Attitudes about white genocide

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For sufficiently small values of "more".

 

[laughing dog]

For sufficiently small values of "more".

As your posts consistently prove, context-free and butthurt-driven "analysis" is unconvincing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For sufficiently negative values of "prove".

 

[funinspace]

I'm confused, as the 'statement' above: "Poll: What do you think of the above statement?", is "Forum > World Issues & PoliticsPolitical > Discussions > Attitudes about white genocide".

That is pretty generic and hardly extreme...

 

[Underseer]

OK, so some people seem to think I'm the extremist because I think that complaints about white genocide are automatically extremist.

Since I am far from perfect, I grant that this is possible. Please give me one example of a complaint about white genocide that is not extremist.

I'll be honest, I doubt that such a thing is possible, but I'm willing to entertain suggestions.

So let's hear it.

Please give me an example (even a hypothetical example) of a complaint about white genocide that isn't an example of an extremist sentiment. C'mon, 18% of you think I'm wrong to suggest that complaints about white genocide are automatically extremist, so prove me wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm confused, as the 'statement' above: "Poll: What do you think of the above statement?", is "Forum > World Issues & PoliticsPolitical > Discussions > Attitudes about white genocide".

That is pretty generic and hardly extreme...

Sorry, I was confused about what would go where. You will find the statement in the original post.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ok, fine.

Give us a single example of a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist.

I.e., you are continuing to misrepresent the content of my posts after being corrected. You are persistently making deliberately false accusations against me. You are a dishonest person. What I wrote is available upthread for anyone to read, so if anyone reading this believes your slander against me, he's an idiot. But then, you must be used to that -- most of what you write would only be persuasive to an idiot. So enjoy preaching to whichever idiots you're trying to appeal to.

If you cannot think of a single example of a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist, then on what basis do you object to what I am saying?

I already told you on what basis I object. You wrote an extremist statement. You personally composed your very own extremist claim, and then you dishonestly tried to pass it off as someone else's statement. Shame on you.

You have obviously decided on option 4: you know that you cannot possibly think of a complaint about white genocide, so you're desperately hoping that you can just change the subject or something rather than prove the point you were trying to make.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Your statement presupposes that I was trying to make the point you keep dishonestly putting in my mouth long after you were corrected.

I already proved the point I was trying to make: that you are an extremist who uses straw-man arguments to try to win rhetorical victories you haven't earned. It's cheating at debate. You are a cheater.

One example. You only need one example of a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist, and you prove that I'm definitely wrong.

First you need to give an example of me implying such complaints exist. Quote me.

Since that will never happen, and you are exposed for all to see as the cheating straw-man purveyor you are, go crawl back under your rock.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20,

All you need is one example of a complaint about white genocide that is non-extremist and you prove that I'm the real extremist here.

One of four things will happen:

1. I agree with you that there exists a complaint about white genocide that is not an example of extremism.<rest of drivel snipped>

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

The statement is not my statement.

Of course it's your statement. You're the one who said it. If you were quoting someone else you'd have actually quoted him or her, instead of just putting quotation marks around your own words in order to insinuate that you got them from somebody else.

Given the context of the OP, it is clear it is not his statement. Anyone who thinks he believes that statement is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

 

[Underseer]

I.e., you are continuing to misrepresent the content of my posts after being corrected. You are persistently making deliberately false accusations against me. You are a dishonest person. What I wrote is available upthread for anyone to read, so if anyone reading this believes your slander against me, he's an idiot. But then, you must be used to that -- most of what you write would only be persuasive to an idiot. So enjoy preaching to whichever idiots you're trying to appeal to.


I already told you on what basis I object. You wrote an extremist statement. You personally composed your very own extremist claim, and then you dishonestly tried to pass it off as someone else's statement. Shame on you.

You have obviously decided on option 4: you know that you cannot possibly think of a complaint about white genocide, so you're desperately hoping that you can just change the subject or something rather than prove the point you were trying to make.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Your statement presupposes that I was trying to make the point you keep dishonestly putting in my mouth long after you were corrected.

