Why I Care

[Kaczynskisatva]

(Image)

The rest of your post was fine, the inclusion of this goes straight into flaming/flamebaiting. You can make your arguments without insulting insinuations about your opponents' intelligence. I recommend you review the site rules at your earliest convenience.

You just didn't understand the meme format. Here's another example of it.

This template is not always about the intelligence of the subject, it is always about incoherence between question and response. It is the Kafka-esque situation of two people posting copypasta at each other and the synthetic impression that they are sort of communicating, when they are just both emitting messages in the same space.

Anyway, I think Picairn has above average intelligence, that he isn't using it effectively for anything, and that he has an immature personality which overrides it into futile ends. An actual baby would be incantevole, pleasant and full of limitless potential.

Haven't I told you that phenotypes thought to be "inherent" within a race are present in other races? And that only 7.4% of over 4,000 alleles are unique to one region, in 1% of that region's population?

You're looking for the frequency of expression itself, not simply any above-zero frequency.

Meanwhile, all living humans belong to the same species: Homo Sapiens. Dumbest comparison ever.

You use this same method for plants belonging to the same described species group. You would do this, for example, for different breeds of corn. If you have two populations of corn, and one is almost always blue, and the other is almost always yellow, you can say that they are morphologically distinct populations because of the difference in the frequency of expression of the genes controlling for this property, even though both genes for both properties have above-zero frequencies in both populations, and so do not represent regionally distinct alleles. You might find a specimen from one group that has the morphology more frequent in the other one. These would still be identifiable as distinct populations of corn.

[Lamoni]

The rest of your post was fine, the inclusion of this goes straight into flaming/flamebaiting. You can make your arguments without insulting insinuations about your opponents' intelligence. I recommend you review the site rules at your earliest convenience.

You just didn't understand the meme format. Here's another example of it.

This template is not always about the intelligence of the subject, it is always about incoherence between question and response. It is the Kafka-esque situation of two people posting copypasta at each other and the synthetic impression that they are sort of communicating, when they are just both emitting messages in the same space.

Anyway, I think Picairn has above average intelligence, that he isn't using it effectively for anything, and that he has an immature personality which overrides it into futile ends. An actual baby would be incantevole, pleasant and full of limitless potential.

Haven't I told you that phenotypes thought to be "inherent" within a race are present in other races? And that only 7.4% of over 4,000 alleles are unique to one region, in 1% of that region's population?

You're looking for the frequency of expression itself, not simply any above-zero frequency.

Meanwhile, all living humans belong to the same species: Homo Sapiens. Dumbest comparison ever.

You use this same method for plants belonging to the same described species group. You would do this, for example, for different breeds of corn. If you have two populations of corn, and one is almost always blue, and the other is almost always yellow, you can say that they are morphologically distinct populations because of the difference in the frequency of expression of the genes controlling for this property, even though both genes for both properties have above-zero frequencies in both populations, and so do not represent regionally distinct alleles. You might find a specimen from one group that has the morphology more frequent in the other one. These would still be identifiable as distinct populations of corn.

Kaczynskisatva:

The "meme format" does not make one whit of difference as to whether you get warned or not. Cease and desist, unless you wish to be met with the wrath of Mod. Further continuing this discussion can be viewed as threadjacking.

- Lamoni
NS Game Moderator

[Picairn]

You're looking for the frequency of expression itself, not simply any above-zero frequency.

Looking for frequency of expression itself would lead to the result that the current racial classifications would be destroyed, and sprout numerous new ones in different ways.

You use this same method for plants belonging to the same described species group. You would do this, for example, for different breeds of corn. If you have two populations of corn, and one is almost always blue, and the other is almost always yellow, you can say that they are morphologically distinct populations because of the difference in the frequency of expression of the genes controlling for this property, even though both genes for both properties have above-zero frequencies in both populations, and so do not represent regionally distinct alleles. You might find a specimen from one group that has the morphology more frequent in the other one. These would still be identifiable as distinct populations of corn.

Going for frequency of expression of the genes of skin color means that the Kalash, Uyghurs, and certain indigenous Siberian tribes would have been classified as white, in the same category as Europeans, which undermines rather than supports the current racial classifications. If you include the "light eyes" criteria (blue and green) to be "fully white" then the peoples of Southern Europe would be screwed, because the frequency of expression of light eyes is concentrated at the low levels in Southern Europe.

