12 Dallas cops shot by sniper, 5 dead, during BLM protest

thoughtgypsy

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Il Bersagliere said:
I agree. Kona and several other posters have done a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of the language used to describe opposition. Calling SJWs delusional or feminist or ascribing the word 'cuck' or 'liberal' to someone leaning left in their viewpoints. Other posters have even gone as far as suggesting that these reactionary elements may be the result of something deeper, likely personal, in their lives. As such, the forum does serve as a prescriptive measure to counteract these occasional hiccups we have.

Game and weights and travel seem sufficient enough, but not evidently since these same problems keep coming up. One thing I have come to realize is that you cannot save Western Civilization from itself (harsh, I know), either in your own neighborhood or at-large. However, we can still continue to get the positive male-centric message out there and live our lives the best we can.

:huh:

I was under the impression that Space Cowboy was actually addressing Kona's use of ad hominem, as he's the only one calling people 'women' for disagreeing with him.

Keep in mind that we're in the "Politics and War" subforum, so sometimes people will discuss politics here. If it triggers you, don't follow it.

From my experience, men like to discuss and share notes. It's how we gain new information and learn from each other. Occasionally there will be disagreements and differences of opinion, particularly on political topics. Some topics deeply affect separate groups differently, so it's reasonable to assume there will be different perspectives, and at times emotion may creep into the discussion and it will cross the line from the purely logical argument. If that's the case, then it's up to the mods to reign in the discussion.

What's more concerning to me is a recurring pattern of many people here who have a complete lack of ability to overcome their personal bias, forum identity politics, and need for acceptance among 'senior members'. This creates a willful blindness in recognizing their own double standards, and creates an environment where the forum descends into nothing more than a cesspool of meaningless identity politics and virtue signalling.

Rather than a place where men can escape thought policing and are held to objective standards, the same inherent nature of SJW thought policing exists, only the topics which are forbidden have been replaced. Either way, it's a minor difference to those of us who care about concepts like truth, the pursuit of knowledge, and mutual respect.

This forum has it's own preferred narratives it pushes, and third rail opinions it polices. Posters will virtue signal their devotion to the preferred narratives, and shame or attack those who hold "the wrong side" of a debate. In other words, disagreement with the narrative is used to justify attacking that person in order to encourage group conformity.

It's a recurring pattern:
  • User posts something that questions one of the forum narratives
  • "Senior" (i.e narrative friendly) user responds in a condescending, dismissive manner to police the topic. Nobody notices that the senior poster is attacking the other poster, since the one being attacked holds an opinion they disagree with.
  • Despite being addressed with a complete lack of respect, user responds to condescending attack with logic, and when that fails, with sarcasm to illustrate the blatant irony
  • Fanboys attack user while ignoring the initial attack from the SU. Cue virtue signalling their adherence to the narrative hoping to get approval from the SU.
  • Fanboys passive aggressively AMOG the original poster by trying to re-frame their mere disagreement to the narrative as "being mad". In reality they're uncomfortable with people disagreeing with them, and wish to enforce group conformity.
  • If user fails to recant and accept the groupthink when his rational argument hasn't been addressed, accuse him of being overemotional, having a meltdown, and so on.

Whether we like it or not, there is a political aspect of this forum. Many people have come here looking for a place where they're able to discuss things freely, among men, without fear of SJW style thought policing. Occasionally that discussion will venture into the political (especially on the Politics subforum), and it's normal for disagreements to pop up. When that happens, those disagreements should be held to an objective standard if we want to create a healthy environment for logical discussion.

For those who get uncomfortable or angry for people merely disagreeing with them, well, you should probably stay out of hot button topics. While most politics are a meaningless diversion, there are some issues which are worth attempting to understand when their significance extends into your legal status as a human being.

Germany, 1937

David: Jake, I've noticed that the Germans are growing increasingly hostile towards people with a Jewish identity. There's been instances of vigilante mob violence aimed at Jews, and I've heard rumors that Jewish businesses will be targeted soon. Should we be worried?
Jacob: Nah bruh, that's negative thinking. Hit the gym, bang some hos, and book a trip to Amsterdam for a few days. You'll feel much better.

If murder against someone is considered justified because they belong to the "wrong group" and happened to express an apparent interest in that group identity, I think that's something for members of that group to be very concerned over.

Predictions that this post will be re-framed as being mad.
 

