[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Ajidica]

Holocaust denial is literally a difference of opinion. It's a matter of historical debate, no different than any other sort of revisionism. That's simply a matter of definition, not really sure how can deny that.

Holocaust denial is a matter of historical debate in the same way the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald is a historical debate. Sure, one can discuss the causes and how it occurred, but that the Edmund Fitzgerald sank is an accepted historical fact.

My opposition to "white genocide" similarly has nothing to do with white people being superior, just wanting them to survive as a culture and as a people. Maybe you don't agree that "white genocide" is a bad thing, but that's another discussion entirely from whether white people are some sort of superior race.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who is currently attempting to extinguish your unclearly defined "white culture"?

 

[civver_764]

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but who is currently attempting to extinguish your unclearly defined "white culture"?

Many people, for many different reasons. Some intentionally, some unintentionally. It doesn't matter who's doing it, it needs to stop.

 

[Ryika]

The Nazis would continue with their violence against minorities, obviously. I mean we do have a pretty representative historical precedent here I think.

I guess you're trying to accuse me of slippery slope logic but I think that when a bunch of people get together and be violent they won't stop themselves.

No, I just wanted to know what violence you're talking about.

Because first of all, most protests that Antifa shows up at are not "Nazi protests", and secondly, there was no violence at those "free speech"-type of protests until they started being heavily protests against during the elections, at which point elements on both sides started being violent against each other.

 

[Traitorfish]

Holocaust denial is literally a difference of opinion. It's a matter of historical debate, no different than any other sort of revisionism. That's simply a matter of definition, not really sure how can deny that.

It's honestly not. The Holocaust happened, that is beyond argument. It's a fact, the evidence for it is not simply documentary but material. There is no plausible historical narrative which does not include the murder of millions of Jews, Roma and Slavs by the Nazi authorities. The debate is around the hows and whys, perhaps around the precise numbers, but not about the fact that a genocide took place. That is pseudo-history, and the only reason for pushing that pseudohistory is as part of an apologia for the Third Reich.

My opposition to "white genocide" similarly has nothing to do with white people being superior, just wanting them to survive as a culture and as a people. Maybe you don't agree that "white genocide" is a bad thing, but that's another discussion entirely from whether white people are some sort of superior race.

But you have not yet demonstrated that white people are actually declining, as a population, only as a proportion of the total population. All you've managed to demonstrate is your only shaky grasp of statistics. The tell, I think, is here, when you explicitly connect "white genocide" to a decline in white economic and political power:

I would definitely make the case that making an ethnic group a minority in a country founded and built by them constitutes replacement, for sure. Especially when we live in the kind of political system we do, where you are subject to the whims of the majority.

You chose to define "replacement" not as actual substitution or even as absolute decline in population, but to the replacement as a hegemonic force, and not even in favour of a non-white hegemon, but simply a multi-racial hegemon. The great tragedy against which you rail is not the end of white people, but the end of white supremacy.

And that is why I keep calling you a white supremacist.

They openly celebrate burning the American flag

Robert E. Lee openly celebrated burning American soldiers. This seems an odd line for you to draw in the sand.

 

[Ajidica]

Many people, for many different reasons. Some intentionally, some unintentionally. It doesn't matter who's doing it, it needs to stop.

At the risk of sounding like a member of HUAC, can you name names?

(Also, do I get BINGO or something if civver lists "the Jews"?)

 

[El_Machinae]

I see where you're coming from, but I think a lot of right-wingers feel like "well they don't have to disavow Communists, why should we have to disavow Nazis?" That's my take on it at least.

I agree that both sides need to police their idiots.

But when a KKK-endorsed president runs on birtherism to get popular and then on racist lies to get elected .... we're going to notice when the Nazis are being coddled. If "Unite the Right" rallies are a safe-space for Nazis and Nazi-typed people, that's a problem for the Unite-the-Righters to deal with.

 

[civver_764]

It's honestly not. The Holocaust happened, that is beyond argument. It's a fact, the evidence for it is not simply documentary but material. There is no plausible historical narrative which does not include the murder of millions of Jews, Roma and Slavs by the Nazi authorities. The debate is around the hows and whys, perhaps around the precise numbers, but not about the fact that a genocide took place. That is pseudo-history, and the only reason for pushing that pseudohistory is as part of an apologia for the Third Reich.

This is your opinion. Maybe it's backed by tons of historical knowledge and research, but it's still just your opinion. Someone else could make a different claim, and that would be their opinion. You might say its an uninformed opinion, but still is an opinion, and could theoretically be made with the best intentions. To say there is only one possible reason is simply absurd.

