White Supremacy discussion thread

[Dakini]

Silence is not consent nor cowardice, but an example of "Mind your own business"

I wish the white nationalists would mind their own business and not have a spaz attack when they see an interracial family at the store.

Or when they see a woman with a hijab minding her own business.

Or when they see an East Asian person minding their own business.

Or you know, just in general when non-white people want to exist in society.

[Zurkir]

She’s not the best ever, no. Irrelevant as that is.
She was just a single example.

Have you considered that maybe some people simply want to mind their own business and just keep their head down? Especially when the social and political climates of today are so volcanic and even unpredictable. Some people just want to go about their day free of the insanity of the greater American society. And beyond. I have a number of coworkers and a couple of family members who dodge any and all political and social discussions because of how volatile things are these days.

Something that’s also sus is when someone has a metaphorical gun put to their head and it’s made clear they really should be a broadcast speaker of current interpretations of WS and racism.

I have considered that, and I don't give a shit.

Apathy is in and of itself immoral.

Cynical Translation: join the mob and like it or we will axe you too.

[Zurkir]

[
Have you considered that maybe some people simply want to mind their own business and just keep their head down? Especially when the social and political climates of today are so volcanic and even unpredictable. Some people just want to go about their day free of the insanity of the greater American society. And beyond. I have a number of coworkers and a couple of family members who dodge any and all political and social discussions because of how volatile things are these days.

That makes sense that they want that, but unfortunately they are living in American society, so... it’s not really an option. It’s just a question of how you engage with the insanity; shutting down and trying to avoid it doesn’t mean it won’t still worm its way into your life. It would be nice if we could just not worry about societal issues and go about our daily business without a care in the world, but that just isn’t how life works.

But can you blame so many for trying? I find sociology and politics fascinating but even I have my days where I just get sick of them and want to hide in a hole, so to speak.

And to counter your point I think being able to shut it out depends on location and circumstance. Some people I think for the most part can “shut it all out” more than others. For example a factory worker or small town elementary school teacher could avoid the societal insanity better than a college psychology professor or a HR rep could for example.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I have considered that, and I don't give a shit.

Apathy is in and of itself immoral.

Cynical Translation: join the mob and like it or we will axe you too.

If you're going to put words in my mouth then at least wear gloves. There's a pandemic going on, man.

[Zurkir]

Cynical Translation: join the mob and like it or we will axe you too.

If you're going to put words in my mouth then at least wear gloves. There's a pandemic going on, man.

I’ll let a sanitized medical professional do it. I do practice COVID safety after all.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I dont think you should be legally obligated to speak against racism, but it tends to be a good thing to say "I think racism belongs in the garbage."

Of course.

The problem is though that the “silence is cowardice” attitude can cause one’s career/job to come to an end or be regularly stifled if those holding that attitude take the radical approach. Just look at Gina Carano, she made the mistake of thinking her Twitter actually belonged to her and refused to tweet her support for BLM which lead to racism accusations and loss of her work at Disney. And that’s just one simple example.

There aren’t as many people who support actual white supremacy and racism as the ivory tower politicians and busybody activists stamp their feet saying that there is. Hint on the “actual white supremacy and racism”.

Gina Carano kept promoting conspiracy theories and saying dumb stuff that Disney didn't want to be associated with. If I remember right they even asked her to knock it off a few times before they fired her because the director really wanted to keep her around.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Yes. If it's just words, why not? Anti-Whites and supremacists of all other races have the ability to do so.

Only white supremacists are much larger and more influential than amy other racial supremacists. This isn't to say other racial supremacists aren't bad, but yelling about how other people can also be racist when we're taling about white supremacy doesn't really add anything to the conversation.

If you want someone to say other racial supremacists should also not be alowed to promote supremacy, I'll say it.

[Saiwania]

I wish the white nationalists would mind their own business and not have a spaz attack when they see an interracial family at the store.

It kind of is their business if the union in question is causing Whites in absolute terms or as a percentage of global population to decrease more towards extinction. The mission from their perspective is to ensure that the White race has a future, if not an independent state comprised of primarily White people.

Unless it is the person's family/relatives however, there is usually little to no sway that could be had. I don't see it as productive to confront such people. If a White is race mixing, I'm more content to write them off as a race traitor and dismiss them from my mind as just another of the groups of people I hate or will oppose politically.

[San Lumen]

I wish the white nationalists would mind their own business and not have a spaz attack when they see an interracial family at the store.

