NationStates

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/201 ... 912720002/
https://libertyhangout.org/2017/12/emin ... lar-white/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -race.html
http://yourblackworld.net/2018/04/23/el ... -be-white/
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ky ... misogynist
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-value ... ing-white/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/styl ... ilege.html

I mean, you can make that argument Gauth, but you literally just justified White Pride, whether meaning to or not.

I don’t think that’s what you intended.

So is that supposed to be a GOTCHA? Nothing is going to stop white supremacists from feeling they're the real victims of oppression all along despite other pride movements having history of genuine oppression to cite.

You said:

Gormwood wrote:Maybe if certain groups of people didn't keep telling them they need to be ashamed of being black/gay/etc. then they wouldn't have declared being black/gay/etc. is something to be proud of instead.

Is that not what is happening here? Or are you backtracking that that’s a good reason for racial pride?

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:So is that supposed to be a GOTCHA? Nothing is going to stop white supremacists from feeling they're the real victims of oppression all along despite other pride movements having history of genuine oppression to cite.

You said:

Gormwood wrote:Maybe if certain groups of people didn't keep telling them they need to be ashamed of being black/gay/etc. then they wouldn't have declared being black/gay/etc. is something to be proud of instead.

Is that not what is happening here? Or are you backtracking that that’s a good reason for racial pride?

If the white supremacists feel they're oppressed then of course they'll have a pride movement in response. Given that there has been no historical instance of whites as a whole people being oppressed or even enslaved it makes them look like snowflakes wanting to act like the Real Victims but hey, let them.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:You said:



Is that not what is happening here? Or are you backtracking that that’s a good reason for racial pride?

If the white supremacists feel they're oppressed then of course they'll have a pride movement in response. Given that there has been no historical instance of whites as a whole people being oppressed or even enslaved it makes them look like snowflakes wanting to act like the Real Victims but hey, let them.

So your original statement (which, again, is being brought up to stress the importance of clear logic and basis for statements of ethics) is now being backtracked?

Gormwood wrote:Maybe if certain groups of people didn't keep telling them they need to be ashamed of being black/gay/etc. then they wouldn't have declared being black/gay/etc. is something to be proud of instead.

It’s not being told by certain groups of people you should be ashamed that justifies racial pride, but “real oppression”? Is that where you’re backtracking to?

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:If the white supremacists feel they're oppressed then of course they'll have a pride movement in response. Given that there has been no historical instance of whites as a whole people being oppressed or even enslaved it makes them look like snowflakes wanting to act like the Real Victims but hey, let them.

So your original statement (which, again, is being brought up to stress the importance of clear logic and basis for statements of ethics) is now being backtracked?

Gormwood wrote:Maybe if certain groups of people didn't keep telling them they need to be ashamed of being black/gay/etc. then they wouldn't have declared being black/gay/etc. is something to be proud of instead.

It’s not being told by certain groups of people you should be ashamed that justifies racial pride, but “real oppression”? Is that where you’re backtracking to?

If they feel they're being shamed or oppressed, let them have white pride.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:So your original statement (which, again, is being brought up to stress the importance of clear logic and basis for statements of ethics) is now being backtracked?



It’s not being told by certain groups of people you should be ashamed that justifies racial pride, but “real oppression”? Is that where you’re backtracking to?

If they feel they're being shamed or oppressed, let them have white pride.

Okies.

I don’t really think that is a good idea, but we’ll see where this leads.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:So your original statement (which, again, is being brought up to stress the importance of clear logic and basis for statements of ethics) is now being backtracked?



It’s not being told by certain groups of people you should be ashamed that justifies racial pride, but “real oppression”? Is that where you’re backtracking to?

If they feel they're being shamed or oppressed, let them have white pride.

Do you believe that "white pride" is an appropriate response to being shamed for being white?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Gormwood wrote:If they feel they're being shamed or oppressed, let them have white pride.

Do you believe that "white pride" is an appropriate response to being shamed for being white?

