Anti-Nazis riot in Ohio

[wit>trope]

Well I can't really say anymore except to say you shouldn't pre-judge. You should do research like I'm doing off and on.

Some black people think they intentionally flooded the black areas to save the white areas ... so sometimes people believe what are considered to be very stupid things by most people (I personally don't consider this idea stupid ... I also don't see what's wrong with what is alleged to have happened but that's another topic)

Some people believe the earth is flat -- which is definitely very very stupid far more stupid than any WN belief is supposed to be.

So if you want to say WN's are evil because they couldn't be that stupid then you are using a double standard unless you say that the large numbers of black people are evil who believe they intentionally flooded the black areas (assuming you agree with most people that it's a stupid idea to believe -- I don't like I said) and you say that the flat earth people are stupid ... and that the geocentric people are stupid (yes they exist today and apparently they vastly outnumber the flat earth people -- I can give a website where two people do a long long argument about geocentrism using science, religion, etc.)

 

[IglooDame]

Besides, my point remains that the lack of parity in the comparison would only serve to mean that the WNs are more stupid or more paranoid than the Kurds, not that they are super evil while Kurds are good.

Well, by that standard, Hitler himself wasn't super evil because he thought that Jews were a threat to Germany. And Stalin wasn't evil, because he saw Ukrainian farmers as a threat to Russia. And Mao Tse-Tung wasn't evil, because he thought reactionaries were a threat to China.

 

[Truronian]

White Nationalists want a country where only white people can live, and as such they want a country that persecutes against those of other creed. The Kurds want there own countries to avoid persecution, not so that they can persecute. This is the difference.

 

[wit>trope]

White Nationalists want a country where only white people can live, and as such they want a country that persecutes against those of other creed. The Kurds want there own countries to avoid persecution, not so that they can persecute. This is the difference.

No most WN's do not want to persecute any other race at all. Wanting a place for only white people doesn't mean you want to persecute non-whites. My impression is that many WN's want to divide up America into a white part, black part, etc. This is just like the groups in Iraq that want to divide Iraq into Sunni, Shiia, and Kurd (btw it is a minority there who most oppose the division because this minority the Sunni would be the worse off for it because of lack of oil in their part)

@Igloo

Using Hitler and Stalin to support your argument means it is very weak! There's absolutely no comparison. Besides Hitler and Stalin probably thought that what they were doing was evil whereas WN do not think what they want to do is evil ... and WN do not advocate killing the millions of people Hitler and Stalin were responsible, together, for killing.

 

[Truronian]

No most WN's do not want to persecute any other race at all. Wanting a place for only white people doesn't mean you want to persecute non-whites. My impression is that many WN's want to divide up America into a white part, black part, etc.

By making their country white-only, they would be persecuting. By forcing non-whites to leave their homes, they would be persecuting. There is no non-racist reason for a 'white only' country.

 

[wit>trope]

By making their country white-only, they would be persecuting. By forcing non-whites to leave their homes, they would be persecuting. There is no non-racist reason for a 'white only' country.

By that logic Israel is racist and evil for forcing Jews to leave their homes in a deal with the Arab Palestinians. Besides believing one race is the best isn't evil -- even Gothmog admitted as much in the other thread.

 

[Homie]

There is no non-racist reason for a 'white only' country.

Technically you are incorrect. People often mis-use the word "racism". A racist is "one who believes in the superiority of one race over another" or even believes that certain other races are not even fully humans. But the popular meaning of the word today has become
Racist: "A white guy who doesn't like blacks and other ethnicities"

So what I am saying is that you could dislike or even hate other races without thinking that your race is superior to theirs, in other words, without being a racist. Not that hating other races is a good thing, it surely is not.

 

[Homie]

In fact being a racist seems less evil than hating other races (although the two often go hand-in-hand)

 

[Truronian]

Technically you are incorrect. People often mis-use the word "racism". A racist is "one who believes in the superiority of one race over another" or even believes that certain other races are not even fully humans. But the popular meaning of the word today has become
Racist: "A white guy who doesn't like blacks and other ethnicities"

So what I am saying is that you could dislike or even hate other races without thinking that your race is superior to theirs, in other words, without being a racist. Not that hating other races is a good thing, it surely is not.

