Attitudes about white genocide

[Trausti]

Wypipo. Amiright?

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think you are making much sense since (1) persons call it white genocide

Whoop de do. As I pointed out, the term "genocide" has been massively cheapened over the years, mostly through the efforts of Underseer's ideological allies. So for him to accuse his ideological enemies of using it in its original full-strength sense is a trumped-up charge; and his choice to make the accusation only against his enemies is hypocrisy.

This seems to be tu quoque or whataboutism. Therefore, my point stands.

As far as the hypocrisy goes, fair enough, so I'll say no more about that. But pointing out that Underseer trumped up a charge is not tu quoque or whataboutism.

Again, racists and Nazis were always talking about a white genocide even if not always using the term.

But Underseer was implying his enemies were claiming this was as unfair as white people being rounded up and gassed en masse; no evidence has been introduced that racists and Nazis were claiming this.

BUT there seems to be something else missing in your point, most notably that integration into a world system is not really genocide in the same sense that say the Vietnam war would have been had we stayed to accomplish the goal of ownership of the resources, people living there be damned.

Well, in the first place, I think I've been pretty bloody clear that integration into a world system is not really genocide -- that's why what's been done to the word is "cheapening" it. In the second place, even marching into a place to own the resources, people living there be damned, is not really genocide either, unless you try to exterminate them. And in the third place, it sounds like you're insinuating that we were in the Vietnam war for the goal of ownership of the resources; we weren't.

Don't you think if Underseer had actual examples of them claiming this, he'd have produced them?

It's hard for me to have any sympathy to even consider this a valid logical point. This is not an ad hominem, but we are talking about people who said they were in Charlottesville for "killing Jews" and they chanted "the Jews will not replace us," and they don't believe in the Holocaust or if they do, they still worship Adolf Hitler. Such persons know what "genocide" means because the Holocaust is part of their regular memes and state of (un)consciousness.

So what? You think H. Rap Brown didn't know what "genocide" meant when he called birth control black genocide? Knowing what a word means doesn't compel one to use it consistently. Political zealots are not, as a rule, logicians.

Meanwhile, all of the instances of the single word of "genocide" aren't there to such frequency in their rhetoric. If they have to keep saying over and over "there was no genocide against the Jews" out of one side of their mouths and then out of the other they call something white genocide, then the imbalance is their own and owned by them.

Certainly. See above about logicians. So what?

A self-contradiction logically implies everything; this does not mean it's okay to accuse some random person who contradicted himself of having claimed to have buried Jimmy Hoffa, even though that is actually logically implied by his self-contradictory remarks.

Let's not introduce a red herring whataboutism where none is needed.

Not a red herring and not whataboutism to observe that Underseer made up a quote and tried to pass it off as not his own.

and (2) the quote is really, really toning down the rhetoric while simultaneously removing pieces of the claims.

What's your point? Are you suggesting it's okay to trump up a charge against someone provided you're convinced he's guilty of a lot of different stuff you aren't accusing him of at the same time? Is this a "Whip your child every week. If you don't know what it's for, he does." attitude?

You seem to have 100% misinterpreted what I wrote. So, no, I'm not saying that?

Glad to hear it. So, if not that, then what is your point? Please explain why you are offering me "(2) the quote is really, really toning down the rhetoric while simultaneously removing pieces of the claims." as if it qualified as a reason I'm not making much sense.

Lastly, "...criticizing him..." seems to be problematic as opposed to his posts.

I'm criticizing him on ethical grounds. Do you feel "You wrote an unethical post." is substantively different from "Writing that post was unethical."?

I think there is a HUGE difference between saying a statement is racist and a person is racist, or a statement is extremist and a person is extremist,

Well, sure, provided it's forthrightly presented as a hypothetical statement nobody actually asserted, such as "East Asian genes cause one to worship Cthulhu." But all it means to call a statement "racist" is to claim that if anybody seriously asserts it then he's racist. It's not as though a statement itself can be prejudiced against people of other races or believe that a particular race is superior to another. Statements don't make judgments or have beliefs.

or a statement is false and a person is a liar.

Well, sure, but that's because "lie" and "false" aren't synonyms; it's not because there's a huge difference between saying a statement is a lie and saying a person is a liar.

So if some writes to Underseer that "Well of course you're an extremist" that is very different from "your post is extreme." I will add that part of your issue as stated in the thread was a cheapening of words and to call Underseer an extremist is cheapening the word since GENOCIDAL MANIACS are extremists. If we treat Underseer like he's an extremist, we are putting him on par with such persons, which is HIS COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE you are complaining about.

Huh? Lots of extremists are not genocidal maniacs. Lenin murdered two million Russians by causing a famine with his extremist economic policies, and that is not enough to make him a genocidal maniac. There are degrees of extremism; Lenin not being as extreme as Stalin is not enough to make him a moderate.

Also, a statement like this "He was trying to win a meme war by tricking his readers rather than by refuting the other side's arguments" is very different from not commenting on a poster's personal motivations negatively or by calling it a false statement that readers might be tricked by or whatever.

And the latter would have been better, why, exactly? Because I should have presumed the trickiness was inadvertent, because Underseer has such a dependable track record of not deliberately misrepresenting his outgroups?

Finally, what the heck is this: "Well, since I have reason neither to think watching the video is a good use of my time, nor to think you're a reliable witness to the positions of people you disagree with, I'm afraid I'll have to remain agnostic*" Your other posts seem to show a level of confidence that Underseer is misrepresenting something but in this other post, you are claiming agnosticism. Why are these posts different?

I'm agnostic about the video and the unidentified "at least one person in this forum" who posted it since I don't know what they said. I'm not agnostic about Underseer since I do know what he said. What's the problem?