Not to mention that humans can't be compared to plants or dog breeds, since human genetic variability within groups are greater than amongst them as a consequence of constant mixing among neighboring populations throughout history (thus why an average individual can have membership in many different geographical groups), in contrast to domesticated plants and animals which spent centuries or millennia selectively bred by humans to serve specific functions.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Going for frequency of expression of the genes of skin color means that the Kalash, Uyghurs, and certain indigenous Siberian tribes would have been classified as white, in the same category as Europeans, which undermines rather than supports the current racial classifications. If you include the "light eyes" criteria (blue and green) to be "fully white" then the peoples of Southern Europe would be screwed, because the frequency of expression of light eyes is concentrated at the low levels in Southern Europe.

This is a conversation which you are not having with anyone but yourself. You can define any two groups you want to study comparatively, in any way that you want. You could compare people who live on the first floors of apartment buildings, to people who live on the top floors, in the metropolitan same area. You might even find something.

Not to mention that humans can't be compared to plants or dog breeds, since human genetic variability within groups are greater than amongst them as a consequence of constant mixing among neighboring populations throughout history (thus why an average individual can have membership in many different geographical groups), in contrast to domesticated plants and animals which spent centuries or millennia selectively bred by humans to serve specific functions.

You know, I could object to the baseless assertion that humans are not a domesticated species which spent centuries or millennia being selectively bred by humans to serve specific functions. It is actually the case that this description applies to them, and probably more than to any other form of life, since they are the first domesticated species. That is what Nationstates is - a farm simulator.

But, you have some trouble staying on subject even without clearing tangential paths for you to wander down, so let me just say that this fact doesn't matter, either way.

You can compare non-domesticated populations of life forms classified as the same species, and still find morphological differences. A good example of this being done is probably with cannabis, since there are so many natural varieties of it, and their precise biochemistry is of more interest to people than the precise biochemistry of other plants which have, for us, the goal of producing fairly basic and interchangeable biochemicals, like carbohydrates. This is well-studied.

So, you can compare any arbitrarily defined human population groups, for any attribute, and then study the genetics of that attribute.

That is all the information you need.

You should really be asking yourself why you have such a well-learned method of reasoning about this "what's in the box" problem, when you can just open the box and look inside, whenever you want to. This failure in general problem-solving method is more of a problem, for you, than the problem you are trying to solve.

[Prythian2]

I agree with you when you say that the problem with society is that no one is willing to listen with one another and even if they do listen are they really listening? Do they even understand what you're trying to say or the point of your argument. I think that if people actually listened for once maybe society wouldn't be as bad as it is, especially with the Covid vaccines in the USA. A lot of the US citizens won't get a vaccine because they think the government is controlling them. They aren't, they are just trying to keep people safe, but if these people would actually listen, then maybe our world could go back to somewhat normalcy. They won't because they are too dumb to understand. I do agree with you that most people speak in ignorance.

[Salvatiotan]

Although you aren’t really wrong being a European doesn’t mean you’re white, that not how it works.

[Kaczynskisatva]

human genetic variability within groups are greater than amongst them

I was originally going to think over how to provide a vegetable example of why this isn't a very meaningful statement, but at my present blood alcohol levels, I have decided to instead just use what comes to mind, and sleep on something else.

So, imagine that you have Nigerians, and Danes, and you have identified averages of skin pigmentation for each group, and measured the distance between the averages of each group.

Now, imagine that you have an albino Nigerian. Fully albino, the genetically pure kind with vision problems.

This guy would be whiter than the average Dane.

So, on the scale of pigmentation you would have: The Nigerian average, the Danish average, and then this one Nigerian albino - all arranged in linear order.

You could then say - "Skin pigmentation variability within Nigerians is greater than between Nigerians and Danes."

This would be a 100% true statement. You would get a gold sticker, for the making of a true statement.

The problem here, is it doesn't really matter much whether or not you can find one (1) outlier in a population whose distance from his population mean is greater than the distance between that population mean, and another population's mean - unless you are that one guy, trying to live your life as an albino in Nigeria. Even though that guy exists, I can still make more educated guesses about the skin pigmentation of someone, if you tell me that they are Danish or Nigerian, than I can make an educated guess about the skin pigmentation for someone with no additional information. So, if my job is to predict this morphological feature in a randomly selected person, knowing their ethnic background is going to give me enough information to make a highly probable guess, instead of a random one. This is useful information for predicting that phenotype with a high degree of certainty.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I agree with you when you say that the problem with society is that no one is willing to listen with one another and even if they do listen are they really listening? Do they even understand what you're trying to say or the point of your argument. I think that if people actually listened for once maybe society wouldn't be as bad as it is, especially with the Covid vaccines in the USA. A lot of the US citizens won't get a vaccine because they think the government is controlling them. They aren't, they are just trying to keep people safe, but if these people would actually listen, then maybe our world could go back to somewhat normalcy. They won't because they are too dumb to understand. I do agree with you that most people speak in ignorance.

