OTC

MadassAlex

Perhaps, but most white supremacists have never engaged in violence against racial minorities. 

Iaculus

^^ I dunno, I've met a fair few gay folks who felt deeply uncomfortable in forums where a large number of other posters openly disputed their moral right to exist. That's not exactly a comforting atmosphere if you want to hang out online.

There are reasons to feel threatened other than having a knife waved around in your face, such as a cool place for hanging out turning into somewhere profoundly unwelcoming.

vandro

I am all for honesty and I hate hypocrisy, but to me hypocrisy is the lesser evil when compared to racial segregation, sexism and other kinds of views that undermine acceptance of the whole on equal terms. I see many people say that one should allow all opinions to be heard, but some opinions are more wrong than others.

Shichibukai

It would be very inaccurate to define me as a White Supremacist. I bear no ill will towards any races other than my own -everyone is human and equal, but races have some important differences - in cultural backgrounds, genetic tendencies, and so on, which demands that every majority racial group is entitled to the preservation of its demographic and cultural dominance in lands it currently resides in. I believe in a form of ethnic and cultural protectionism - keyword protectionism - rather than isolation. It's ok to let different races into a nation and its culture, and to let them thrive as a small minority, but not to the extent where they could outbreed the indigenous peoples or impose a different culture upon the rest of the population. Non-indigenous racial minorities, in other words, should remain minorities, and a racial majority is right to defend itself.

On the other hand, I'm much more tolerant to consensual inter-racial breeding. I think that is far more acceptable than say, another race coming and replacing another completely, as the genes of both races are preserved and mixed to widen the gene pool. 

vandro

You are not supremacist, but still deluded, who are you to determine in which direction does the demographic of a population grow? And to outbreed a majority? That depends entirely of which is the majority, a white majority is full of recessive genes, it has to remain genetically isolated to keep existing. In other words, white racial protectionism is isolation, genetics can't be avoided.

MadassAlex

See, I just don't see it as a big deal. Knowledge and history, I believe, should be preserved at all costs, but race just represents a narrower portion of genetic diversity.

[Deleted User]

…

glennmagusharvey

@vandro: Well, in some ways, you did have white settlers pushing out native Americans and aboriginal Australians through a combination of offspring producing, immigration, and use of violent force.

@Shichibukai: I agree with your sentiment for cultural preservation, to preserve (or at least document) the language, customs, traditions, values, belief systems, etc. of all cultures.  However, I don't see why you tie this to the idea people have racial/ethnic rights to certain patches of land.

How would you decide whose land it is anyway?  How far back would you go?  Were the Europeans justified in carving Israel out of the Middle East?  Are the Palestinians justified in their bid for statehood?  Are various other groups justified in their trying to wipe Israel off the map?  Were the various European powers justified in their claiming parts of the world as colonies?  Were the British-American colonists justified in their claim of independence?  Were U.S. settlers in the 1800s justified in their belief in manifest destiny?

RedEyedAbyss

"Were the Europeans justified in carving Israel out of the Middle East?"

This is less a question of national property rights and more like imagining if you were kicked out of your home against your will and forced to play second-class to the new homeowners in the neighbourhood.

vandro

Yes they did, gmh, but what about spaniards? they did use offsprings, inmigration and violent force to push the natives, but why do they remain more natives in the former spaniard colonies than in former british colonies? racial mixing, and not always consentual, I might add. 

captainbrass

Shichibukai - I think your views are misguided, if perhaps well-meaning. You're trying to put the river into a freezer, by saying "OK, it's at this point, now, that people stay where they are and can't move to other countries where they aren't the dominant culture." But that's not ever been something humans have been able to do. The dominant culture in different countries and continents has changed a lot through history, and often through migration, peaceful or otherwise.

Wealthy, Westernised, mostly white people saying that "It stops now" (which is what it would be, in effect) is like saying "the game stops now. We're winning. We don't want to risk losing."

Also, while you may not be a racist, this is the kind of position/argument they use. You might end up acting as a respectable front for them, if you aren't careful.   

AHR

Oh look, it's the person who once called islam an evil religion. This is going to be FUN.

Counterclock

@AHR. While I don't agree with him for what he believes, he might has his reasons for believing said things, instead of jumping down his throat about it, why do you try to educate him to the truth?