I already proved the point I was trying to make: that you are an extremist who uses straw-man arguments to try to win rhetorical victories you haven't earned. It's cheating at debate. You are a cheater.

One example. You only need one example of a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist, and you prove that I'm definitely wrong.

First you need to give an example of me implying such complaints exist. Quote me.

Since that will never happen, and you are exposed for all to see as the cheating straw-man purveyor you are, go crawl back under your rock.

Are you or aren't you saying that I am an extremist?

If so, then prove that I am an extremist by giving us an example of a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist.

If you think that I am the one who thinks complaints about white genocide are not extremist, then you have pretty bad reading comprehension.

Yes, I made the attempt to present the original poll question in a fairly neutral manner, but I also made it clear that I was posting it because another forum member posted a video positing that it was unreasonable for other people to find statements about white genocide examples of extremism, and I wanted to see how many posters around here agree with him.

If you think that I am the one who thinks complaints about white genocide are non-extremist, then you must have missed most of my other posts. Most of the time, conservatives get angry at me for being overly strident in my criticism of white supremacists alt-right free speech warriors.

 

[Underseer]

Part of the reason the alt-right free speech warriors around here are constantly triggered around me is that I often make sarcastic jokes based on the assumption that all complaints about white genocide are extremist. That's probably why a certain somebody posted a video complaining about the association of white genocide complaints with extremism.

The video in question suggested that the reason people associate complaints about white genocide with extremism is that people like me are dumb sheep who can't think for ourselves, and if only we listened to their carefully reasoned arguments, we would agree that white people are currently experiencing persecution that is equivalent to what the Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Underseer,

Why are you playing weird games? Why don't you just post the video you refer to so we can look at it for ourselves?

And why do you keep harping on and on about people complaining about white genocide? And calling that extremist?

It's rather stupid to think white genocide is happening, unless one defines "genocide" as mixed couples and so the decrease of "white" race/genes over time. An odd thing to care about. But extremist? Whats extremist about it? Having such a concern isn't by default violent or hateful.

As I said in my first response to this thread, it's only "extreme" in the sense that it is dumb and to equate it with the Holocaust would be especially dumb.

 

[Bomb#20]

The statement is not my statement.

Of course it's your statement. You're the one who said it. If you were quoting someone else you'd have actually quoted him or her, instead of just putting quotation marks around your own words in order to insinuate that you got them from somebody else.

Given the context of the OP, it is clear it is not his statement. Anyone who thinks he believes that statement is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

Of course he doesn't believe it; but so what? Who the heck ever suggested he believes it? Whether he believes it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether it's his statement. Anybody who seriously thinks Underseer didn't write that statement himself is hopelessly naive. People compose statements they don't believe all the time, for any number of reasons. In Underseer's case, he obviously did it because he was setting up a strawman.

 

[Bomb#20]

Statement: "White people in America are currently subjected to something that is unfair. The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."

Well of course you're an extremist. But then we already knew that. Why are you pointing it out?

This seems like an ad hom with no post value. Please explain if that is not the case.

Certainly. This isn't just about Underseer acting like a jerk and using a strawman argument. Whoop-de-do -- that just tells us hell hasn't frozen over yet. The problem is that posters here appear to be taking his framing seriously, as if he were actually making a substantive contribution to social analysis, by studying a statement he'd actually gotten from some real alt-right extremist. That ignores seventy years of context. Here's some context:

Way back in the fifties W. E. B. Du Bois accused the U.S. of genocide against blacks. A few years later Malcolm X adopted the same slogan.

Then Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell accused the U.S. of genocide against the Vietnamese.

Then the Black Power Conference and the Black Panthers started claiming birth control pills were "black genocide".

Then Jesse Jackson claimed legal abortion was black genocide.

All through this period, the Soviet Union was accusing Israel of genocide against the Palestinians.

So where does all this language deflation lead? One might imagine the final inevitable destination is the Canadian government in 2015 accusing itself of "cultural genocide" for sending Indian children to Christian schools.