People need to stop forming their identities based around the conclusions they have drawn, and start forming them around the methods they use to draw those conclusions.

Looking over my time on Nationstates, 90% of my posts have been about method, the other 5% have been about direct observation of the country I live in, providing information that other people do not have, and the last 5% about other posters directly, or humor.

If everyone is using the same method, and has the same information, they should arrive at the same conclusions. Since people posting on NSG, and people in general have come to different conclusions about politics, they are clearly not using the same general non-random methods, or they don't have access to the same information.

I don't really have any political solutions to offer anyone, if they can't even define what the problem is.

Although you aren’t really wrong being a European doesn’t mean you’re white, that not how it works.

Credit to OP for talking about "Native Europeans" instead of "white people" since the former grouping is geographically derived and so does not lead to any confusion about who does and does not belong to it.

[Picairn]

This is a conversation which you are not having with anyone but yourself. You can define any two groups you want to study comparatively, in any way that you want. You could compare people who live on the first floors of apartment buildings, to people who live on the top floors, in the metropolitan same area. You might even find something.

What an incoherent non-answer. Your "method" has been demonstrated to produce greatly varied results depending on the criterias you want to classify. That is the end result of trying to classify groups of people based on frequency of expression of alleles.

You know, I could object to the baseless assertion that humans are not a domesticated species which spent centuries or millennia being selectively bred by humans to serve specific functions. It is actually the case that this description applies to them, and probably more than to any other form of life, since they are the first domesticated species. That is what Nationstates is - a farm simulator.

LOL this is one of the hottest takes I've ever seen. Humans are not being forced to produce pure bred babies by aliens, in fact there is no pure-blooded individual at all. Human groups throughout history have regularly mixed with each other, hence why an average person can have membership in many different geographical regions. They are not reproducing specific babies under strict, arbitrary requirements like when they imposed on dog breeds.

But, you have some trouble staying on subject even without clearing tangential paths for you to wander down, so let me just say that this fact doesn't matter, either way.

Very nice of you to say you're ignoring my arguments.

You can compare non-domesticated populations of life forms classified as the same species, and still find morphological differences. A good example of this being done is probably with cannabis, since there are so many natural varieties of it, and their precise biochemistry is of more interest to people than the precise biochemistry of other plants which have, for us, the goal of producing fairly basic and interchangeable biochemicals, like carbohydrates. This is well-studied.

Except that cannabis is a domesticated plant and has been artificially selected by humans for thousands of years. While the two main plants of the Cannabis species (hemp and marijuana) largely share a common pool of genetic variation, these two plants have clear genetic differences reflected in their genetic structure under a Principal Components Analysis (PCA), as a result of selective breeding.

So, you can compare any arbitrarily defined human population groups, for any attribute, and then study the genetics of that attribute.

That is all the information you need.

Which means that the Kalash, Uyghurs and certain indigenous Siberian tribes would be in the same racial category as Europeans.

You should really be asking yourself why you have such a well-learned method of reasoning about this "what's in the box" problem, when you can just open the box and look inside, whenever you want to. This failure in general problem-solving method is more of a problem, for you, than the problem you are trying to solve.

I already looked in the box, you just refuse to touch it altogether.

I was originally going to think over how to provide a vegetable example of why this isn't a very meaningful statement, but at my present blood alcohol levels, I have decided to instead just use what comes to mind, and sleep on something else.

So, imagine that you have Nigerians, and Danes, and you have identified averages of skin pigmentation for each group, and measured the distance between the averages of each group.

Now, imagine that you have an albino Nigerian. Fully albino, the genetically pure kind with vision problems.

This guy would be whiter than the average Dane.

So, on the scale of pigmentation you would have: The Nigerian average, the Danish average, and then this one Nigerian albino - all arranged in linear order.

You could then say - "Skin pigmentation variability within Nigerians is greater than between Nigerians and Danes."

This would be a 100% true statement. You would get a gold sticker, for the making of a true statement.