It kind of is their business if the union in question is causing Whites in absolute terms or as a percentage of global population to decrease more towards extinction. The mission from their perspective is to ensure that the White race has a future, if not an independent state comprised of primarily White people.

Unless it is the person's family/relatives however, there is usually little to no sway that could be had. I don't see it as productive to confront such people. If a White is race mixing, I'm more content to write them off as a race traitor and dismiss them from my mind as just another of the groups of people I hate or will oppose politically.

Why is it their bushiness?

I still fail to see what is so special about being white. If someone choses to marry someone of another race who cares? Love is love.

[Fahran]

I have considered that, and I don't give a shit.

Apathy is in and of itself immoral.

Apathy towards what precisely is immoral? Is it confined to this one specific issue or does it extend to all relevant ethical issues? What constitutes apathy? Is it simply an absence of opinion or does one have to be active in perpetuating the right opinion through action?

[Saiwania]

If someone choses to marry someone of another race who cares? Love is love.

Love is not love for a lot of people. Matter of fact, the further back in time someone goes- the less the concept of love was ever used by anyone as a reason to get married or to become engaged. When marriage was based off of who is a good fit in terms of social status/economics for the other person and their family, was a far more valid system in my eyes than the prevalent norms now.

Love is bullshit enough where divorce is more common for people now than it is to stay married for the long term. As it turns out, it is not a strong foundation for anything because it is a nebulous concept that is subject to fading over time, if it was ever there to begin with.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

If someone choses to marry someone of another race who cares? Love is love.

Love is not love for a lot of people. Matter of fact, the further back in time someone goes- the less the concept of love was ever used by anyone as a reason to get married or to become engaged. When marriage was based off of who is a good fit in terms of social status/economics for the other person, was a far more valid system in my eyes than the prevalent norms now.

Love is bullshit enough where divorce is more common for people now than it is to stay married for the long term. As it turns out, it is not a strong foundation for anything because it is a nebulous concept that is subject to fading over time, if it was ever there to begin with.

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

[San Lumen]

If someone choses to marry someone of another race who cares? Love is love.

Love is not love for a lot of people. Matter of fact, the further back in time someone goes- the less the concept of love was ever used by anyone as a reason to get married or to become engaged. When marriage was based off of who is a good fit in terms of social status/economics for the other person, was a far more valid system in my eyes than the prevalent norms now.

Love is bullshit enough where divorce is more common for people now than it is to stay married for the long term. As it turns out, it is not a strong foundation for anything because it is a nebulous concept that is subject to fading over time, if it was ever there to begin with.

Good thing we got rid of that. Those marriages were often miserable.

If it fades over time then its not true love and if people divorce then so be it.

Someone who marries someone of another race is a bad person. I don't see why it should matter in the first place and why you should be able to dictate who someone can marry.

[Senkaku]

If someone choses to marry someone of another race who cares? Love is love.

Love is not love for a lot of people. Matter of fact, the further back in time someone goes- the less the concept of love was ever used by anyone as a reason to get married or to become engaged. When marriage was based off of who is a good fit in terms of social status/economics for the other person and their family, was a far more valid system in my eyes than the prevalent norms now.

Love is bullshit enough where divorce is more common for people now than it is to stay married for the long term. As it turns out, it is not a strong foundation for anything because it is a nebulous concept that is subject to fading over time, if it was ever there to begin with.

A self-described incel lecturing other people on the true nature of love is a bit rich

You not having figured something out or experienced it yet doesn’t mean it’s fake, I’ve never seen ball lightning or a tornado but that doesn’t mean I assume they’re fake

[Saiwania]

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

[Fahran]

If we're going to discuss marriage, there's a whole lot to unpack when it comes to both the "love is love" crowd and the anti-miscegenation crowd. Broadly speaking, both of those arguments appear wrong when we look at statistical data surrounding marital happiness, at the concepts in play, and numerous other factors. Since we're focused on white supremacy in this thread, I won't spare much time for refuting the "love is love" paradigm when it comes to marriage. It suffices to assert that it is trite, shallow, and untrue. With regard to anti-miscegenation arguments, what import does race possess, either intrinsically or in society, that necessitates the state refusing to acknowledge multiracial marriages and families? I cannot think of anything substantive.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

Does this not damage the family and the extended kinship network? And for what aim? Loyalty to race, which hardly binds together anyone?

[San Lumen]

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

They are terrible people if they do that. Its no different than a parent disowning or punishing their child for being gay.