Space Cowboy

Woodpecker
thoughtgypsy said:
Il Bersagliere said:
I agree. Kona and several other posters have done a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard of the language used to describe opposition. Calling SJWs delusional or feminist or ascribing the word 'cuck' or 'liberal' to someone leaning left in their viewpoints. Other posters have even gone as far as suggesting that these reactionary elements may be the result of something deeper, likely personal, in their lives. As such, the forum does serve as a prescriptive measure to counteract these occasional hiccups we have.

Game and weights and travel seem sufficient enough, but not evidently since these same problems keep coming up. One thing I have come to realize is that you cannot save Western Civilization from itself (harsh, I know), either in your own neighborhood or at-large. However, we can still continue to get the positive male-centric message out there and live our lives the best we can.

:huh:

I was under the impression that Space Cowboy was actually addressing Kona's use of ad hominem, as he's the only one calling people 'women' for disagreeing with him.

You'd be wrong, amigo
 

thoughtgypsy

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Space Cowboy said:
thoughtgypsy said:
:huh:

I was under the impression that Space Cowboy was actually addressing Kona's use of ad hominem, as he's the only one calling people 'women' for disagreeing with him.

You'd be wrong, amigo

Interesting. Then this further illustrates the point I made about posters unwilling to overcome personal bias over topics they disagree with.

You've imagined that people are being called 'cucks' by people you disagree with, which there are zero examples of.

At the same time, you've chosen to willfully ignore the only example of a recent ad hominem attack that remotely resembles the behavior you're describing, simply because you agree with their view of the argument.

It's this kind of blatant double standard that is so ironic, it's laughable.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
This thread is pretty much past its used by date so I don't feel utterly compelled to avoid derailing it.

Regarding the jitters that Anglo-centric imagery seems to strike into the heart of non-whites, I have this to say.

For the last sixty years whites have been chastised by many groups that celebrating their cultural heritage is a triggering event for minorities in white nations. We've been sold a bill of goods that said "you're the biggest, baddest guy on the block, so you lay down your cultural pride first and then the rest of the world will do the same". This was the principle. That once whites set aside any celebration of their racial identity that race would become a non-issue and everyone would live together in harmony.

In reality quite the opposite occurred. Whites were seen as weak. The olive branch they offered was taken, fashioned into a shank and applied as frequently as was possible.

So more and more white people are saying "damned if I do and damned if I don't."
 

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
This thread is pretty much past its used by date so I don't feel utterly compelled to avoid derailing it.

Regarding the jitters that Anglo-centric imagery seems to strike into the heart of non-whites, I have this to say.

For the last sixty years whites have been chastised by many groups that celebrating their cultural heritage is a triggering event for minorities in white nations. We've been sold a bill of goods that said "you're the biggest, baddest guy on the block, so you lay down your cultural pride first and then the rest of the world will do the same". This was the principle. That once whites set aside any celebration of their racial identity that race would become a non-issue and everyone would live together in harmony.

In reality quite the opposite occurred. Whites were seen as weak. The olive branch they offered was taken, fashioned into a shank and applied as frequently as was possible.

So more and more white people are saying "damned if I do and damned if I don't."

White-Pride--480x480.jpg
 

thoughtgypsy

Kingfisher
Gold Member
While there are legitimate racial grievances and concerns in this country, I think what BLM represents plays into a much bigger issue.

For a lot of Black people born in the inner city, they don't get to choose the shitty environment they end up in. Many are born without the guidance of a father, and if they try to work hard in school they're harassed and chastised by their peers. During this whole time, they know their prospects of making it into a stable middle class lifestyle are slim due to the almost complete lack of ways of making it out of the ghetto.

With a lack of legitimate options to turn to, the war on drugs has created a perverse risk/reward scenario that ensures their environment is stoked with violence and instability.

The war on drugs introduced massive mandatory minimum sentences for selling substances in what is essentially a victimless crime. This created a a huge increase in the price of drugs due to the risk of a long stretch of hard time in dangerous prisons. This only made the stakes higher, creating a situation where rival gangs compete over territory in the tremendously lucrative drug trade. With a lack of options to turn to, and the promise of easy money in the drug trade, many turn to hustling drugs. For those without a father, gangs are the only outlet to turn to for a sense of male comradery and protection.

