Is white genocide in our future?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please read the part I bolded. That is essentially saying, "If a few whites have to die today because they were racist in the past, then so be it."

Please enlighten me as to the correct interpretation since I seem to be "missing it."

It totally does not say that. “Something needed to be done” does not require “civilians needed to be targeted to die.”
That is ridiculous and absurd.

What is wrong with you?

The answer was clearly given that the “something” should have been planning re-equalization of wealth to undo the vast damage done. How does that equal white people dying? Pathetic level of snowflake.

If the solution you prefer (which amounts to robbery on a massive scale) isn't implemented you're saying murder is an acceptable alternative. He's right on this one.

That'd be colonization.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I WILL say there are certain characters in a horror movie I DO look forward to the deaths of, usually the racist POS, or the idiot who just NEEDS to be in charge. Sadly, these characters almost always get more than a few characters killed through their shittiness.

Well, certain characters are written exactly so the audience will hate them.
The mayor who holds profits over safety, the corrupt sheriff, the pretentious slut, Cheney, Hitler, Bonespurs...

 

[Elixir]

Like how it is now politcally permissible to say its ok to cut Trumps head off or to shoot a deplorable.

Where's the beef? Like, it's NOT ok to say cut Trump's head off or shoot a deplorable? You really think this is some new phenomenon now that a white criminal jerk who deserves to be shot is in the whitehouse?
No, RVonse, it's nothing new. In fact Obama averaged around 30 death threats per day. Why weren't you concerned then?
If white people want to make Trump emblematic of their views and their desires, one would have to be insane not to expect some people to want to get rid of him (ad his supporters) by any means available.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pretty much.

I WILL say there are certain characters in a horror movie I DO look forward to the deaths of, usually the racist POS, or the idiot who just NEEDS to be in charge. Sadly, these characters almost always get more than a few characters killed through their shittiness.

Of course, part of the solution also involves defanging racist elements of both sides, and delegitimizing the fulfillment of revenge, and another part involves creating the change through gradual forces such as through educational funding, free higher education, removing public funding for private education (taxing it out of existence, if possible), and through "blinding the biased eye", making our systems blind to all "bad proxies". And through public education, be truthful about history and about the present.

In government, it involves taxing the ultra-wealthy and creating social programs for the disadvantaged and underserved whoever they may be, and in elimination gerrymanders which destroy the ability of communities to select appropriate local representation.

Through the end of policies that criminalize or marginalize being members of minority and poor communities (ending the drug war).

And finally, through programs and systems designed to discourage rent seeking and enable home ownership, so as to enable self-determination.

Agreed: end the drug war. Gerrymandering needs to be ended. No brainers. I like Harris, but not a super fan of increasing incentives for home ownership. A lot of people are going to lose value in their homes in the upcoming recession. People with mobile careers that need to move often probably should not buy. People who can't handle a short term drop in value probably shouldn't buy.

And nobody is saying that rental should be impossible. Temporary location is a good. For-profit rent-seeking is not. Food, Water, Electricity, Shelter, Medical, Education, Communication, these things do not belong in the For-Profit sphere, and ought be regulated heavily to ensure that they are provisioned as closely to the "utility" model as possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.



But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

Except Jarhyn wrote
"The actions taken now are bad, to be sure, though I think something did need to be done to reset the balance. " To most people, that means their behavior is really wrong.

It takes a whole lot of stupid or intellectual dishonesty to claim that the "something must be done" in that statement means mass murder or genocide.

When you say "It's wrong, but ...." you're not really saying it's wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.



But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

Except Jarhyn wrote
"The actions taken now are bad, to be sure, though I think something did need to be done to reset the balance. " To most people, that means their behavior is really wrong.

It takes a whole lot of stupid or intellectual dishonesty to claim that the "something must be done" in that statement means mass murder or genocide.

When you say "It's wrong, but ...." you're not really saying it's wrong.

If you are so blind to the interpretation that literally everyone here on the left seems to understand, it seems to me you are merely shutting your eyes and accusing me of blinding you.

Something needed to be done before things got to that point. It was not genocide that should have been done. But as a direct result of those things not being done, genocide was the predictable result. Do I view it as acceptable? No. In fact, I think there's a whole thread where I reject the very premises and axioms upon which a discussion of acceptability would be founded.

What happened is tragic. It is also the direct result of the intersection of human nature and the fall of an Apartheid through revolution.

Or to paraphrase in more popular terms: those who make peaceful equity impossible make a violent reversal inevitable.

 

[laughing dog]

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.



But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

Except Jarhyn wrote
"The actions taken now are bad, to be sure, though I think something did need to be done to reset the balance. " To most people, that means their behavior is really wrong.

It takes a whole lot of stupid or intellectual dishonesty to claim that the "something must be done" in that statement means mass murder or genocide.

When you say "It's wrong, but ...." you're not really saying it's wrong.

Reading comprehension fail - no one said that because "something must be done" does not mean mass murder/genocide. There was no "but" for the mass murder/genocide.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah. "Something needs (really, needed) to be done" the something is the people in power unilaterally sharing power, apologizing for being dicks, and going forward in a manner to bring all the tribes of their land to equal footing, elevating rather than tearing people down.