The problem here, is it doesn't really matter much whether or not you can find one (1) outlier in a population whose distance from his population mean is greater than the distance between that population mean, and another population's mean - unless you are that one guy, trying to live your life as an albino in Nigeria. Even though that guy exists, I can still make more educated guesses about the skin pigmentation of someone, if you tell me that they are Danish or Nigerian, than I can make an educated guess about the skin pigmentation for someone with no additional information. So, if my job is to predict this morphological feature in a randomly selected person, knowing their ethnic background is going to give me enough information to make a highly probable guess, instead of a random one. This is useful information for predicting that phenotype with a high degree of certainty.

We are talking about genetic variability, not just skin pigmentation variability. The purpose of that statement is to demonstrate that humans have no clear cut genetic differences between races, thus there is no biological basis for static categorizations of humans into groups.

Genetic variability of humans within groups are so greater than among them, that two Europeans may share more genetic variations with an Asian than with each other.

Case study of genetic variation between three scientists. Left: Schematization of the genetic variation between Drs. James Watson, Craig Venter, and Kim Seong-jin. Colored bars represent genes; different colors represent different alleles, i.e. versions of genes. Some alleles are shared by all three of the men (represented by the dark brown allele that is shared by every person in this image). Besides the universal dark brown allele, Watson and Venter share one other allele (bright blue). However, both share two alleles with Kim (Watson shares red and orange with Kim, Venter shares green and magenta), in addition to the universal allele. Right: There is more similarity between the Kim and Watson and Kim and Venter, than there is between Watson and Venter.

And since you're classifying people based on skin pigmentation, wouldn't that make the Kalash, Uyghurs, and indigenous Siberian tribes be grouped in the same racial category as Europeans?

[Indomitable Friendship]

Hello everyone, please excuse my absence. My personal life has demanded my full attention since I made this thread, but I will get to replies, soon. Thanks.

[Vikanias]

Hello everyone, please excuse my absence. My personal life has demanded my full attention since I made this thread, but I will get to replies, soon. Thanks.

I don’t like the whole race thing but I have to give credit where it’s due and say at least your not a dick about it.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Reminder that you aren't even european

Reminder that "European" has a racial as well as cultural connotation. Sure, I'm not culturally European, but racially I am. Again, this isn't a point of pride, just a simple truth. If I took a DNA test, it's not going to say "94.8 Martian". It would give a list of various Euro groups.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Whites are a global minority and even in Euro derived countries, we are a minority in some metrics like youths (under 18). The majority of births in the US are by other groups. That's not supremacism; that's just raw data you can verify yourself. This trend will only continue. I don't think we need a "big" ethnostate, just something like Singapore size. This could be done by buying land from a country that's willing to sell. After that, space colonization.

Not sure how your going to fit 1 billion people in a country the size of Singapore, but sure. Also that's still an ethnostate

Where do you get 1 billion from? I only mean for ethnocentric Euro people and that's probably only in the low millions out of the entire global population of Euros. What I'm proposing is a multicultural/multiethnic Euro ethnostate. That won't appeal to most people, which is fine. A Singapore sized state would be fine to start with.

[Indomitable Friendship]

You say race isn't real, but this is false. Genetics are clearly able to be differentiated and are different as a result of selective processes and mutations that come to cluster together. Culture is a result of genetics and environment, not he other way around. Cultures don't create races; races create cultures. They are collective expressions of genetics. That is why we literally look and behave differently. You are also extremely wrong about racism towards non-Whites. Asians, Indians and Arabs are far more "racist" than Euros and this is all from personal experience and examining cultures. For the *Euro" race stuff, I say that because Euros cluster genetically with each other, as they do culturally. It's the same thing as how a dark Malaysian and a pale Korean are both Asian. Europeans and European countries have the highest interracial immigration rates in the world, so that also deflates your assumption about high levels of White racism. The majority of what you call "White Supremacism" is fake. Not wanting to be replaced is about survival, not "supremacism". I never said or implied the "real" racism is against White people, you are just making an assumption. To say we are all different equally is the epitome of an oxymoron. We all have different strengths and weaknesses and the problem is that people can't accept them. That's why I say I accept people for who they are and that applies to all peoples of this Earth. Race denial is just dehumanizing solipsism.

First off.
You say “We all have different strengths and weaknesses”
That is what I mean by we are all different, equally.
We are all different.
This person might be black, like classical music, like spicy food, likes legos.
This person might be white, like heavy metal rock, like Italian food, plays video games.
You are as different from a White person as you are from a black person.
We are all human and we have many “variables” that we all have in common.
We all have a taste in music, a skin color, a favorite type of food, a favorite activity.