AHR

I have tried. Twice. 

Counterclock

So he refuses to listen to anything contrary to what he believes?

If that's the case, then he's not looking for a debate, he's looking for a platform to express his beliefs.

If they're offensive to you, flag his posts and the mods will take care of it.

I don't really think getting yourself angry trying to respond to him when apparently he's made it clear he's not going to change is very good for you.

Chagen

Why don't we say that nearly all modern Organized Religion today is bad?

Legionnaire

Or we could just take the piss out of Scientology.

Chagen

Yeah, that's funnier

Shichibukai

I'm sorry, I don't know how to add quote tags, so I'll just use highlighter.

" a white majority is full of recessive genes, it has to remain genetically isolated to keep existing. In other words, white racial protectionism is isolation, genetics can't be avoided." 

Recessive genes are a big problem with that, and one reason to just ban interracial marriage visas altogether. In spite of this, it would be most inhumane to restrict who people can and can't marry based on the principle of racial preservation. However, I would probably support a campaign encouraging White people to date within their own race if genes unique to Whites were found to be on the decline from interracial breeding. It's a sticky issue.

"How would you decide whose land it is anyway? How far back would you go? Were the Europeans justified in carving Israel out of the Middle East? Are the Palestinians justified in their bid for statehood? Are various other groups justified in their trying to wipe Israel off the map? Were the various European powers justified in their claiming parts of the world as colonies? Were the British-American colonists justified in their claim of independence? Were U.S. settlers in the 1800s justified in their belief in manifest destiny?"

It's a very difficult question which can't be decided by arbitrary definitions alone. Racial homelands change over time, and various conquests and other sources of displacements have caused races to be driven from their lands by Huns, Mongol conquerors, European imperialism, and so on. Yet the difference between all those invasions and conquests is that people could clearly identify the outsiders, and took a stand against the violation of their ethno-cultural territory. Many have lost and become vagrants or endangered minorities, such as the Israelites, Native Americans, Aboriginals, and so on. Yet they could recognise the source of changes to their environment, in the aggressive cultural and ethnic changes exported to their lands. White Europeans, on the other hand, do not even make an effort to protect themselves culturally or racially, that they will be considered genocidal or evil or whatever if they suggest that they have a right to retain Europe as their own majority homeland. .

This is a more complex issue than alot of people realise, and I don't have it all figured out myself yet. It is more the principle of a race being able to preserve itself and maintain its homeland that matters. There are so many exceptions and marginal cases that every case has to be taken as unique. 

Zionism is a kind of racial revanchism, which seems unjustified after a thousand years or so. It would be good if the Jews could have a homeland, as a minority escaping millenia-long persecution. Yet the means of achieving this are unjustified as the Palestinians have been turned into a persecuted minority instead.

Chagen

I used to mildly care about Racial Preservation. Then I stopped caring.

I just want to marry a blond-haired, blue-eyed white woman. Anyone else can marry/love whoever they, it ain't my problem.

RedEyedAbyss

Blonde is overrated.

ClockworkUniverse

I've never understood having favorite hair or eye colors in general, rather than just looking at people and deciding whether they specifically look good.

Chagen

I wouldn't be partial to a black-haired girl either. Only if she has short hair, though.

IanExMachina

>I've never understood having favourite hair or eye colors in general, rather than just looking at people and deciding whether they specifically look good.

All Nines

I don't understand it, but I feel the same; I'd probably rather be with someone with darker hair, and certain girls with black hair and the right combination of other features couldn't be matched in my eyes. But there are a few cute girls I know who happen to be blonde.

ninjaclown

When I grew up, I cast aside vanity. I ultimately don't give 2 shits what a girl looks like as long as she isn't a douche.

Stormtroper

Doesn't the Hardy-Weinberg principle imply that genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant even with interracial marriage (providing there isn't a preference for it)?

ClockworkUniverse

^They're recessive genes. The new circumstance being introduced that allows something to change would here be interracial marriage being more common.

Stormtroper

I mean about the white extinction thing.

glennmagusharvey

Edit: By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, there are a number of logical fallacies in that video.  It's for humorous purposes only, not for argumentation.