But no, we're still only part way there. Where it actually leads is to Jesse Eisenberg, who said being screamed at by thousands of fans is like "probably some kind of genocide", and "Maybe on some cellular memory level, that's the only thing that seems like an equivalent social experience." As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

The context Underseer swept under the rug is that left-wingers have spent seventy years cheapening and trivializing the accusation of genocide. Then when right-wingers inevitably respond in kind, and use the word as ridiculously as their mirror images do, we're all supposed to take a left-winger's word for it that what the right-wingers mean by "genocide" is "The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."?!? Oh, for the love of god!

 

[laughing dog]

Given the context of the OP, it is clear it is not his statement. Anyone who thinks he believes that statement is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

Of course he doesn't believe it; but so what? Who the heck ever suggested he believes it? Whether he believes it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether it's his statement. Anybody who seriously thinks Underseer didn't write that statement himself is hopelessly naive. People compose statements they don't believe all the time, for any number of reasons. In Underseer's case, he obviously did it because he was setting up a strawman.

A pedantic explanation that misses the point - he was not setting up a straw man.

 

[Underseer]

Underseer,

Why are you playing weird games? Why don't you just post the video you refer to so we can look at it for ourselves?

And why do you keep harping on and on about people complaining about white genocide? And calling that extremist?

It's rather stupid to think white genocide is happening, unless one defines "genocide" as mixed couples and so the decrease of "white" race/genes over time. An odd thing to care about. But extremist? Whats extremist about it? Having such a concern isn't by default violent or hateful.

As I said in my first response to this thread, it's only "extreme" in the sense that it is dumb and to equate it with the Holocaust would be especially dumb.

Well, then great.

Give us an example of a complaint about white genocide, even a hypothetical example, that demonstrates that I'm the real extremist. All we need is one complaint about white genocide that is not extremist, and I am exposed as the real extremist here.

I frequently use "white genocide" as a joke because I don't think it is possible to make a complaint about white genocide that isn't extremist. I had no idea I was hurting the feelings of so many by making jokes based on the assumption that complaints about white genocide are automatic signs of extremism. Were your feelings hurt by all those jokes?

Anyway, I didn't post a link to the video because I don't want to call out a specific poster because I've gotten in trouble for that in the past.

Do you need evidence that some white supremacists complain about white genocide? Do you doubt that anyone is making such complaints? I can provide you with evidence of that if you really think you need it.

I'd like to say that I'm surprised that so many are sensitive about this.

- - - Updated - - -

Given the context of the OP, it is clear it is not his statement. Anyone who thinks he believes that statement is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

Of course he doesn't believe it; but so what? Who the heck ever suggested he believes it? Whether he believes it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether it's his statement. Anybody who seriously thinks Underseer didn't write that statement himself is hopelessly naive. People compose statements they don't believe all the time, for any number of reasons. In Underseer's case, he obviously did it because he was setting up a strawman.

OK, so you understand that I don't think white people are suffering from white genocide.

Thanks for giving me that much credit.

Now why don't you explain in more simple terms exactly what about this discussion makes me "the real extremist"?

Because you're being kind of vague about things. I can't help protect your feewings and avoid offending you if you won't explain what triggered you in the first place.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anyway, I didn't post a link to the video because I don't want to call out a specific poster because I've gotten in trouble for that in the past.

You can post the video without calling out the person. That's nothing more than an excuse.

OK, so you understand that I don't think white people are suffering from white genocide.

Walk it back, walk it back.

You are happy others think you don't think that, but haven't come out and said that you don't think that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Give us an example of a complaint about white genocide, even a hypothetical example, that demonstrates that I'm the real extremist. All we need is one complaint about white genocide that is not extremist, and I am exposed as the real extremist here.

I just did in the post you quoted. Some odd (and by no means are they all white people) have an odd connection to their "race". We had a thread in this forum a while back about identity politics in which somebody was pushing the idea that "race pride" is a good thing (I disagreed). They don't have to feel it superior or act in anyway on hatred or violence against any other "race" to care about it. Some of them see the mixing of genes (bi-racial couples making bi-racial kids) as diluting their race, meaning subsequent generations have fewer and fewer of their race. I personally think it a good way to end racism: a series of inter-racial coupling to the point that race stops being a thing. Some of them call this "genocide". Its a rather stupid thing to say, but it isn't "extremist" in the sense of being hateful or violent.

