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

[caketastydelish]

civver_764, if you think the only people who consider you to be racist are the far left, SJW snowflakes, I've got some earth-shattering news. I have a reputation on this forum for bashing left wing political correctness, and even I am going to say you are straight up racist. Yes, sometimes "they are just looking for things to be offended about". But with you, you don't have to look very hard.

I'm not saying you're racist just for being conservative or even being a Trump supporter. I'm saying you're racist because you say explicitly racist things. You literally have "pro white" as your slogan below your avatar. And to remove any doubt, you go on to defend neo nazis and attack minorities. You are doing everything possible except just saying "I am a neo nazi myself and I openly admit it." I would actually prefer you do it that way, then at least you're being honest. It's one thing to just stick to your guns no matter how unpopular they are. At least that requires some integrity. Just saying the words "I am not a nazi, I am not a racist" does not make you a non-nazi or non-racist. I can say anything I want about myself, but that doesn't make it true. The same applies to you and applies to everyone.

Moderator Action: While your overarching point is correct (that saying something doesn't make it true), it's still against the rules of CFC to call another poster a racist. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[inthesomeday]

I'll own up to who I am/ stick to my guns and say the pejoratives you applied to me are correct in the sense you intend them to be. I do fight for social justice, and I am a snowflake in the way you probably mean it, although sometimes with you guys that's not clear.

One question I have-- why the photo of Malcolm X as your profile? He was a "social justice warrior" in a literal sense.

 

[Ryika]

Okay, if you're all having a coming out party, let me join, too.

I'm an opinion maker sent by Russia to bring chaos into the world and cause a Civil War by encouraging open exchange of ideas that will ultimately lead to more division among the Citizens of the USA.

And I'm actually 13, not 15.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll own up to who I am/ stick to my guns and say the pejoratives you applied to me are correct in the sense you intend them to be. I do fight for social justice, and I am a snowflake in the way you probably mean it, although sometimes with you guys that's not clear.

One question I have-- why the photo of Malcolm X as your profile? He was a "social justice warrior" in a literal sense.

I see many similarities between Malcolm X, Donald Trump, and Julius Caesar. I personally don't like any of them. I'm just saying I see things in common.

 

[inthesomeday]

Those three individuals share only one single attribute by my acknowledgement, and it's that they've been called populists. Then again, they share that with probably like 75% of anyone who's ever entered any political arena.

 

[caketastydelish]

There are far more than that.

Malcolm X and Caesar were both assassinated by former allies because they were getting out of hand. I predict Trump will be assassinated by a republican.

Similarly, the assassination of Caesar and Malcolm X both lead to civil unrest. And while Malcolm X and Caesar both died as individuals, their dream lived on. The Roman republic fell to becoming an empire. Attacking white people become acceptable thanks to the knockout game. Trump has already changed American politics for the next several decades even if he doesn't get assassinated. If something were to really happen to him, there's no telling what the result would be.

All 3 of them were not afraid to use violent means to achieve their ends. All of them were racist except maybe Caesar, but that's easy when "race" wasn't a thing. He considered everyone, not Roman to be a "barbarian" and in some ways that's even worse. Could you imagine if someone today said everyone except (inserts nationality here) are barbarians? You would probably think they aren't even being serious. Then when you find out they're serious, you would think they're either crazy or they're a pretentious douche bag.

All 3 of them defeated the establishment. I could go on.

 

[Hygro]

Okay, if you're all having a coming out party, let me join, too.

I'm an opinion maker sent by Russia to bring chaos into the world and cause a Civil War by encouraging open exchange of ideas that will ultimately lead to more division among the Citizens of the USA.

And I'm actually 13, not 15.

Ive met probably three dozen people from forums, the majority CFC. Everyone to date has represented themself honestly, which makes me wonder, why this made up identity about age? What makes you different, and what makes it worth it?

 

[caketastydelish]

Lying that you're younger than you are can make people think "He/she is advanced for their years, they'll be someone big when they get older". Or on the other end, "even though he/she sounds like an idiot, if he/she has paid off a house, a car, has all these degrees, holds a good job and has been around the bush, they can't be a complete idiot"

You can also lie about your age just to straight up troll people. For example, you could say that you are 69. Saying you're older/younger than you are can also be used for more subtle trolling purposes. You could come up with these stories of how you had PTSD in Vietnam and that you like to go to "happy ending" massage parlors since the type of women there remind you of the war, but only the best parts.