I was using the term racist in the modern sense of the word, ie someone who discriminates based on race. If the semantics really annoy you just read racist as 'someone who discriminates by race'

By that logic Israel is racist and evil for forcing Jews to leave their homes in a deal with the Arab Palestinians.

Well, I personally view forced relocating of a group of people due to their belief is a morally unacceptable act. At no point have I called racists evil, that was your term, and I was using racist in the modern sense (see above).

Besides believing one race is the best isn't evil -- even Gothmog admitted as much in the other thread.

In believing one race is better you are also believing (an)other race(s) to be/are inferior. I see this as a ridiculous and uniformed viewpoint, but as long as the person does not act on this it is not in my book, evil. It is not good either though.

 

[wit>trope]

Tru, wow, I'm glad you agree racism is not evil. I never knew we could agree on so much I apologize for assuming you were one of those who thought it was evil. That was ironically some prejudging on my part

One final note ... I think you are being fooled by the connotations of "inferior" -- you could say that for instance a Ferrari is inferior to a Porsche without meaning that a Ferrari is a bad car. You could mean that a Ferrari is AWESOME but a Porsche is EVEN MORE AWESOME. That's why I used "best" instead of superior -- "best" has a more friendly tone to it, more positive connotation.

PS If "racist" means to discriminate by race, then I am certainly a "racist" since I discriminate by race when it comes to things like who I date. In fact the vast vast majority of people do -- both white and non-white. I prefer white women, especially ones who are more "pure white" I discriminate FOR whites and AGAINST non-whites (especially blacks) when it comes to dating and stuff

 

[nonconformist]

The proportional range of difference is conquerable or less than the range of difference among mainstream historians throughout the years regarding deaths from the Inquisitions. If the Inquisitions have vastly differing estimates by historians (with more recent historians, including Jewish ones, tending to estimate far far far lower numbers than older historians), then shouldn't the Holocaust also have vastly differing estimates? After all we have more direct records of the Inquisitions than we do of the Holocaust. The Holocaust death count uses as much extrapolation and guess work as do the various Inquisition death counts -- which again vary even more than the Holocaust ones.

Utter crap.
The Nazis kept metiulous records of every single action they took, which is what made the Trials of the late 40's and early 50's so easy.

 

[Homie]

One could argue that negros are superior to whites and asians because they have larger penises. This is undoubtfully an advantage with the ladies.

 

[nonconformist]

I've jsut been on stormfront, and the amount of crap on there makes me shiver.
There is no excuse for racism.

 

[wit>trope]

Utter crap.
The Nazis kept metiulous records of every single action they took, which is what made the Trials of the late 40's and early 50's so easy.

You see that's the difference between me and an open-minded person like myself (I'm open minded about all things including the 2nd law of thermodynamics for example). When I encounter a new theory I don't respond to it (in my mind) by saying "Utter crap". Instead I go "Hmmm, that's interesting. I'll have to look into that some day." That's how progress occurs.

There are no meticulous records of the names or numbers who died, so I don't know what records you're referring to. The only records alleged that I know of have to do with trains.

 

[Truronian]

One final note ... I think you are being fooled by the connotations of "inferior" -- you could say that for instance a Ferrari is inferior to a Porsche without meaning that a Ferrari is a bad car. You could mean that a Ferrari is AWESOME but a Porsche is EVEN MORE AWESOME. That's why I used "best" instead of superior -- "best" has a more friendly tone to it, more positive connotation.

In your analogy you are saying Porshe is better than Ferrari, hence the Ferrari is worse than Porshe. As such saying one race is better is the same as saying another is inferior to that one.

PS If "racist" means to discriminate by race, then I am certainly a "racist" since I discriminate by race when it comes to things like who I date. In fact the vast vast majority of people do -- both white and non-white. I prefer white women, especially ones who are more "pure white" I discriminate FOR whites and AGAINST non-whites (especially blacks) when it comes to dating and stuff

As Homie pointed out, racist does not techniquly men to disciminate by race, but this is the interpretation I choose to use. Racism in this sense is a natural phenomenon, but one that IMO we should strive to abandon. I think making judgements about people based on something as unimportant as race is a flawed system for the judge and unfair to the judged.