But you have not yet demonstrated that white people are actually declining, as a population, only as a proportion of the total population. All you've managed to demonstrate is your only shaky grasp of statistics. The tell, I think, is here, when you explicitly connect "white genocide" to a decline in white economic and political power:

You chose to define "replacement" not as actual substitution or even as absolute decline in population, but to the replacement as a hegemonic force, and not even in favour of a non-white hegemon, but simply a multi-racial hegemon. The great tragedy against which you rail is not the end of white people, but the end of white supremacy.

And that is why I keep calling you a white supremacist.

I'm not surprised you hold these views, but do you feel the same way about Israel? Do they have a right to remain a Jewish majority?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why would Whites have 'the right' to maintain a majority? It literally makes no sense. The problem with the white nationalists (other than their readings of White Supremacist literature inevitably infects them, and makes them horrible to communicate with) is that they're literally only proud of a skin color. It's very, very hard for people to empathize with this, because it's so utterly non-sensical from any type of normal heuristics people use.

But let's just say that any Nazi that is concomitantly 'anti-Jew' and 'disbelieving the holocaust' is actually stating that the Jewish people have not yet been mistreated enough. They're implicitly denying the Holocaust because they wish to heap more mistreatment. Further, their opinion doesn't deserve consideration. And certainly not sympathy.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is your opinion. Maybe it's backed by tons of historical knowledge and research, but it's still just your opinion. Someone else could make a different claim, and that would be their opinion. You might say its an uninformed opinion, but still is an opinion, and could theoretically be made with the best intentions. To say there is only one possible reason is simply absurd.

It would be their opinion, but it would also be factually incorrect. And when you find yourself defending factually incorrect opinions, moreover, opinions which are maintained for the sole purpose of legitimising insidious and destructive political programs, you must confess, at the very least, to a certain comfort with those programs.

I'm not surprised you hold these views, but do you feel the same way about Israel? Do they have a right to remain a Jewish majority?

I can't imagine they do, no.

 

[inthesomeday]

Wow. Civver really is a white supremacist.

See guys, this is why I take that hardline on opinion vs fact. Letting too much slack on "opinion" gets away from us to the point that a Nazi can say the Holocaust is an opinion.

Edit: Also, there has never been a "Jewish majority" in Israel until very recently. They had to keep changing the borders until there were more Jewish people in there.

 

[Lexicus]

Edit: Also, there has never been a "Jewish majority" in Israel until very recently. They had to keep changing the borders until there were more Jewish people in there.

?? Explain

 

[Ajidica]

This is your opinion. Maybe it's backed by tons of historical knowledge and research, but it's still just your opinion. Someone else could make a different claim, and that would be their opinion. You might say its an uninformed opinion, but still is an opinion, and could theoretically be made with the best intentions. To say there is only one possible reason is simply absurd.

So, how would you view someone who denied the Edmund Fitzgerald sank, or at the very least treated the fact it sank as a historical debate?

 

[Ryika]

It would be their opinion, but it would also be factually incorrect. And when you find yourself defending factually incorrect opinions

This is a funny discussion, as three people seem to actually be taking the same position, but because all three of them are not using the proper wording, you're arguing over nothing.

An opinion cannot be "factually incorrect", as an opinion does not deal with facts. What you actually mean, and I think all three of the people involved would agree with that, is the opinion that the holocaust did not happen does not at all align with the evidence that is available. Saying "The holocaust did happen." is you uttering an opinion about the reality of the holocaust, just as much as "The holocaust did not happen." is somebody else uttering an opinion about the reality of the holocaust. The first opinion is a lot (as in 99.99953%) more likely to match the objective reality, but it is still "just an opinion".

That "just an opinion"-thing does NOT mean that now both opinions have an equal likelihood of being right which you somehow seem to assume.

 

[Ajidica]

You don't really get to pull the "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." in history when it comes to basic facts. If one wants to be "of the opinion" the Titanic never sank, or that Patrice Lumumba died a peaceful death of old age in his bed while surrounded by friends and family, then sure, but don't pretend you are engaging in a historical debate.

 

[Berzerker]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_55b55998e4b0a13f9d18e364

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/phoenix-police-tear-gas-pepper-spray-black-lives/story?id=40453514

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...owd-at-black-lives-matter-summit-in-cleveland

Here you go. I googled this for you. Didn't read the articles because I have my own anecdotal evidence but I recognize the fact that doesn't stand as evidence as well as this sort of article-posting.

You should have, the 1st is about an intoxicated teen being taken into custody and a crowd of people refusing to let the cop leave so he pepper sprayed some of them. The 2nd appears to identify rock throwing protesters as the catalyst for using pepper spray, and the 3rd is a repeat of the 1st. Yes, I know BLM has had run ins with the cops when protests got outta hand. That aint the same as the KKK showing up to attack BLM protesters.

