NationStates

It's a dangerous and generalized statement to make.

I'm sure there are some fringe groups within the alt-right that claim they would like nothing less than to kill a bunch of muslims or jew. A lot of that is peacocking, I believe. Though we shouldn't just brush it all away - sometimes you just need one or two triggers to push someone over the edge. A momentary lapse of reasoning that makes someone believe the stuff they've been cockily espousing is actually a good idea, that they might be more respected by their community, put some twisted meaning in their 'meaningless lives', etc.

There's a lot of underlying factors that's feeding the mindset of these people. For instance a lot of young people today have been fostered to believe they can achieve great things. If that doesn't happen, some turn into whiny cunts and some turn into crazy whiny cunts that want the praise of other whiny cunts on the internet and are completely detached from reality.

Skarten wrote:

Bezkoshtovnya wrote:How does this affect the scholarly citations used in the article that state the alt right is built on concern of white nationalism?

He just linked an wikipedia page, that's it. No more, no less.

If you don't think a wikipedia page alone is a sufficient source, then read the linked references at the very bottom of the page to get the original and full picture, just like how I cited my quote of the "Alt-right" article. It's not rocket science, and that's where any encyclopedia derives an article or definition from. In fact, not citing any source for an article or a biography about a living person would net it a speedy deletion for spreading unfounded gossip or tabloidery.

Skarten wrote:

Bezkoshtovnya wrote:How does this affect the scholarly citations used in the article that state the alt right is built on concern of white nationalism?

She just linked an wikipedia page, that's it. No more, no less.

She is still waiting for you to prove Wikipedia is biased like you claim. You've been proven wrong by me and TGOV quoting the black supremacy and white supremacy articles.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Skarten wrote:He just linked an wikipedia page, that's it. No more, no less.

And we are still waiting for your argument how the information is false.

You're not supposed to trust an source that's quite obviously biased on itself- If the sources are just so easy to find, then why don't you link the original sites themselves? If you just link me the wikipedia page, i'm going to read the wikipedia page.

Kragholm Free States wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
It's like it's almost impossible to read manifestos, articles, or books written by white supremacists! Clearly, no, obviously the only true way to know how they determine who belongs to what race is to talk to them firsthand.

You realise not every white supremacist has written a manifesto, article, or book, right? If their definitions of race are as fickle and arbitrary as you say, you have no way of knowing that there aren't white supremacists who consider sub-saharan Africans to be white and Europeans to be non-white.

Which isn't implausible for them to do, since there's sub-Saharan Africans with white-colored skin alive today. It's not at all different from how the white supremacists of yore declared the Irish and Southern Europeans to be non-white.

Skarten wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
And we are still waiting for your argument how the information is false.

You're not supposed to trust an source that's quite obviously biased on itself- If the sources are just so easy to find, then why don't you link the original sites themselves? If you just link me the wikipedia page, i'm going to read the wikipedia page.

The list of references and sources is at the bottom of every single page currently available on Wikipedia or any website that uses the Mediawiki software. All you need to do is scroll down, read every one of them one by one, and then you will understand where Wikipedia got it's info from.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Skarten wrote:
Well, as much as that's a crackpot theory right there (One i've never really heard of), i don't think that's really enough to classify people as nazis. A lot of the people who the nazis hate might as well say the same. Being against jews is not just a nazi thing.

If you read Mein Kampf, you would know that is what Hitler thought of communism.


Can't get much more nazi then Mein Kampf.

Read my statements. Not everyone who's against jews is an nazi. I mean, last time i checked a lot of Muslims are pretty anti-jew, but are they considered nazis

Esternial wrote:It's a dangerous and generalized statement to make.

I'm sure there are some fringe groups within the alt-right that claim they would like nothing less than to kill a bunch of muslims or jew. A lot of that is peacocking, I believe. Though we shouldn't just brush it all away - sometimes you just need one or two triggers to push someone over the edge. A momentary lapse of reasoning that makes someone believe the stuff they've been cockily espousing is actually a good idea, that they might be more respected by their community, put some twisted meaning in their 'meaningless lives', etc.

There's a lot of underlying factors that's feeding the mindset of these people. For instance a lot of young people today have been fostered to believe they can achieve great things. If that doesn't happen, some turn into whiny cunts and some turn into crazy whiny cunts that want the praise of other whiny cunts on the internet and are completely detached from reality.

It provides an environment for ideological self-radicalization though.

Torrocca wrote:

Skarten wrote:She just linked an wikipedia page, that's it. No more, no less.

She is still waiting for you to prove Wikipedia is biased like you claim. You've been proven wrong by me and TGOV quoting the black supremacy and white supremacy articles.

No, you didn't. And repeating, saying that you won an argument does not mean you won the argument.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

Skarten wrote:
You're not supposed to trust an source that's quite obviously biased on itself- If the sources are just so easy to find, then why don't you link the original sites themselves? If you just link me the wikipedia page, i'm going to read the wikipedia page.

The list of references and sources is at the bottom of every single page currently available on Wikipedia or any website that uses the Mediawiki software. All you need to do is scroll down, read every one of them one by one, and then you will understand where Wikipedia got it's info from.

Then just... link the original sites if it's that easy?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Kragholm Free States wrote:
White colonialism is not context for things that were happening centuries before white colonialism.

Ok. How about scale? How much slavery did the arabs take versus the time of white colonialism?

Somewhere between 11 and 17 million Africans and around 1 million Europeans taken by the Arabs, about 12.8 million Africans taken by the Europeans. So estimates range from the two slave trades being about the same in scope to the Arab slave trade being significantly bigger. Which makes sense, the Arab slave trade was going on well before the European one, and also well after the European one had been abolished.