 

[nonconformist]

You see that's the difference between me and an open-minded person like myself (I'm open minded about all things including the 2nd law of thermodynamics for example). When I encounter a new theory I don't respond to it (in my mind) by saying "Utter crap". Instead I go "Hmmm, that's interesting. I'll have to look into that some day." That's how progress occurs.

There are no meticulous records of the names or numbers who died, so I don't know what records you're referring to. The only records alleged that I know of have to do with trains.

Dictatorships, purely by their nature, keep meticulous records.
The Reich kept records of every single thing that went on inside it, which made the culprits so easy to track down.

The numbers that are usually quoted are 6 million Jews dies in extermination camps, as well as 6 million "others".

 

[downtown]

One could argue that negros are superior to whites and asians because they have larger penises. This is undoubtfully an advantage with the ladies.

Not true. if it was such an advantage, we wouldnt have over a billion asians

 

[Homie]

Ahh, but there aren't many negros in China to choose from.

 

[SomethingWitty]

There are no meticulous records of the names or numbers who died, so I don't know what records you're referring to. The only records alleged that I know of have to do with trains.

Sure there were. That's why nazis tatooed serial numbers onto Jews and other undesirables.

They recorded who did what for a living and where, who was forced into what ghetto, who was transfered from what ghetto to what camp and when, who was gassed and when, etc.

 

[wit>trope]

If there were meticulous records of names or numbers as some have alleged then explain how wikipedia says (and please no one ruin these articles for the sake of winning a debate on CFC, OK?)

The commonly used figure for the number of Jewish victims is six million, so much so that the phrase "six million" is now almost universally interpreted as referring to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, though mainstream estimates by historians of the exact number range from five million to over six million.

You see as wikipedia notes that "six million" has become a common misconception as though it were a fact universally accepted by historians and as though any departure from it (well actually any departure to the left side of the number line from it ) is deemed politically incorrect and prejudged as somehow false. Wikipedia notes that MAINSTREAM historians include estimates as low as 5 million. Some estimate lower.

Now look at the total number:

Taking all these other groups into account, the total death toll rises considerably. Estimates place the total number of Holocaust victims at up to 26 million people, although the number 9 to 11 million is usually held as more reliable.

So you have estimates of the total number of victims according to wikipedia as being anywhere from 9-26 million. That's an absolute difference of 17 million -- some estimates are 17 MILLION LOWER than others -- estimates judged mainstream enough to be in wikipedia. Also the proportional difference is THREE TIMES -- some estimates are THREE TIMES lower than others -- estimates mainstream enough to be in wikipedia.

What does that tell you?

If in the TOTAL number of victims there's an absolute difference of estimate of 17 MILLION and proportional difference of 3 TIMES, then surely a subset of that number, the number of Jewish victims should vary by a conquerable amount ... so for example if the high end of the estimate is 6 million then surely the low end of the estimate ought to be around 2 million. Why isn't it that case in mainstream discussion? Because this matter is "radioactive" ... like a Fox News Watch host said about talking about blacks being "radioactive" ... if a historian seriously researches lower estimates, they could lose their jobs or worse get death threats or something, besides being labelled "racist"

Also note that the LOWER estimate (9 million or so) is held as MORE RELIABLE than the HIGHER estimate (26 million) when dealing with the total number of victims. Well if that's acceptable to the PC crowd then why is it not also acceptable to say that the LOWER estimate for a subset of those victims is MORE RELIABLE than the HIGHER estimates? Only one reason. The issue is "radioactive." The situation today is much worse than the pre-Golden Medieval era Dark Ages.

Also besides how estimates THREE TIMES lower are accepted for the total number, notice how estimates FOUR TIMES lower are considered politically correct enough to be featured as a mainstream estimate in wikipedia's article when it comes to OTHER ethnic groups:

about 220,000 Sinti and Roma died in the Holocaust (some estimates are as high as 800,000)

So then if it is OK to estimate the deaths of Sinit and Roma to be FOUR TIMES lower than the higher end, why is it not similar OK to estimate the deaths of Jews to be FOUR TIMES lower than the higher end -- i.e. about 1.25 million versus of 6 million. Why is it that in the case of the Sinit and Roma, estimating FOUR TIMES lower means you are a serious mainstream historian while in the case of the Jews, estimating FOUR TIMES lower means -- ironically more or less by the standard mentioned in the wikipedia article -- you are a "Holocaust denier"