I'm still a bit mind-boggled that anyone would need a source about the police attacking BLM

I still need one

how do people on the internet ask other people to do their research for them

You compared cops to the KKK attacking a BLM protest and I cant ask for evidence?

 

[inthesomeday]

It seems most of y'all prefer to talk about vague ethereal ideas more than me. To me, "the Holocaust didn't happen" and "another Holocaust should happen" are two statements of basically the same substance and should therefore be thought of and treated equally as destructive, evil falsehoods, and do not deserve the respect of an opinion. Regardless of these ridiculous and unimportant semantic games the immediate necessity is to quickly and decisively destroy any base of support for either claim.

Edit: will find Berzerker some better links in a second

 

[Ryika]

You don't really get to pull the "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." in history when it comes to basic facts. If one wants to be "of the opinion" the Titanic never sank, or that Patrice Lumumba died a peaceful death of old age in his bed while surrounded by friends and family, then sure, but don't pretend you are engaging in a historical debate.

In the same vain that heavily religious people who deny scientific explanations in favor of woo should not pretend to be engaging in a scientific debate, sure - I agree with that. People who deny that we have mountains of evidence for one position without bringing counter-evidence themselves should generally be ignored when any subject is discussed.

But there was no historical debate going on here. At the very beginning you made the claim that...

2) Anyone who says the Holocaust didn't happen is a liar.

...which is an assumption that is based on the flawed premise that because it is a historical fact that the holocaust happened anybody who says "The holocaust did not happen." must be lying. That's simply incorrect, and in pointing that out, and in pointing out why the difference is important, civver did not "defend white supremacists" as Traitorfish claimed, he simply explained your misuse of words.

 

[civver_764]

Why would Whites have 'the right' to maintain a majority? It literally makes no sense.

Until the 1960s it was taken utterly for granted that they have this right. Most countries in the world take it for granted that they have this right. It is a very recent and wholly western idea that a group of people don't have a right to maintain their own hegemony.

I think it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't live in a Hispanic neighborhood or a Black neighborhood, and I assume you would rather not. Is that because you're racist? No, of course not, it's just because you identify more with other white/European people. You're more likely to share cultural tropes with them. You're more likely to share values with them. Genetically, you're more on the same page with these people. This is totally normal and natural, and everywhere we look humans organize themselves into tribes. We can view the nation as a mere extension of the tribe. America was founded by Europeans, based on Europeans beliefs and European traditions, and for the majority of its history was almost entirely European. Of course, Blacks also play an important role in American history, and they undoubtedly have a place in this country. But the recent third world immigrants? They played no part in the founding of this country. They come over here, set up their own cultural enclaves, create ethnic tensions, displace English as the national language, and suck up welfare resources(well, the Asian ones are pretty self-sufficient). Why would I want that for my country? I don't think its racist or hateful to be opposed to such a thing, rather just common sense.

From a purely practical standpoint I can make this argument as well. I'm a libertarian minded guy who prefers smaller government. I can't help but notice that it is mostly white people who are in favor of these things. Hispanic immigrants overwhelmingly tend to vote for bigger government. Why would I want more of these people to come in and vote for Democrat politicians? Make no sense.

We're really on the verge here. Once Texas becomes a majority Hispanic state(we're like less than 10 years away from this), the Democrats will be pretty much unbeatable. We saw that during the 2016 election, the GOP became the "de facto" party of white people, even if they weren't allowed to openly admit it:

Spoiler :

The Democrats employ identity politics heavily by pandering to everybody except Whites. I'm simply saying, "ok, we need to play this game as White people too, or else we'll never win an election again".

So, how would you view someone who denied the Edmund Fitzgerald sank, or at the very least treated the fact it sank as a historical debate?

I would probably just move on because I don't care about the Edmund Fitzgerald. What I wouldn't do, is assume that the person saying that was doing so because they secretly wish to commit genocide against the people of Minnesota. That's entering crazy-land.

Moderator Action: The moderation team was very clear on how best to express your opinions on CFC. Please avoid making remarks that are construed as white supremacist or anti-Jew material. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[inthesomeday]

@Lord of Elves

I see what you mean.

 

[caketastydelish]

CFC is basically a den of neo-Nazis, though to be fair, many of them are not from the United States.

A den of Neo Nazis? Oh Christ.
I'm afraid to see what dark corners of the internet you consider nazi-free.

Indeed. I can think of only one poster in off-topic (in recent times) that meets "neo nazi" criteria, and that user has been banned. I can't name names, but I bet you know who I'm referring to.

@Lord of Elves

I see what you mean.

There have always been nazis here. And they have always been a fringe minority. CFC is not the same as Stormfront. If it were, I wouldn't be comfortable with the community.