The draconian punishments over the victimless drug trade, the only viable way out of the ghetto for many, only helps to sew distrust and violence between the police and black communities. If their case comes to trial, many poor families lack the resources to retain a private attorney, and are stuck with public defendants who are employed by the same people looking to secure convictions and meet minimum prison occupancy rates in their district.

If they're convicted, even once they've served their time, that felony on their permanent record means their chances of securing employment is now even less, reinforcing a pattern where their only viable option for employment is in the illicit drug trade.

I cannot begin to understand the level of frustration and disappointment this must engender within entire generations of Black people. Being stuck in violent neighborhoods with little to no options available to them, and they're constantly living in fear of harrasment from the police can only create an environment of tension and outrage.

In that sense, BLM makes complete sense.

But ultimately this comes down to the conditions which created the current ghetto environment, and for what purpose. It wasn't always this way.

As recently as the 50s, the Black community was making great strides in moving up in society and gaining prosperity. The divorce rate was low, and strong nuclear families with high church attendance were the norm. The booming automobile manufacturing industry in the midwest allowed for the hardworking man of any background an opportunity to improve their lot in life with the hopes of creating a better future for their family. Blacks produced a massively disproportionate contribution with the cultural sensations of Motown, Jazz, and Rock and Roll to the rest of society. JFK, RFK, and MLK were pushing for greater opportunity and racial solidarity while Malcom X was demanding fair treatment. Athletes like Mohamed Ali were becoming cultural icons and raising the discussion of equal treatment in society. For a time, the future seemed bright.

With the death of the leaders of the 60s populist movements and the forced draft into the apocalyptic jungle of Vietnam, American society was transformed forever. The sexual revolution and feminist movement destroyed the integrity of the nuclear family. The destruction of the family affected the Black community first, and it's downfall was only quickened with the creation of the welfare state. By creating a reliance on welfare, the government wields leverage against the Black community when they begin to agitate for political reform. Guaranteed an income, women no longer had any incentive to choose reliable providers, and chased after the bad boys. Without any reward for working hard and being a family man, men realized the futility of trying. With no stake or reward for doing the right thing, and with the questionable paternity of the child, many men refused to raise families, creating a generation of children with no fathers. This created the unfortunate pattern of shiftless men we continue to see today.

While the destruction of the resiliency of the Black family was taking place, legitimate leadership was discouraged and eliminated. Leaders like Bill Cosby encouraged the elevation of values like personal responsibility and hard work over the race hustling of professional agitators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and they were crucified in the media for it. The glorification of the empty materialism of thug life culture in the media and the derision of those within the community who sought to educate themselves further led to the distortion of cultural values. The explosion of the illegal immigrant population created greater competition and lower wages in the few employment options left in neighborhoods stricken with poverty.

As such, I think it's fair to say that Black America has a lot to feel angry about, and would be justified in a sense of betrayal by greater society.

However, this justifiable anger is being channeled into a race war between different groups that have all been victimized by a globalist elite who are responsible for the destruction of communities and wish to take the attention off themselves.

It is no secret that globalist tyrants like George Soros are financially supporting the BLM movement and vigilante protests.
http://yournewswire.com/black-lives-matter-produced-by-george-soros/

Like many grassroots groups which start out with justifiable grievances, the evidence points to BLM having been coopted by the establishment in order to create a chaotic situation that drives a wedge further between disenfranchised groups, and seeks to drive people toward further reliance on a centralized government.

White people, having the opportunity through ample generations to accumulate wealth, have been allowed to prosper materially and largely escaped some of the negative consequences of our new society. While not as prosperous as East Asians or Jews, Whites form a majority of the population, and as a community represent the most serious competitor to elite political power in a centralized state. What Whites have gained in material power, they've lost in political, legal, and cultural integrity.

As such, White cultural identity must be suppressed in order that Whites do not perceive the destruction of their community as a serious threat. Mass immigration faster than the rate of cultural assimilation combined with the destruction of families will ensure the political marginalization occurs at a feverish rate. This will continue until all groups are equally dependent on the state and equally powerless against further encroachment of their civil liberties.

Frustration over economic and political disenfranchisement will be channeled into conflicts between Black, White, Hispanic, Asian and all other groups while the globalist oligarchy attempts to enslave all of us. Let us remember who are real enemy is.
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Kona said:
The main point was, that there's a massive difference between a group celebrating their culture, and a group that just exists to hate other cultures.