Now, why would this demonstrate that you yourself are an extremist? That also makes no sense.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a Neo-Nazi, white nationalist and supremacist conspiracy theory^[1] that mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation.^[2] The phrase "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", coined by high-profile white nationalist Robert Whitaker, is commonly associated with the topic of white genocide.^[3][4] It has appeared on billboards in the United States near Birmingham, Alabama^[5] and in Harrison, Arkansas.

----

Right wing extremists use this phrase, drooling and gibbering while they do so. Google white genocide claims for more. Google you tube,white genocide , and see what you find when you flip up this rock.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This seems like an ad hom with no post value. Please explain if that is not the case.

Certainly. This isn't just about Underseer acting like a jerk and using a strawman argument. Whoop-de-do -- that just tells us hell hasn't frozen over yet. The problem is that posters here appear to be taking his framing seriously, as if he were actually making a substantive contribution to social analysis, by studying a statement he'd actually gotten from some real alt-right extremist. That ignores seventy years of context. Here's some context:

Way back in the fifties W. E. B. Du Bois accused the U.S. of genocide against blacks. A few years later Malcolm X adopted the same slogan.

Then Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell accused the U.S. of genocide against the Vietnamese.

Then the Black Power Conference and the Black Panthers started claiming birth control pills were "black genocide".

Then Jesse Jackson claimed legal abortion was black genocide.

All through this period, the Soviet Union was accusing Israel of genocide against the Palestinians.

So where does all this language deflation lead? One might imagine the final inevitable destination is the Canadian government in 2015 accusing itself of "cultural genocide" for sending Indian children to Christian schools.

But no, we're still only part way there. Where it actually leads is to Jesse Eisenberg, who said being screamed at by thousands of fans is like "probably some kind of genocide", and "Maybe on some cellular memory level, that's the only thing that seems like an equivalent social experience." As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

The context Underseer swept under the rug is that left-wingers have spent seventy years cheapening and trivializing the accusation of genocide. Then when right-wingers inevitably respond in kind, and use the word as ridiculously as their mirror images do, we're all supposed to take a left-winger's word for it that what the right-wingers mean by "genocide" is "The extent of this unfairness is comparable to what Jews endured during the Nazi holocaust."?!? Oh, for the love of god!

Let's pretend that all those things you said people said are true. For a moment.

The whole idea of white genocide actually precedes all these ideas because it was originally formulated by the Nazis themselves in 1934. Since Nazis of today are copying Nazis of yesterday in so many ways, I find it hard to take this argument seriously. I find it doubly hard to take seriously since you also wrote:

Well of course you're an extremist. But then we already knew that. Why are you pointing it out?

I just don't see the point in such speech in your post, especially if you have to justify being so personal with another 5 paragraphs that bears little resemblance to the personal statements.

?

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course it's your statement. You're the one who said it. If you were quoting someone else you'd have actually quoted him or her, instead of just putting quotation marks around your own words in order to insinuate that you got them from somebody else.

Given the context of the OP, it is clear it is not his statement. Anyone who thinks he believes that statement is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

Of course he doesn't believe it; but so what? Who the heck ever suggested he believes it? Whether he believes it is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether it's his statement. Anybody who seriously thinks Underseer didn't write that statement himself is hopelessly naive. People compose statements they don't believe all the time, for any number of reasons. In Underseer's case, he obviously did it because he was setting up a strawman.

A pedantic explanation that misses the point - he was not setting up a straw man.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

As for the pedantic explanation, well excuuuuse me, but you make pedantry necessary by playing fast and loose with logic in your tedious ongoing attempt to score rhetorical points against me. You insinuated that I'm an idiot or intellectually dishonest, by accusing me of implying Underseer believed the OP statement, by fallaciously equating "he believes that statement" with "it is his statement". Don't do that. Stop making illogical insinuations against me and I'll stop being pedantic against you.