We know the answer to that. Such standards don't apply to whites in the eyes of many on the left.

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:If they feel they're being shamed or oppressed, let them have white pride.

Okies.

I don’t really think that is a good idea, but we’ll see where this leads.

Charlottesville right? So ban all pride celebrations then?

Liberal Thermidorian Reaction wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Do you believe that "white pride" is an appropriate response to being shamed for being white?

We know the answer to that. Such standards don't apply to whites in the eyes of many on the left.

Using weasel words doesn't make your straw man stop being a straw man.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:Okies.

I don’t really think that is a good idea, but we’ll see where this leads.

Charlottesville right? So ban all pride celebrations then?

Why is it always bans? Can’t we just put on the mittens of disapproval?

Vassenor wrote:

Liberal Thermidorian Reaction wrote:We know the answer to that. Such standards don't apply to whites in the eyes of many on the left.

Using weasel words doesn't make your straw man stop being a straw man.

It ain't a strawman if it is true. I'm not simplifying or modifying an argument in an attempt to knock it down.

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Charlottesville right? So ban all pride celebrations then?

Why is it always bans? Can’t we just put on the mittens of disapproval?

Because "disapproval" is "don't want it to happen" and ban is much more direct.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why is it always bans? Can’t we just put on the mittens of disapproval?

Because "disapproval" is "don't want it to happen" and ban is much more direct.

I suppose.

While we’re banning things we disapprove of, let’s tackle fans catching a ball that’s still in play.

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Because "disapproval" is "don't want it to happen" and ban is much more direct.

I suppose.

While we’re banning things we disapprove of, let’s tackle fans catching a ball that’s still in play.

Put nets in front of the rows of seats. That or shell out money for injury lawsuits.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:I suppose.

While we’re banning things we disapprove of, let’s tackle fans catching a ball that’s still in play.

Put nets in front of the rows of seats. That or shell out money for injury lawsuits.

Nah, I think we should just ban it, since we’re banning everything we disapprove of now.

I’ve got a movie for you.

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Put nets in front of the rows of seats. That or shell out money for injury lawsuits.

Nah, I think we should just ban it, since we’re banning everything we disapprove of now.

I’ve got a movie for you.

Ban it then. Have fun with the enforcement.

Trying to win the argument?

Liriena wrote:

Diarcesia wrote:
Still a product of white culture.

White culture? Do you think Rousseau, Kant and Hobbes all shared a singular "white culture" just because of their skin tone?

I guess something for whites to look up to and get inspired. Not just whites, but all the others who want to improve on the Enlightenment ideals.

Your caveat at the end illustrates the pointlessness of trying to define a culture as belonging to a specific skin tone, at least on a global scale.

I thought I don't need to disclaim that "western" and "white" are equivalent... Again, "western" gets associated with "white" because "western" countries are majority-white.

Then why do the majority white nations of South America often get excluded from being "western"?

1. Identity isn't something objective. You're behaving like a transphobe frankly, but as regards white identity. "WELL WHAT DOES BEING A WOMAN MEAN?" "HOW DO U KNOW UR TRANS" and so on. Just get over it and accept these people feel a cultural affinity for a particular group rather than pulling this kind of denialism in order to justify suppressing their pride and identity and telling them they have to take on some fucked up view YOU have of them. Think about that philosophytube video with the gender critical debate. That Is how you are behaving.

I note it's usually ass backwards too. You flip flop between "No shared white identity" when convenient, but seem happy to waffle about slavery and white privilege despite the fact most of Europe didn't hold slaves. This is because the framework you are using is an anti-white and racist one.
Did it occur to you the reason white identity is growing is because of that kind of anti-white narrative? YOU'RE the people forcing us to view eachother as a single tribe.
They are all part of white culture yes. Same as both Cardiff and Edinburgh are part of British culture.