Except we were speaking about one cop using some symbols that celebrate culture.

We were speaking about how, at the Huffington Post and on this thread, that is being spun into him hating other cultures.

I agree with your articulation of the difference.

Skinheads are bad, but then they become ethnonationalists and they are OK???

By skinheads, I assume that you mean low-rent supremacists. I have a shaved head, but it isn't political. It's a style. I'd grow it out if it looked better that way.

Supremacists are ethnonationalists, but ethnonationalists aren't necessarily supremacists.

The difference is all the difference, and if you are worried about supremacists then keeping a firm line on the difference will help you to avoid the effects of supremacists and defend against them.

How is another discussion.

Also, white people are the least of your worries. They have no power as a political group except in the voting booth. There are no whites-only networks that aren't criminal. The organized supremacist networks that get no press are the ones that you have to worry about, and they aren't white.

If hydrogonian or anyone else would like to hear my thoughts about native Hawaiians, whites in Hawaii or any Hawaiian sovereignty movement, feel free to start another thread. If its doubletalk free maybe I'll participate.

I'll merely read and won't try to debate you. I'll defend my position in general in this thread, but I'm not a fan of trying to convince others that their beliefs about themselves are somehow wrong. Thus, as I said, I'll just read.

But I also request that you do it here, in this thread where the relevant discussion is taking place.

It would help if you pointed out the doubletalk.

I feel that those on the other side of the argument from you are attempting to do the same thing, in sorting the doubletalk, when you argue that supremacist and nationalist are not the same thing EXCEPT when it comes to Whites.

I'd theoretically be willing to grant that you meant "except when other factors become obvious", but in the case of the cop there is no evidence that he was a supremacist but he is being painted as such anyway.

Thus, it seems to be the case that all white (German, British, Dutch, etc) ethnonationlists are being held to be supremacist according to the logic used in the dead cop example in this thread.

See the quote below.

Supremacist and nationalist aren't the same thing, we are all smart enough to know that.

Add WHITE to nationalist and the lines get a little blurry. Don't tell me they don't.
...
A white guy can easily justify tjhe two the way you did, but if you exclude me, in my mind you are the same damn thing.

If you want to be who ever you are, own it. If you want to be a full out nazi, go for it.

You might be uncomfortable with the concept of nationalism, in general.

Nationalism is the opposite political concept of the globalism-internationalism that is so maligned on this forum.

Nationalism, by definition, excludes others as a means of national survival.

It isn't personal, and it doesn't mean that nationalists don't interact with you. I would hope for your mental and spiritual health that you also have a heritage that you feel an affinity for.

It only means that they also recognize the value of their group, and that value rests on who they are not as much as who they are.

I don't see anyone here worried about Jewish nationalism, which has been excluding everyone else for three millenia and is much more entrenched in mainstream society, and is more disciplined in their exclusion than is white nationalism. Are you worried about Jewish cops?

Whites don't even have a shared belief system and so can't be held to believe the same thing, perhaps beyond an interest in their ethnic survival, even when they are into their heritage.

On the other hand, Jewish people, by virtue of not rejecting their Jewishness, can be said to all align with a more-or-less single belief system with a singular religiously articulated goal.

Their nationalism is much more developed and thus their individual behavior is much more likely to be guided by their Jewish affinity.

No one else seems to be worried about any other nationalisms, despite their lesser marginalization in comparison with white nationalism.

What are your cultural links with the Mjolnir, the Jerusalem cross, or the iron cross?

How about the Star of David?

How about African symbols?

On what basis do you justify your inclusion to any of these ethnicities?

Why do you care only about your exclusion from Europeans ethnic groups?

Why does your exclusion mandate that a group is supremacist and not nationalist? Does this same exclusion=supremacist logic apply across other groups?

Political exclusion is merely what nationalism looks like for all people. Hence, why I say that you might have an issue with the concept of nationalism.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that anyone who can truly express the thought patterns and culture of a group should be included. I know many mixed race American individuals who are "white" in that respect and I would not exclude them.

I also know many individuals of a singular racial type that are also compatible. I would not necessarily exclude them, but they all invariably have their own ethnic affinity to attend to.

However, this inclusion becomes problematic especially as the affinity group becomes more specific.

To illustrate, I was raised by people of a specific ethnic group on both sides of my family. I've never seen anyone outside of the ethnic group mirror well-enough our culture because they simply do not think in the same manner. Thus, how can an outsider join without redefining the group and making it more generic than what it is?