[Dakini]

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

And if they do, everyone should treat the family members who punish their children for their interracial relationships like shit because they are shitty people who deserve it.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

Yet is it not true that your ideology would dictate to people who they are allowed to marry? A family would not punish someone for marrying someone of a different race.

This is the problem I specifically have with you Sai, you and your ideological beliefs only end up hurting liberty itself by punishing those who exercise their free will. And yet you use arguments like this to try and make your ideology sound more moderate and less totalitarian than it really is.

[Genivaria]

That does not give you the right to dictate to people who they should and should not be allowed to marry.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

So you actively support the destruction of the family unit which society is based upon?
God when did I adopt conservative talking points?

[Senkaku]

If we're going to discuss marriage, there's a whole lot to unpack when it comes to both the "love is love" crowd and the anti-miscegenation crowd. Broadly speaking, both of those arguments appear wrong when we look at statistical data surrounding marital happiness, at the concepts in play, and numerous other factors. Since we're focused on white supremacy in this thread, I won't spare much time for refuting the "love is love" paradigm when it comes to marriage. It suffices to assert that it is trite, shallow, and untrue. With regard to anti-miscegenation arguments, what import does race possess, either intrinsically or in society, that necessitates the state refusing to acknowledge multiracial marriages and families? I cannot think of anything substantive.

Their respective families and relatives are what have pull/influence with regards to that, more often than not. If the family disapproves, they're free to disown/punish their son/daughter however they see fit.

Does this not damage the family and the extended kinship network? And for what aim? Loyalty to race, which hardly binds together anyone?

“Love is a complicated concept” is not just “love is love,” my point is that Sai’s whole “love was invented by guys like me to sell nylons” schtick is equally simplistic bullshit to the people who just uncritically assume all married couples are perfectly in love or whatever

[Fahran]

“Love is a complicated concept” is not just “love is love,” my point is that Sai’s whole “love was invented by guys like me to sell nylons” schtick is equally simplistic bullshit to the people who just uncritically assume all married couples are perfectly in love or whatever

Sai's discussion of the history of marriage was a touch more accurate than San Lumen's slogan, but, as you can glean from my past debates on the subject and from my remarks here, I actually take a bit more exception with Sai's dismissal of romantic love than with the reductionism of San Lumen's slogan. In part, because, while both are harmful, the former has more immediacy in the harm it will bring and has less justification for such harm. That said, I'm discussing marriage here, not as the fruition of love, but as a social institution alongside the family.

[San Lumen]

“Love is a complicated concept” is not just “love is love,” my point is that Sai’s whole “love was invented by guys like me to sell nylons” schtick is equally simplistic bullshit to the people who just uncritically assume all married couples are perfectly in love or whatever

Sai's discussion of the history of marriage was a touch more accurate than San Lumen's slogan, but, as you can glean from my past debates on the subject and from my remarks here, I actually take a bit more exception with Sai's dismissal of romantic love than with the reductionism of San Lumen's slogan. In part, because, while both are harmful, the former has more immediacy in the harm it will bring and has less justification for such harm. That said, I'm discussing marriage here, not as the fruition of love, but as a social institution alongside the family.

How is what i said harmful?

[Saiwania]

With regard to anti-miscegenation arguments, what import does race possess, either intrinsically or in society, that necessitates the state refusing to acknowledge multiracial marriages and families? I cannot think of anything substantive.

What is substantive about it is if the sovereign state in question considers itself a nation-state, as defined by having a majority population with a common culture, ethnicity, genetics, history, and so on. China for example, devotes quite a lot of effort in ensuring that they maintain a Han majority throughout their entire territory. Even going so far as to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women and coercing them into having children with Han men or entering into marriages with such men in exchange for money and so on.

Its obvious to me that China sees maintaining its native traits/skin color as important, beyond just preserving its culture/society from outside influences.

[Dakini]

With regard to anti-miscegenation arguments, what import does race possess, either intrinsically or in society, that necessitates the state refusing to acknowledge multiracial marriages and families? I cannot think of anything substantive.

What is substantive about it is if the sovereign state in question considers itself a nation-state, as defined by having a majority population with a common culture, ethnicity, genetics, history, and so on. China for example, devotes quite a lot of effort in ensuring that they maintain a Han majority throughout their entire territory. Even going so far as to forcibly sterilize Uyghur women and coercing them into having children with Han men or entering into marriages with such men in exchange for money and so on.

Its obvious to me that China sees maintaining native traits/skin color as important, beyond just preserving its culture/society from outside influences.

Are you suggesting that China's genocide of the Uyghur people is a good thing that we should replicate elsewhere?