Esternial wrote:There's a lot of underlying factors that's feeding the mindset of these people. For instance a lot of young people today have been fostered to believe they can achieve great things. If that doesn't happen, some turn into whiny cunts and some turn into crazy whiny cunts that want the praise of other whiny cunts on the internet and are completely detached from reality.

Care to explain more about those factors that turn them into "whiny cunts"?

Skarten wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
And we are still waiting for your argument how the information is false.

You're not supposed to trust an source that's quite obviously biased on itself- If the sources are just so easy to find, then why don't you link the original sites themselves? If you just link me the wikipedia page, i'm going to read the wikipedia page.

Again how does bias equal lie or fabrication?

Sources are too easy to find? That's kind of true as my conversation "white nationalist" relatives use blog pages and youtube all the time. The problem a published article is something that can be refuted.

You not liking the source doesn't invalidate it.

The claim of bias is nothing more then a lazy attempt to dismiss what is presented. Verification takes effort.

Even today you see this with the donnie and his "fake news" comments.

Skarten wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

If you read Mein Kampf, you would know that is what Hitler thought of communism.


Can't get much more nazi then Mein Kampf.

Read my statements. Not everyone who's against jews is an nazi. I mean, last time i checked a lot of Muslims are pretty anti-jew, but are they considered nazis

It its however a very notable trait of Nazis.

And you do know that was just one example I listed of nazis right?

Costa Fierro wrote:

Esternial wrote:There's a lot of underlying factors that's feeding the mindset of these people. For instance a lot of young people today have been fostered to believe they can achieve great things. If that doesn't happen, some turn into whiny cunts and some turn into crazy whiny cunts that want the praise of other whiny cunts on the internet and are completely detached from reality.

Care to explain more about those factors that turn them into "whiny cunts"?

Not really no.

Skarten wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:The list of references and sources is at the bottom of every single page currently available on Wikipedia or any website that uses the Mediawiki software. All you need to do is scroll down, read every one of them one by one, and then you will understand where Wikipedia got it's info from.

Then just... link the original sites if it's that easy?

Or just....scroll to the bottom seeing as how that is where all if the sources are already gathered in one place?

Esternial wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Care to explain more about those factors that turn them into "whiny cunts"?

Not really no.

So then perhaps most of your post was a bit...lacking?

Costa Fierro wrote:

Esternial wrote:Not really no.

So then perhaps most of your post was a bit...lacking?

If you want me to write a thesis on every post I make then at least give me a scholarship.

Kragholm Free States wrote:

-MAFDET- wrote:
It’s not a defense. I’m providing context.

White colonialism is not context for things that were happening centuries before white colonialism.

I don’t see your point. Not only were Europeans adept at colonizing other civilizations, but they were also highly proficient at murdering each other. Here’s a fantastical scenario; imagine that some non-white empire across the sea had developed maritime technology advanced enough to reach Europe, and began their own slave trade. Are the Europeans in this fantasy world at fault for having something done to them that they have committed against each other for centuries?

To place the fault for slavery on the backs of black collaborators rather than the white Europeans who orchestrated the slave trade in the first place is a way of deflecting responsibility.

Skarten wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
She is still waiting for you to prove Wikipedia is biased like you claim. You've been proven wrong by me and TGOV quoting the black supremacy and white supremacy articles.

No, you didn't. And repeating, saying that you won an argument does not mean you won the argument.

Yes we did. It's not my fault you're angry at a source for percieved biases and now you're angry because you were proven wrong.

Gormwood wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Name a time in history when being a minority has ever been a good thing.

Apartheid South Africa?

So that's what it'll take, huh?

-MAFDET- wrote:

Kragholm Free States wrote:
White colonialism is not context for things that were happening centuries before white colonialism.

I don’t see your point. Not only were Europeans adept at colonizing other civilizations, but they were also highly proficient at murdering each other. Here’s a fantastical scenario; imagine that some non-white empire across the sea had developed maritime technology advanced enough to reach Europe, and began their own slave trade. Are the Europeans in this fantasy world at fault for having something done to them that they have committed against each other for centuries?

To place the fault for slavery on the backs of black collaborators rather than the white Europeans who orchestrated the slave trade in the first place is a way of deflecting responsibility.

They didn't orchestrate it. The Arabs got to that first, last time i checked.

-MAFDET- wrote:

Kragholm Free States wrote:
White colonialism is not context for things that were happening centuries before white colonialism.

I don’t see your point. Not only were Europeans adept at colonizing other civilizations, but they were also highly proficient at murdering each other. Here’s a fantastical scenario; imagine that some non-white empire across the sea had developed maritime technology advanced enough to reach Europe, and began their own slave trade. Are the Europeans in this fantasy world at fault for having something done to them that they have committed against each other for centuries?

To place the fault for slavery on the backs of black collaborators rather than the white Europeans who orchestrated the slave trade in the first place is a way of deflecting responsibility.

You don't need to fantasize, that actually happened when the Ottomans came rolling through the Balkans.

The rise of "Alt-Right" terrorism at this point is not surprising given the history of the movement, its peak and radicalization and decline beginning in 2017. It's fitting in about the expected timeframe.

-MAFDET- wrote:

Skarten wrote:You sitll didn't awnser my questionings of this statement.

What a bizarre reality we live in, where only white people are held accountable for the stuff they've done historically.

What great historical crimes have black nations committed?

To be fair, the Rwandan Genocide even it it was internal.