There are many, many ways people are alike and not alike.
Skin color, is just one out out of a-million.
It is one of the more visible ones however, and because of that, we created cultural segregation, and now we have (kinda) different cultures split by race.
(Race is also somewhat based on the geography of heritage, and geography/heritage also happen to have similar cultures, by cause of being historically near each other, but race does not create culture.

Just look at how fluidly culture has changed in one “race” over time.
That proves that there is no such thing as a culture tied to a race.
Are you saying that culture is somehow blocked by the border of skin color ?
That doesn’t make any sense.

Culture is separate from race.
You take people from all sorts of races, born and raised on an alien planet by robots, they will have the same culture. They will not be predispositioned to a certain culture or a way of life.
Race does not = culture.

Also when you talk about survival.
You are not talking about your survival or your children’s survival. You are talking about the continuity of your skin color.
No skin color is at risk of being lost. There are 8 billion people on this world, there is no “endangered species” even from your perspective.
And at the end of the day. Who cares if in 500 years from now, people don’t like rock or play with legos anymore ?
And when you say race, if you don’t mean skin color, but mean culture.
Culture is always changing.
Your “way of life” is not in danger, But wanting control over the way of life (as related to culture) of people 500 years from now is silly. (Heritage is different. For instance, I am an American, My heritage is from Greece. I wave an American flag, not a Greek one. I live the American way of life (what ever that is). But my heritage is Greek. I remember. That’s what heritage is. And nobody is asking you to abandon your heritage. Nobody is asking you to forget, and no change in skin color or culture will make people in the future forget your way of life now).
There is nothing to survive.
You have nothing to loose.


We are all equally different.
Culture does not = race.
You have nothing to loose.

You say race does not create culture, but where is the proof? Light skin is an adaptation to absorb more sunlight, which means the evolutionary environment that produced it has different selective processes that literally shape groups at the genetic level. Did you know Tibetans and Himalayans have lungs better suited for low oxygen? Such physical differences also create mental differences, like cold winters selecting for forward planning in humans. Until you can prove culture happens arbitrarily and in a vacuum, you will not understand that skin color is the most minor factor in this discussion.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I'm not sure if the whole "Pan-Euro" thing works, when you consider how different groups of whites have historically clashed with each other, and some people still hold ethnic, nationalistic, or regionalistic prejudices. Does a white person whose grandparents survived Auschwitz really have more in common with a right-wing German than they do with the Chinese guy running the local dim sum shop?

It's great for white people to celebrate their heritage in a healthy non-hateful way, but we don't all have the same heritage, and we aren't all going to be on the same page.

There are a lot of European cultures that click for me, but then I run into rednecks spouting Confederate-apologist stuff and I just think, "Oh, hell no! I'm not hopping on the racial solidarity wagon with this shit!""

Again, this is about personal choice. I don't believe in trying to "convert" anyone. All I wish is for those who have a desire for healthy solidarity to be able to express themselves without being targeted. As far as existing prejudice between the Euro groups, it is what it is. Those who don't want progress can stay in their backwards ways. I and many others are starting to take a more rational perspective that is far more inclusive and desirable. Unfortunately, there are many who are hateful and counter-productive, but I believe the best way to counter that is by setting a better example moving forward.

[Bhikkustan]

Euros just coping, white "culture" is nonexistent and imported from the steppes (Slavic culture) or from north africa and turkey (mediterraneans)

[Indomitable Friendship]

Hi, an European here.

Have you ever been to Europe? Because last I checked, having an "Euro identity" was nothing to be ashamed off. Also I can probably say this that most of us aren't that fond of having an European ethnostate.

No, and again, I am not saying I am culturally European, just ethnically. I don't think Euro identity (racial) is anything to be ashamed of, either, but it's undeniably villified. If you don't want an ethnostate, that's fine. What matters is that the those of us that do are allowed that independent sovereignty.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Literally name a more socially stigmatized "ideology".

In what way is it "stigmatized"? That is the question I am asking.

Good example: The "It's OK to be White meme". Even such an innocent statement was met with hatred and accusations of "supremacy". Walmart and Coca Cola even have training programs that teach employees that White identity and support of it is wrong. These are only 2 examples in a sea of Europhobia.

[Bhikkustan]

Hi, an European here.

