Learning about white privilege is anti-white, studies prove

[West Leas Oros 2]

Well, I'm sure people will appreciate it when wealth redistribution takes on an increasingly racial tone.

Lock and load.

The white elites will never accept that, only the white peasants can be forced to give up money to minorities.

Funny how Identity politics end up harming the poor and working classes... it’s almost like Identity politics is an ideology that benefits only the elites...

[Nakena]

The white elites will never accept that, only the white peasants can be forced to give up money to minorities.

Funny how Identity politics end up harming the poor and working classes... it’s almost like Identity politics is an ideology that benefits only the elites...

shhh, shut it down.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The white elites will never accept that, only the white peasants can be forced to give up money to minorities.

Funny how Identity politics end up harming the poor and working classes... it’s almost like Identity politics is an ideology that benefits only the elites...

Racial division and all forms of identity division only end up harming eveyone to be honest, only benefiting the manipulative and narcissistic few who use it to their advantage.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Funny how Identity politics end up harming the poor and working classes... it’s almost like Identity politics is an ideology that benefits only the elites...

shhh, shut it down.

What? I’m merely stating the ulterior motive of identity politics, that is to say, to hinder liberation.

[Nakena]

shhh, shut it down.

What? I’m merely stating the ulterior motive of identity politics, that is to say, to hinder liberation.

Can't go against the left-liberal consensus.

Might be time for self-critique and a few more classes in cultural marxism.

Don't you know that standing up for blue class interests is by definition reactionary and that the urbanite hipsters are the new revolutionary avantgarde and that refugees etc. are the new proletariat?

[/irony off]

[West Leas Oros 2]

What? I’m merely stating the ulterior motive of identity politics, that is to say, to hinder liberation.

Can't go against the left-liberal consensus.

Might be time for self-critique and a few more classes in cultural marxism.

Don't you know that standing up for blue class interests is by definition reactionary and that the urbanite hipsters are the new revolutionary avantgarde and that refugees etc. are the new proletariat?

[/irony off]

Shut up commi- I mean, class reductionist! /s

[Cappuccina]

shhh, shut it down.

What? I’m merely stating the ulterior motive of identity politics, that is to say, to hinder liberation.

You mean, just like class identity too? The only identity that really matters is cultural identity.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What? I’m merely stating the ulterior motive of identity politics, that is to say, to hinder liberation.

You mean, just like class identity too? The only identity that really matters is cultural identity.

Except that class identity doesn’t work the same as identity politics, and how does cultural identity matter?

[Cappuccina]

You mean, just like class identity too? The only identity that really matters is cultural identity.

Except that class identity doesn’t work the same as identity politics, and how does cultural identity matter?

Class identity is fluid and ultimately meaningless. (One can get richer or poorer, acquire means if product, and lose them). Culture changes but has continuity, something to ground oneself to.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Except that class identity doesn’t work the same as identity politics, and how does cultural identity matter?

Class identity is fluid and ultimately meaningless. (One can get richer or poorer, acquire means if product, and lose them). Culture changes but has continuity, something to ground oneself to.

Sure, but that’s also a reason why class identity differs from other forms of identity, in that it’s fluid. Other identities are unchanging, and as a result can’t be a judge of character. One can examine how someone gained their class status, either through good or bad ways. Also, other identities aren’t inherently hierarchical, whereas class is a direct expression of one’s societal status.

[Cappuccina]

Class identity is fluid and ultimately meaningless. (One can get richer or poorer, acquire means if product, and lose them). Culture changes but has continuity, something to ground oneself to.

Sure, but that’s also a reason why class identity differs from other forms of identity, in that it’s fluid. Other identities are unchanging, and as a result can’t be a judge of character. One can examine how someone gained their class status, either through good or bad ways. Also, other identities aren’t inherently hierarchical, whereas class is a direct expression of one’s societal status.

There's little point on having identification with a social status that is malleable and could be the results of various circumstances. You could be poor due to being bad with money, or to being exploited, you could be rich due to hard work or inheritance. Identity based on social status is flimsy and has no commonality other than being rich or poor.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Sure, but that’s also a reason why class identity differs from other forms of identity, in that it’s fluid. Other identities are unchanging, and as a result can’t be a judge of character. One can examine how someone gained their class status, either through good or bad ways. Also, other identities aren’t inherently hierarchical, whereas class is a direct expression of one’s societal status.

There's little point on having identification with a social status that is malleable and could be the results of various circumstances. You could be poor due to being bad with money, or to being exploited, you could be rich due to hard work or inheritance. Identity based on social status is flimsy and has no commonality other than being rich or poor.

You have a point, but that’s why I, as well as a lot of communists, socialists, etc. seek to abolish class rather than reform class systems. Most identitarians don’t want to abolish systems of identity, and instead want to use them to pull down others.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Maybe South Africa or Zimbabwe sometimes.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

And that makes it right in your leftist morality?