Outsiders can be on the periphery, but they should not be allowed to redefine the group according to their limits on expressing themselves as a member. Doing so is merely a slower road to globalism.

I can't be Mestizo, Somalian, Ashkenazi, nor Hawaiian.

I feel as if we need a system that engenders mutual respect and peace without the need for group eradication; this holds across all groups.

There is no need to respond, Kona (or please do if you would like to). We can agree to disagree. This is the last of my points to be made, and I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or ganged up on in this conversation. I know how that feels. I can respect our differences on the matter.

Have a nice weekend.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
hydrogonian said:
There is no need to respond, Kona (or please do if you would like to). We can agree to disagree. This is the last of my points to be made, and I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or ganged up on in this conversation. I know how that feels. I can respect our differences on the matter.

Have a nice weekend.

I want to, I really do.

Unfortuneately, I would have to go through almost every single line you typed and reply. Its just not worth it.

I read everything you said carefully. There is so much crafty wordsmithing, doubletalk, twisting what I said, enlarging it, that its really hard to reply to. Just right in your last post about your shaved head. You know full well what I meant by skinhead.

On top of that, you told me how I feel, what I believe and how I behave.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I'm sitting it seems like you want to push a brown guy out of your white people only thread.

Just look at the amount of words I used in this thread, versus the amount you did.

Did you pay any attention to the fact that my very first three sentences in this post all ended in question marks? Believe it or not, I don't know what 'Norse mythology' is. Did you guys really believe that that guy was just a big fan of it? Did his beliefs have an impact on his job. That's all.

Right after I post it, I look down and see you big-wording and doing the verbal gymnastic thing to another non white. You later used my initial post against me.

This is just a clusterfuck.

Aloha!
 

Il Bersagliere

Pelican
Gold Member
Kona said:
hydrogonian said:
There is no need to respond, Kona (or please do if you would like to). We can agree to disagree. This is the last of my points to be made, and I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or ganged up on in this conversation. I know how that feels. I can respect our differences on the matter.

Have a nice weekend.

I want to, I really do.

Unfortuneately, I would have to go through almost every single line you typed and reply. Its just not worth it.

I read everything you said carefully. There is so much crafty wordsmithing, doubletalk, twisting what I said, enlarging it, that its really hard to reply to. Just right in your last post about your shaved head. You know full well what I meant by skinhead.

On top of that, you told me how I feel, what I believe and how I behave.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I'm sitting it seems like you want to push a brown guy out of your white people only thread.

Just look at the amount of words I used in this thread, versus the amount you did.

Did you pay any attention to the fact that my very first three sentences in this post all ended in question marks? Believe it or not, I don't know what 'Norse mythology' is. Did you guys really believe that that guy was just a big fan of it? Did his beliefs have an impact on his job. That's all.

Right after I post it, I look down and see you big-wording and doing the verbal gymnastic thing to another non white. You later used my initial post against me.

This is just a clusterfuck.

Aloha!

Yeah. It's just pleonasm. I prefer a more laconic style myself, but pleonasm often has the ability to be very effective when emphasizing certain points.
 

Suits

 
Kona said:
hydrogonian said:
There is no need to respond, Kona (or please do if you would like to). We can agree to disagree. This is the last of my points to be made, and I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or ganged up on in this conversation. I know how that feels. I can respect our differences on the matter.

Have a nice weekend.

I want to, I really do.

Unfortuneately, I would have to go through almost every single line you typed and reply. Its just not worth it.

I read everything you said carefully. There is so much crafty wordsmithing, doubletalk, twisting what I said, enlarging it, that its really hard to reply to. Just right in your last post about your shaved head. You know full well what I meant by skinhead.

On top of that, you told me how I feel, what I believe and how I behave.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I'm sitting it seems like you want to push a brown guy out of your white people only thread.

Just look at the amount of words I used in this thread, versus the amount you did.

Did you pay any attention to the fact that my very first three sentences in this post all ended in question marks? Believe it or not, I don't know what 'Norse mythology' is. Did you guys really believe that that guy was just a big fan of it? Did his beliefs have an impact on his job. That's all.

Right after I post it, I look down and see you big-wording and doing the verbal gymnastic thing to another non white. You later used my initial post against me.

This is just a clusterfuck.