Have you ever been to Europe? Because last I checked, having an "Euro identity" was nothing to be ashamed off. Also I can probably say this that most of us aren't that fond of having an European ethnostate.

No, and again, I am not saying I am culturally European, just ethnically. I don't think Euro identity (racial) is anything to be ashamed of, either, but it's undeniably villified. If you don't want an ethnostate, that's fine. What matters is that the those of us that do are allowed that independent sovereignty.

Where is it actually villified tho? The liberal uni campus of conservative imagination?

In what way is it "stigmatized"? That is the question I am asking.

Good example: The "It's OK to be White meme". Even such an innocent statement was met with hatred and accusations of "supremacy". Walmart and Coca Cola even have training programs that teach employees that White identity and support of it is wrong. These are only 2 examples in a sea of Europhobia.

No-one believes that its not ok to be white. However, expressing pride in being white 9 times out of ten comes with unacceptable attitudes towards minority groups and just because "its ok to be white" is in itself a harmless statement doesn't change that those pushing it were seasoned provocateurs with extreme beliefs.

[Indomitable Friendship]

You say race isn't real, but this is false. Genetics are clearly able to be differentiated and are different as a result of selective processes and mutations that come to cluster together. Culture is a result of genetics and environment, not he other way around. Cultures don't create races; races create cultures. They are collective expressions of genetics. That is why we literally look and behave differently.

I once lived in a city that had roughly 2 million Chinese, and 200 other people. Most of the non-Chinese were white, but some were Brazilian or African.

There were a few bars where white people would gather and hang out. A couple of these bars were also popular with the city's small African community. We'd start the night with a white people table and an African table, but people would sometimes drift between the two groups. There were also a few locals who would hang out with us because they were somebody's girlfriend, or they just thought it was cool to hang out with white people and chat in English. But you could still tell which table was the "white people table." People were not just mixing at random.

In this social environment, there was a Chinese American guy. He was born and raised in Iowa, spoke English as his first language, but he was genetically pure-blooded Chinese. Do you think he sat at the white people table, the African table, or blended in with the locals in the rest of the bar?

I don't care. Everyone is in individual and I am not implying they all follow some absolute rule of natural association.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Hi, an European here.

Have you ever been to Europe? Because last I checked, having an "Euro identity" was nothing to be ashamed off. Also I can probably say this that most of us aren't that fond of having an European ethnostate.

It's almost like a continent that is home to many states - most if not all of which have well defined native ethnicities - that at many times in history were in fact in violent competition with each other does not, necessarily, have a unified ethnic identity.

Americans who create some "European Identity" in an attempt to create a unified meaningful 'white nation' really have no idea, in my experience, what they are talking about.

I dare OP to go tell a Serb he and a Bosnian are part of the 'same identity.' He isn't going to take as kindly to it as OP clearly thinks.

I didn't say a Serb and a Bosnian are the same. Coincidentally, I've talked to both a Serb and a Bosnian who think Pan-Euro identity is a good way to avoid intra-Euro hostility. You keep presupposing everyone is stuck in the past. They're not. When the Old World starts to heavily resemble the New World, except in religion, you will see more and more take this view.

[Ifreann]

In what way is it "stigmatized"? That is the question I am asking.

Good example: The "It's OK to be White meme". Even such an innocent statement was met with hatred and accusations of "supremacy"...

Because no one is fooled when white supremacists put on their innocent face.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Euro Identity is easily the most stigmatized and hated concept on the face of this Earth in an ideological sense

No it's not. It's absolutely not. In fact, in the EU, identifying as European is a very good thing because it suggests that you're supporting international cooperation.

White supremacy and white nationalism, however, are stigmatized. Though they're not nearly as stigmatized as they should be.

And that's why this isn't "White nationalism". My view and many others is that just as a Thai and Mongol are both racially Asian, so is the dark skinned Greek and the fair Scandinavian. Your definition of "European" is just cultural. Euro identity is a racial one. You are just being hypocritical saying it should be more stigmatized. You think you are against hatred, but in reality, you embody.....based on skin color.

[Indomitable Friendship]

Jesse

Euro identity isn’t a thing. You can be from the continent of Europe but it’s neither a cultural or ethnic background.

So weird.

This is absolutely dehumanizing on so many levels. How to even respond to such callous erasure?

[Indomitable Friendship]

This is all because we refused to just accept without evidence that what happened in Waukesha was some sort of anti-white terrorist attack isn't it?

No, why do you have that impression?