[Vassenor]

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

And that makes it right in your leftist morality?

Did I say that?

[Des-Bal]

Did I say that?

No you just to-be-fair'd yourself a defense of ethnic cleansing apropos of nothing. You're careful not to actually say anything it would make it too easy to highlight the absurdity of your positions.

[Vassenor]

Did I say that?

No you just to-be-fair'd yourself a defense of ethnic cleansing apropos of nothing. You're careful not to actually say anything it would make it too easy to highlight the absurdity of your positions.

Or you're shovelling words into my mouth in lieu of an actual argument.

[Ostroeuropa]

No you just to-be-fair'd yourself a defense of ethnic cleansing apropos of nothing. You're careful not to actually say anything it would make it too easy to highlight the absurdity of your positions.

Or you're shovelling words into my mouth in lieu of an actual argument.

If you expect people not to notice you're using the same strategy as the far-right by dancing around your opinions but never being explicit about them and refusing to defend them because they are indefensible, but just implying them constantly and dogwhistling to other misandrists and anti-white racists, that's not going to work given your long history on these topics.

You're behaving exactly like steve bannon does, just a mirror image.

Everybody can see it.

Calling it out however, is the counter argument needed. You getting defensive over that doesn't convince anybody anymore. Maybe a few years ago when this kind of gaslighting was less well understood, but not anymore.

We're not shovelling words into your mouth in lieu of an argument. You have made no argument, you have simply implied support for white genocide and left it hanging there, but refusing to acknowledge that's what you've done and then act like people are attacking you for pointing it out.

Just like Bannon when he rejects firmly all alternatives to fascism, outlines what fascism is and doesn't reject it, and just sort of... waits for you to piece it together. But god forbid you say "You're a fascist", because then he behaves exactly like you are now.

Acknowledging that this is your argument, and the tactic you are using, is in itself a form of argument against what you have said and what you are doing and why it is wrong. Can you engage with it and explain why this observation is wrong, or can't you?

[Des-Bal]

Or you're shovelling words into my mouth in lieu of an actual argument.

Oh my mistake.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

It looks like either you're saying something terrible or saying nothing. Explain why you made this statement.

[Gormwood]

Or you're shovelling words into my mouth in lieu of an actual argument.

Oh my mistake.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

It looks like either you're saying something terrible or saying nothing. Explain why you made this statement.

Where did this custom of taking someone explaining a motive for an action as their explicit support of the action come from?

[Vassenor]

Or you're shovelling words into my mouth in lieu of an actual argument.

Oh my mistake.

Which depending on your point of view can be seen as backlash for how black Africans were treated under the old governments.

It looks like either you're saying something terrible or saying nothing. Explain why you made this statement.

Explain how you got "I support this" from "some people think this".

[Des-Bal]

Where did this custom of taking someone explaining a motive for an action as their explicit support of the action come from?

It arose in response to Vassenor consistently saying nothing and refusing to adopt any coherent position but asking asinine questions, making comments to the air, and presenting flimsy defenses for abominable conduct apropos of nothing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh my mistake.



It looks like either you're saying something terrible or saying nothing. Explain why you made this statement.

Where did this custom of taking someone explaining a motive for an action as their explicit support of the action come from?

This wasn't merely an explanation, it was a dismissal of the example.

Vassenor asked in their typical way; "So where are White people being oppressed for being white?"

And then they were told; "South africa and zimbabwe sometimes."

To which Vassenor responded with "Which depending on your point of view can be seen as a backlash for how black africans are treated under the old government.".

Suggesting vassenor is AWARE of these examples and was PRIOR to them being pointed out, but nonetheless denies white people are oppressed routinely. Ergo, we can conclude Vassenor thinks oppressing white people isn't oppression, because vengeance.

This is all fairly simple.

Oh my mistake.



It looks like either you're saying something terrible or saying nothing. Explain why you made this statement.

Explain how you got "I support this" from "some people think this".

^

[-MAFDET-]

How fucking hilarious that the first people to respond to this drivel consists of a dude who literally identifies as a white nationalist in his signature and another guy with a crossed-off LGBTQ flag as his profile picture.

How disgusting.

[Des-Bal]

Explain how you got "I support this" from "some people think this".

I'm sorry, you must have missed the question. Explain why you said that. Explain why that was an appropriate thing to say, why it fit in where you said it. You cannot.

The only possible reason to respond the way you did is to dismiss racism and ethnic cleansing as justified.

[Ostroeuropa]

How fucking hilarious that the first people to respond to this drivel consists of a dude who literally identifies as a white nationalist in his signature and another guy with a crossed-off LGBTQ flag as his profile picture.

How disgusting.

Interesting that you think calling a study "drivel" constitutes an acceptable response. On top of that you seem to be implying that noting some people in a group are unsavory therefore means you can dismiss the whole group.