Alpha post.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
thoughtgypsy said:
Space Cowboy said:
thoughtgypsy said:
:huh:

I was under the impression that Space Cowboy was actually addressing Kona's use of ad hominem, as he's the only one calling people 'women' for disagreeing with him.

You'd be wrong, amigo

Interesting. Then this further illustrates the point I made about posters unwilling to overcome personal bias over topics they disagree with.

You've imagined that people are being called 'cucks' by people you disagree with, which there are zero examples of.

At the same time, you've chosen to willfully ignore the only example of a recent ad hominem attack that remotely resembles the behavior you're describing, simply because you agree with their view of the argument.

It's this kind of blatant double standard that is so ironic, it's laughable.

I did not call anyone a woman.

I was told that what I had written was 'womanish' by some guy named dispenser. It was post #870.

It appears you've chose to willfully ignore that post. I'm sure this was a mistake, and not done willfully because of your personal bias.

Interestingly, 870, was the same post where the guy felt it necessary to use the word 'niggling' in a thread about black/white relations.

I'll await the post that says 'sorry kona, I misquoted you.'

Aloha!
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Kona said:
I want to, I really do.

Unfortuneately, I would have to go through almost every single line you typed and reply. Its just not worth it.

Sure, bro.

I read everything you said carefully. There is so much crafty wordsmithing, doubletalk, twisting what I said, enlarging it, that its really hard to reply to.

I don't think so. It was sincere.

What doubletalk? I already asked you for examples, and instead of providing them you expend the energy to again just again reference doubletalk and "wordsmithing". What did I twist and enlarge?

Just right in your last post about your shaved head. You know full well what I meant by skinhead.

I did. And I clarified what you meant (I was correct, no?). I didn't say that you meant anything different than you did. I only clarified my position. None of what I said added to my argument nor was it meant to, but was only an expression of my feeling on your choice of words given how I look.

On top of that, you told me how I feel, what I believe and how I behave.
Examples, please.

And you've been doing that this entire thread in telling people, who are into European heritage, that they are well, what was it?:

Add WHITE to nationalist and the lines get a little blurry. Don't tell me they don't.

A white guy can easily justify tjhe two the way you did, but if you exclude me, in my mind you are the same damn thing.

If you want to be who ever you are, own it. If you want to be a full out nazi, go for it.

There you are, telling people how they feel, what they believe, and how they behave when they are bending over backwards to make the exact distinction that you attempt to re-blur with your proud economy of words.

Have you considered that your generalizations and categorizations of certain white people, and I admit that they can be levied with few words, necessitate pained explanations to rebut in this political climate?

If you want a more economical conversation, perhaps put greater effort into the nuance of thought that this subject deserves and that others have been giving it. Respectfully.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from where I'm sitting it seems like you want to push a brown guy out of your white people only thread.

Oh, poor victim. There you go, again, telling people how they are behaving when no one said anything remotely close to that. You aren't arguing in good faith, but are assembling straw man in almost every post.

Just look at the amount of words I used in this thread, versus the amount you did.

I'm lost as to how that is a measure of anything. If anything, it shows the amount of thought that I put into this, and my sincerity.

A large extent of that thought has been devoted to dismantling your strawmen, but I'll just let you have them from now on.

Here's the first:

You're right. Everyone who you are arguing against is a secret Nazi who wants your brown skin out of this thread.

There. Feel better?

For pity's sake.

If I didn't respect you, or what you think, then I wouldn't speak to you, and I certainly wouldn't make attempt at being relatively cordial.

I'm doing it because I do care what you think because I respect you, and would like to find even ground.

If you were anyone else, I wouldn't make this particular effort with this tone.

I'll make a last plea for you to read deeper into the tone of the thread, and to please not take a political discussion so personally.

Did you pay any attention to the fact that my very first three sentences in this post all ended in question marks? Believe it or not, I don't know what 'Norse mythology' is. Did you guys really believe that that guy was just a big fan of it? Did his beliefs have an impact on his job. That's all.

If you did not know what it is, then you perhaps should have googled it or asked the thread before asking a question that would have us assume that you knew what "Norse Mythology" refers to.

The article under discussion takes the tone that the Norse Mythology interest is a sign of white supremacy.

Your question reads as a rhetorical remark, not a legitimate question in my opinion. The debate over the article was well underway, and the debate was about whether or not Norse Mythology, and other such interest, implies white supremacy. Thus, your question was answered in rhetorical fashion.