But they resisted it so long that they forced the disenfranchised to find the only justice left to them; the justice of the mob.

If they had been so wise as to stop hoarding power, wealth, educational.assets and land, this would not have happened. We all kept saying "just quit being dicks, end Apartheid and pay reparations", and we kept saying it for decades.

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.

Now I'm saying to the people CURRENTLY in charge: this needs to stop. Just quit being dicks, back away from reinstating an Apartheid, stop at equal rights."

But I know it won't happen. Maybe after the cycle takes a few more turns, I guess

But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

What they said was that there are virtually no avenues to right the wrongs left. Simply put, this is what made Mandela the greatest leader in our World's history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you say "It's wrong, but ...." you're not really saying it's wrong.

If you are so blind to the interpretation that literally everyone here on the left seems to understand, it seems to me you are merely shutting your eyes and accusing me of blinding you.

You "understand" because you like the result--stopping the white racism is all that matters. Ignore the fact that black racism also exists and a bad result was inevitable. You didn't do it, you can pretend you're not responsible.

Something needed to be done before things got to that point. It was not genocide that should have been done. But as a direct result of those things not being done, genocide was the predictable result. Do I view it as acceptable? No. In fact, I think there's a whole thread where I reject the very premises and axioms upon which a discussion of acceptability would be founded.

What happened is tragic. It is also the direct result of the intersection of human nature and the fall of an Apartheid through revolution.

What happened was completely predictable.

Or to paraphrase in more popular terms: those who make peaceful equity impossible make a violent reversal inevitable.

A peaceful handing over of power would have had the same result.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.



But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

What they said was that there are virtually no avenues to right the wrongs left. Simply put, this is what made Mandela the greatest leader in our World's history.

He's only called a great leader because the left liked him. He was a terrorist who did nothing great.

 

[ralfy]

The issue may also be seen in light of population aging.

 

[Jarhyn]

You "understand" because you like the result--stopping the white racism is all that matters. Ignore the fact that black racism also exists and a bad result was inevitable. You didn't do it, you can pretend you're not responsible.

Something needed to be done before things got to that point. It was not genocide that should have been done. But as a direct result of those things not being done, genocide was the predictable result. Do I view it as acceptable? No. In fact, I think there's a whole thread where I reject the very premises and axioms upon which a discussion of acceptability would be founded.

What happened is tragic. It is also the direct result of the intersection of human nature and the fall of an Apartheid through revolution.

What happened was completely predictable.

Or to paraphrase in more popular terms: those who make peaceful equity impossible make a violent reversal inevitable.

A peaceful handing over of power would have had the same result.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. A peaceful joining of.tribes and power is entirely possible. The avenue to whch it is approached cannot be allowed through violence, leverage, or coercion.

You keep failing to understand who I am and how I see the world. I don't like this one bit. I condemn it. But there is also no fixing this. There is only learn from it and accept that it can happen here, or anywhere where a model.of.racial oppression exists.

Have you somehow missed the threads where I call for strict oversight on groups such as the Isrealites or Nation of Islam to prevent violence.

The answer is as I keep saying: education, opportunities, and ending racist policies to the point where akin color doesnit correlate to community inclusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reality: They were working towards what you wanted them to do, other than the crap of reparations. As always, the scumbags wouldn't allow it to be done peacefully. Had they just handed over power we would have seen the same result that we have now--far more a matter of tearing down than creating.



But you're saying their behavior isn't really that wrong.

What they said was that there are virtually no avenues to right the wrongs left. Simply put, this is what made Mandela the greatest leader in our World's history.

He's only called a great leader because the left liked him. He was a terrorist who did nothing great.

You mean other than maintaining a union in a devastatingly divided nation, which could have easily been broken, where the oppressed could have taken everything they wanted, regardless of the cost to the nation as a whole? There was a floodgate just waiting to be opened for short-term joyful redistribution of assets and vengeance that he and almost he alone kept closed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You "understand" because you like the result--stopping the white racism is all that matters. Ignore the fact that black racism also exists and a bad result was inevitable. You didn't do it, you can pretend you're not responsible.



What happened was completely predictable.



A peaceful handing over of power would have had the same result.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. A peaceful joining of.tribes and power is entirely possible. The avenue to whch it is approached cannot be allowed through violence, leverage, or coercion.

You keep failing to understand who I am and how I see the world. I don't like this one bit. I condemn it. But there is also no fixing this. There is only learn from it and accept that it can happen here, or anywhere where a model.of.racial oppression exists.

Have you somehow missed the threads where I call for strict oversight on groups such as the Isrealites or Nation of Islam to prevent violence.

The answer is as I keep saying: education, opportunities, and ending racist policies to the point where akin color doesnit correlate to community inclusion.

You fail to understand the reality.

Handing power to the uneducated is almost certain disaster. It doesn't matter how good the original intentions. The only route to a peaceful, non-destructive handover is to first educate the oppressed population.

