Native American of another tribe?

Nearly all of the examples you gave are acceptable in my view, because the skin color on both sides is the same.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Purgatio wrote:The Nazis tended to resolve the 'can of worms' by conveniently handing out 'Aryan' status to people who were inconvenient to their racial classifications. Albert Forster, who was Gauleiter of Danzig-West Prussia, literally just offered 'Germanisation' to whole groups of Polish Slavs, putting them onto 'Aryanisation' lists so he wouldn't have to intricately study their genealogies. Poles who claimed they had German ancestry were just taken at face value and added onto the list. Hitler even gave 'Honorary Aryan' status to Emil Maurice, founding member of the SS, when it was discovered he had Jewish ancestry.

So, another way governments like the Nazis get around inconvenient scientific realities about the vagaries of racial classifications is they adopt a highly-convenient 'an Aryan is whoever we say is Aryan' approach to racial laws. Its also how the Nazis justified alliances with Slavic countries like Croatia, by spreading the pseudo-scientific idea that the Croats, as opposed to the Serbs, had sufficient Aryan ancestry and sufficiently-low Slavic ancestry, again more arbitrary and convenient racial classification.

And don't forget the 'Aryan' status of the Japanese, which is even more hilarious than the Germanic peoples being that very same thing. Not that there was much hilarity when those malevolent bastards inflicted immense suffering upon the world because of their totalitarian dogmas.

Ah yes, that one is insane, although in fairness to the Nazis (not a sentence I thought I'd ever say) I don't think they ever said the Japanese were genetically-similar to the Aryan race, which would be patently ridiculous (someone who's an expert in Nazi racial ideology please correct me if I'm wrong on this), they just said the Japanese were equals or peers to the Aryans (ostensibly), not that they were biologically the same.

I think Hitler wrote in his Testament in 1945 that:

"Pride in one's own race—and that does not imply contempt for other races—is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."

Obviously though, this quote imports even more selectivity and arbitrariness. Why the Japanese and Chinese, but not the Koreans or Manchus or Mongols? What about the Native Americans, whom Hitler detested and share some autosomal DNA with East Asians? (https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/all-native-americans-descended-from-one-ancestral-population-30457) It's a quote which just raises more questions than it provides answers.

This is almost certainly by design. But the brilliant part of this is that anyone on the left who says as much gets painted as a fucking lunatic. Well played mysterious author.

Saiwania wrote:

Purgatio wrote:Is it immoral if someone of French descent sleeps with someone of German descent? What about if a British sleeps with an Irish? What if someone Chinese sleeps with someone Korean? Or a Japanese person sleeps with an Ainu? Do you object to a Native American descended from one tribe sleeping with a Native American of another tribe?

Nearly all of the examples you gave are acceptable in my view, because the skin color on both sides is the same.

Wow, this is getting weirder and weirder. So now skin colour is essentially what you are concerned about? That only makes the arbitrariness worse because you don't care about questions of genetic or biological similarity, just whether, aesthetically, your skin looks the same. So, presumably, a very, very tanned white person and a brown-skinned Arab can have sex if their skin tone is roughly similar?

I'm Chinese, but very light-skinned, and I've slept with white guys with a skin tone practically-similar to mine. Is that okay, or immoral?

Purgatio wrote:I'm Chinese, but very light-skinned, and I've slept with white guys with a skin tone practically-similar to mine. Is that okay, or immoral?

If you're Chinese, then ideally you'd only go with other east Asian ethnicities, if not your own. I'm White, so logically- if I want to ensure that my children are White like myself, I'd be limited to White ethnic groups only. That is the proper path and destiny for me.

Saiwania wrote:

Purgatio wrote:I'm Chinese, but very light-skinned, and I've slept with white guys with a skin tone practically-similar to mine. Is that okay, or immoral?

If you're Chinese, then ideally you'd only go with other east Asian ethnicities, if not your own. I'm White, so logically- if I want to ensure that my children are White like myself, I'd be limited to White ethnic groups only. That is the proper path and destiny for me.

So clearly the problem isn’t skin tone, cos I’ve met white people with a skin tone extremely similar to mine and some of my friends. I’ve also seen darker-skinned East Asians with skin tones similar to a Viet or Khmer.

Surely you see how unnecessarily-complicated, ambiguous and bizarre this approach to sexual relations is