2. "Black history"

3. Depends on who is talking about them. NATO membership is a pretty good reason though. Australia and Japan get honoraries on account of being outside the NATO area, South America has no excuse. Plus a history of communism and so on.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:Nah, I think we should just ban it, since we’re banning everything we disapprove of now.

I’ve got a movie for you.

Ban it then. Have fun with the enforcement.

Actually that one would be ridiculously easy, since we now use angled surveillance of the field for rulings and appeals.

Trying to win the argument?

Nope. Just pointing out how stupid a society would look if we banned everything we disapproved of. We can express disapproval of something without desiring to ban it. Your weird assertion earlier was stupid.

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Ban it then. Have fun with the enforcement.

Actually that one would be ridiculously easy, since we now use angled surveillance of the field for rulings and appeals.

Trying to win the argument?

Nope. Just pointing out how stupid a society would look if we banned everything we disapproved of. We can express disapproval of something without desiring to ban it. Your weird assertion earlier was stupid.

So what would be the point of disapproval beyond virtue signalling?

Galloism wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Ban it then. Have fun with the enforcement.

Actually that one would be ridiculously easy, since we now use angled surveillance of the field for rulings and appeals.

Trying to win the argument?

Nope. Just pointing out how stupid a society would look if we banned everything we disapproved of. We can express disapproval of something without desiring to ban it. Your weird assertion earlier was stupid.

"I think we should be violent towards people every time we don't like something they say or do.". Never forget state violence, it appropriately casts this attitude for what it is and how these people behave.

Gormwood wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Actually that one would be ridiculously easy, since we now use angled surveillance of the field for rulings and appeals.


Nope. Just pointing out how stupid a society would look if we banned everything we disapproved of. We can express disapproval of something without desiring to ban it. Your weird assertion earlier was stupid.

So what would be the point of disapproval beyond virtue signalling?

You're basically acting as a very violent person who is a danger to others, merely acting through state violence.
If you cannot conceive of disapproval without reacting with violence, that is a big problem.

You are forgetting, or ignoring, that to ban something is to enact violence.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Actually that one would be ridiculously easy, since we now use angled surveillance of the field for rulings and appeals.


Nope. Just pointing out how stupid a society would look if we banned everything we disapproved of. We can express disapproval of something without desiring to ban it. Your weird assertion earlier was stupid.

"I think we should be violent towards people every time we don't like something they say or do.". Never forget state violence, it appropriately casts this attitude for what it is and how these people behave.

Don't recall advocating violence. Want to quote me?

Gormwood wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
"I think we should be violent towards people every time we don't like something they say or do.". Never forget state violence, it appropriately casts this attitude for what it is and how these people behave.

Don't recall advocating violence. Want to quote me?

Do you need me to walk you through basic political concepts on a politics forum?

Do you understand what state violence is?

You called for banning something. That is a call for violence. Either forgetting that or secretly being in love with it is why people turn into authoritarians like you are being here. You should lean toward liberty for that reason.

Ostroeuropa wrote:You're basically acting as a very violent person who is a danger to others, merely acting through state violence.
If you cannot conceive of disapproval without reacting with violence, that is a big problem.

You are forgetting, or ignoring, that to ban something is to enact violence.

So a smoking ban is violence.

Gormwood wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:You're basically acting as a very violent person who is a danger to others, merely acting through state violence.
If you cannot conceive of disapproval without reacting with violence, that is a big problem.

You are forgetting, or ignoring, that to ban something is to enact violence.

So a smoking ban is violence.

Yes, it is. It is enforced physically against the will of people, using agents of the state. It doesn't just magically happen. It is a declaration of an intent to use violence against people who smoke, that's what a ban is.

Gormwood wrote:So what would be the point of disapproval beyond virtue signalling?

To encourage people to take, or not take, a certain action without forcing them. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, (general) freedom of action - these are all good things.

But exchanging ideas is also how society gets better. Telling your friend not to cheat on his girlfriend is certainly disapproval, but doesn’t involve throwing him in jail. Is that virtue signaling?