 

[Jarhyn]

You "understand" because you like the result--stopping the white racism is all that matters. Ignore the fact that black racism also exists and a bad result was inevitable. You didn't do it, you can pretend you're not responsible.



What happened was completely predictable.



A peaceful handing over of power would have had the same result.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. A peaceful joining of.tribes and power is entirely possible. The avenue to whch it is approached cannot be allowed through violence, leverage, or coercion.

You keep failing to understand who I am and how I see the world. I don't like this one bit. I condemn it. But there is also no fixing this. There is only learn from it and accept that it can happen here, or anywhere where a model.of.racial oppression exists.

Have you somehow missed the threads where I call for strict oversight on groups such as the Isrealites or Nation of Islam to prevent violence.

The answer is as I keep saying: education, opportunities, and ending racist policies to the point where akin color doesnit correlate to community inclusion.

You fail to understand the reality.

Handing power to the uneducated is almost certain disaster. It doesn't matter how good the original intentions. The only route to a peaceful, non-destructive handover is to first educate the oppressed population.

Did you not read my last paragraph?

But it's more than just education. It's having opportunities to do something with that education, too.

 

[Half-Life]

Whites used to be 90% of America. Now we are 77% of America. It's just going to keep going down. And people wonder why whites are getting upset. The Chinese would get upset too. Blacks would get upset too. Japanese would get upset too.

It's very racist to say, "White skin color shouldn't be fought for but other skin colors are OK to fight for."

 

[laughing dog]

Whites used to be 90% of America. Now we are 77% of America. It's just going to keep going down. And people wonder why whites are getting upset. The Chinese would get upset too. Blacks would get upset too. Japanese would get upset too.

It's very racist to say, "White skin color shouldn't be fought for but other skin colors are OK to fight for."

There is no reason to fight for any skin color. The changing demographics in the USA are not the result of "fights" but the result of private decisions about family size and location of households.

There is no inherent reason to fear these demographic changes in the USA. People tend to want and value the same things: comfort, safety and happiness.

 

[Half-Life]

Whites used to be 90% of America. Now we are 77% of America. It's just going to keep going down. And people wonder why whites are getting upset. The Chinese would get upset too. Blacks would get upset too. Japanese would get upset too.

It's very racist to say, "White skin color shouldn't be fought for but other skin colors are OK to fight for."

There is no reason to fight for any skin color. The changing demographics in the USA are not the result of "fights" but the result of private decisions about family size and location of households.

There is no inherent reason to fear these demographic changes in the USA. People tend to want and value the same things: comfort, safety and happiness.

No reason to fight for any skin color? I happen to think white women are very attractive. So, I shouldn't care if they die out? What an extremely asinine thing to say. Many white women like white men as well. Why would they want whites to die out?

Leftists want open borders for the specific purpose of breeding out the white race. So yes, that is genocide. It's not the "point and shoot" genocide that you think about when you hear genocide. But, it is still genocide by other means nonetheless.

 

[laughing dog]

Whites used to be 90% of America. Now we are 77% of America. It's just going to keep going down. And people wonder why whites are getting upset. The Chinese would get upset too. Blacks would get upset too. Japanese would get upset too.

It's very racist to say, "White skin color shouldn't be fought for but other skin colors are OK to fight for."

There is no reason to fight for any skin color. The changing demographics in the USA are not the result of "fights" but the result of private decisions about family size and location of households.

There is no inherent reason to fear these demographic changes in the USA. People tend to want and value the same things: comfort, safety and happiness.

No reason to fight for any skin color? I happen to think white women are very attractive. So, I shouldn't care if they die out? What an extremely asinine thing to say. Many white women like white men as well. Why would they want whites to die out?

Your response makes no sense to me. There are more white people in the USA then ever before. There are simply proportionally more people of nonwhite origin than before. Which means there are plenty of white women and men around.

Are you tacitly arguing that people should stick to their own race to procreate? That seems pretty racist to me. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by fighting for white people in this regard. Would you please explain it in as simple terms as you can?

Leftists want open borders for the specific purpose of breeding out the white race.

That is delusional.

So yes, that is genocide.

No, it is not. Genocide means the deliberate killing of people based on specific demographic characteristics with the intent of exterminating them.

It's not the "point and shoot" genocide that you think about when you hear genocide. But, it is still genocide by other means nonetheless.

No, it would be a form of evolutionary change.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whites used to be 90% of America. Now we are 77% of America. It's just going to keep going down. And people wonder why whites are getting upset.

no wonder.
Rather, we point and laugh at those who consider this a problem. Because you did it to yourselves. If you defined 'white' as any person with a single drop of white blood, the numbercwould be increasing, not decreasing.

No changes in the population, just in your attitude, and you'd be back on top, in charge, never to be diminished.

So y'all whining about decreasing numbers is just fucking silly.

The Chinese would get upset too. Blacks would get upset too. Japanese would get upset too.

but they are not, arevthey? All we have to laugh at are a bunch of racist whites terrified that they're going to be treated like they think minorities should he treated.

It's very racist to say, "White skin color shouldn't be fought for but other skin colors are OK to fight for."

And you can find someone here saying this?
I would ask you to cite this but at this point we all know you just make shit up.