Furthermore, your later post seems to counter your current claim that your question about Norse Mythology was not rhetorical in asking whether this officer's interest in Norse Mythology could be anything but racism. Now, I don't want to be accused of "telling you how you feel", but the below quote:

And there's the post that proves my point.

Its not racist, its Norse mythology.

I didn't say nigger I said niggling. Now tell me to check the definition or maybe give me a link to a dictionary.

seems to be worded in a way that verifies that this post was indeed making a rhetorical point, in that an interest in Norse Mythology is likely racism, rather than asking a question as to whether we believe that he was just into Norse mythology:

Do you guys really believe that that guy was just really into Norse mythology?

And I'll remark that we are now tasked with dissecting your word-smithing.

It's okay, I'll do it because I'm a sincere participant in this discussion.

Right after I post it, I look down and see you big-wording and doing the verbal gymnastic thing to another non white. You later used my initial post against me.

Holy victimhood. I'm using my "verbal gymnastics against another non-white"?

You must be drunk.

The manner in which I write is not a premeditated strategy against non-whites, but the way that I think.

I really can't believe you just wrote that.

You avoid your further accusations of "wordsmithing", I'll leave it here.

Do any other "non-whites" want to opt out of my "big wording"?

This is just a clusterfuck.

You've gotten one thing correct.
 

thoughtgypsy

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Kona said:
I did not call anyone a woman.

I was told that what I had written was 'womanish' by some guy named dispenser. It was post #870.

It appears you've chose to willfully ignore that post. I'm sure this was a mistake, and not done willfully because of your personal bias.

Interestingly, 870, was the same post where the guy felt it necessary to use the word 'niggling' in a thread about black/white relations.

I'll await the post that says 'sorry kona, I misquoted you.'

Aloha!

You're right, I missed that. dispenser said it first, and you responded in kind.

Kona said:
dispenser said:
Kona: Either thought is free, or it isn't. If Norse mythology enthusiasts were banned from government for suspected racism, then that would logically be extended to all European mythologies and religions. How is that different from saying that white people should have no authority in the US?

Should all culture then be banned? We'd need a lot of robots. I suppose Rubio can be president then.

And if you stick to banning white culture specifically... Are white people really so terrifying? It's not as if we breathe fire and belch Zyklon-B.

I don't think you actually believe any of that, but ideas have implications. Knock one domino, and others follow.

I believe crimes should be punished based on their outcome.
Niggling over the nooks and crannies of an accused person's soul is a waste of time. To be blunt, it's womanish.

And there's the post that proves my point.

Its not racist, its Norse mythology.

I didn't say nigger I said niggling. Now tell me to check the definition or maybe give me a link to a dictionary.

You guys made a lot of big words out of a few of mine.

If you want to be who ever you are, own it. If you want to be a full out nazi, go for it.

Have some balls. Don't hide behind some big words.

To be blunt, its womanish.

Aloha!

So I can see where you're coming from. You were being disrespected and only returning the favor. My apologies.
 

hydrogonian

Ostrich
Gold Member
Kona said:
I did not call anyone a woman.

I was told that what I had written was 'womanish' by some guy named dispenser. It was post #870.

It appears you've chose to willfully ignore that post. I'm sure this was a mistake, and not done willfully because of your personal bias.

Interestingly, 870, was the same post where the guy felt it necessary to use the word 'niggling' in a thread about black/white relations.

I'll await the post that says 'sorry kona, I misquoted you.'

Aloha!

I'd normally ignore this, but Kona seems hellbent on twisting his words in this discussion.

Witness below:

And there's the post that proves my point.

Its not racist, its Norse mythology.

I didn't say nigger I said niggling. Now tell me to check the definition or maybe give me a link to a dictionary.

You guys made a lot of big words out of a few of mine.

If you want to be who ever you are, own it. If you want to be a full out nazi, go for it.

Have some balls. Don't hide behind some big words.

To be blunt, its womanish.

Aloha!

Indeed, this paragraph has him addressing all of his opponents as "womanish" should they not stop hiding behind "big words" and instead be "whoever they are", which in Kona's estimation is a "nazi".

He then states:

I did not call anyone a woman.

I was told that what I had written was 'womanish' by some guy named dispenser. It was post #870.

It appears you've chose to willfully ignore that post. I'm sure this was a mistake, and not done willfully because of your personal bias.

Interestingly, 870, was the same post where the guy felt it necessary to use the word 'niggling' in a thread about black/white relations.

I'll await the post that says 'sorry kona, I misquoted you.'

First, Dispenser did call Kona womanish, and it was completely out-of-line, alarming, and a wholly unfortunate escalation. That bullshit needs to be checked in these threads.

I understand that Kona would have been pissed, but also unfortunately in-response he phrases his retort to cover everyone with whom he is arguing instead of keeping the unfortunate language between him and Dispenser.

In fact, he calls people who hide behind "big words" womanish. I'm the only one who he has directly accused of using "big words". This, combined with his use of the plural "you guys", seems to indicate that he is calling others besides dispenser "womanish".

He combines it with further unfortunate broad-brush implication about the nature of his opponents.

Thoughtgypsy responded, and maybe he didn't see Dispenser's post. Kona was attacked first. However, I can't see how Thoughtgypsy misquoted Kona either.

I don't care what Kona calls me. However, recrafting what actually occurred in the dialogue isn't right either. I'm only pointing it out because of the repetition in reframing what was said in a manner that doesn't entirely seem to be accurate.
 

Kona

Crow
Gold Member
hydrogonian said:
Indeed, this paragraph has him addressing all of his opponents as "womanish" should they not stop hiding behind "big words" and instead be "whoever they are", which in Kona's estimation is a "nazi".

Alright,xchrist on the fucking cross, this is the last post I put on this thread. So after I do it hydro on I an, pick apart every single syllable, and then you get the last word. This is just a fucked up waste of time.

You just keep picking apart everything, and then taking little details andusing them against me. I can't deal with it.

And your " who me?" Bullshit is just rediculous. I'm a grown god damn man.

I think I know what you're after and its not going on to happen, so I'm out.

Now pick it apart.....

Aloha!
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
At least now I know what it looks like to try and unscramble an egg.

Let's start again with a basic premise.

1. I am white.
2. I respect my father and honour his peoples and his ways.
3. I respect my grandfather and honour peoples and his ways.
4. I respect my great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
5. I respect my great great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
etc etc.

At what point in continuing this do I become a dangerous, exclusionist racist?
 

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
At least now I know what it looks like to try and unscramble an egg.

Let's start again with a basic premise.

1. I am white.
2. I respect my father and honour his peoples and his ways.
3. I respect my grandfather and honour peoples and his ways.
4. I respect my great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
5. I respect my great great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
etc etc.

At what point in continuing this do I become a dangerous, exclusionist racist?

When you honor your grandfather who beat the Nazi's in WWII.
 
Leonard D Neubache said:
At least now I know what it looks like to try and unscramble an egg.

Let's start again with a basic premise.

1. I am white.
2. I respect my father and honour his peoples and his ways.
3. I respect my grandfather and honour peoples and his ways.
4. I respect my great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
5. I respect my great great grandfather and honour his peoples and his ways.
etc etc.

At what point in continuing this do I become a dangerous, exclusionist racist?

When you defend yourself and your family to people that expect you to apologize for your existence.
 
nomadbrah said:
And yet, the early European and Eurasian (remember the split between European and Asian is only 45.000 years old), hunted them to extinsion during the ice ages with nothing but tools made of stone and not even the bow. Yes, that is going to apply some harsh evolutionary selection I think.

I agree, though it has nothing with evolutionary genetic jumps. The climate was tough and only the smartest most resilient survived. That is k-selection at it's finest.

Whether you make that selection process happen via rough environment (Northern Europe) or via cultural and societal norms (China, Ashkenazi Jews) - all have the same end-result - a smarter general population. Personally I think that humanity should adopt deliberate coordinated k-selection via reproduction laws. It does not even have to be anything drastic like forced sterilizations. Just stop paying for children you don't want and pay generously for children of 120+ IQ parents. And of course make all social security and child benefits only to fathers/husbands in stable homes.

Imagine for example the shift in black American dating culture if all single mothers had to have a husband or the EBT card stopped working. You would see 90%+ father-mother marriages in the community. In addition one could implement other additional policies that would open up job opportunities for the men etc.

But ... BlackLivesMatter and RaceWarBaiting while continuing the idiotic family-destruction agenda serves the elite much better.
 
Top