You could pretend to be 44 or so and tell us how the Grunge movement "really" was and we would be forced to listen to you. Or how good/bad it was when MTV really played music but there wasn't Youtube and their comments section.

 

[Ryika]

Ive met probably three dozen people from forums, the majority CFC. Everyone to date has represented themself honestly, which makes me wonder, why this made up identity about age? What makes you different, and what makes it worth it?

It's part of my contract. Can't keep my identity for too long, or otherwise I might get angry letters from Putin.

 

[inthesomeday]

There are far more than that.

Malcolm X and Caesar were both assassinated by former allies because they were getting out of hand. I predict Trump will be assassinated by a republican.

Okay, well that hasn't happened yet but I guess I can count this.

Similarly, the assassination of Caesar and Malcolm X both lead to civil unrest.

The assassination of US presidents has not led to much mass unrest before, but if we're comparing it to the somewhat minimal unrest caused by X's death and the historically fuzzy unrest caused by Caesar's death then I'll concede this is also possible. Again, though, hasn't happened yet.

And while Malcolm X and Caesar both died as individuals, their dream lived on. The Roman republic fell to becoming an empire.

I wouldn't say Caesar really had some grandiose dream of Rome's future. He wanted to be, and was, for a while, an emperor himself, but that could hardly be attributed some idyllic vision of the future of Roman politics or society.

Attacking white people become acceptable thanks to the knockout game.

Everything in this sentence is hilarious, from the implication that Malcolm X wanted to attack white people to the fabrication you reference in regards to the knockout game.

Trump has already changed American politics for the next several decades even if he doesn't get assassinated. If something were to really happen to him, there's no telling what the result would be.

His goal was never to change American politics. It was to make a lot of money by becoming president and then making deals with other rich folks like putting the CEO of the world's biggest company in the executive branch.

All 3 of them were not afraid to use violent means to achieve their ends.

Depends on your definition of violence.

All of them were racist except maybe Caesar, but that's easy when "race" wasn't a thing. He considered everyone, not Roman to be a "barbarian" and in some ways that's even worse. Could you imagine if someone today said everyone except (inserts nationality here) are barbarians? You would probably think they aren't even being serious. Then when you find out they're serious, you would think they're either crazy or they're a pretentious douche bag.

Neither Caesar nor Malcolm X were racist. Caesar lived before race was invented, and Malcolm X was actually the opposite of a racist.

All 3 of them defeated the establishment. I could go on.

Not really. Trump has always been a part of the establishment and will continue to be to the day his rich orange self does. But please, go on. We're still at one similarity by my count.

 

[caketastydelish]

Caesar and Malcolm X both wanted power for themselves. They did it for personal gain, of course. But they achieved their personal gain by preaching an ideology, and the ideology lived on. You cannot deny that times have changed after Malcolm X's death. Interracial marriage is much more acceptable now. We've had a black president. The ethnicity ratio of the NBA is about flipped from what it was. Ditto for NFL. The knockout game is real. It's hard to take your "Malcolm X was actually the opposite of a racist" comment serious.

"The black man in Africa had mastered the arts and sciences. He knew the course of the stars in the universe before the man up in Europe knew that the earth wasn't flat."

"The white man, in his press, is going to identify me with 'hate.'"

"White America is in the minority."

"History proves that the white man is a devil."

"All I held against Jews was that so many Jews actually were hypocrites in their claim to be friends of the American black man."

Even if you don't find all of these statements to be racist, you should at least admit some of them are.

 

[Ryika]

Wasn't there also that supposedly handwritten letter where he said white Americans should convert to Islam to cure racism?

 

[inthesomeday]

Caesar and Malcolm X both wanted power for themselves. They did it for personal gain, of course.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly with your decision to question figures of the past, and I have questioned the more prominent Civil Rights leaders in terms of research quite thoroughly. However, I quite disagree that it was X who was after personal gain. I do believe truly that he was an ideologue who believed everything he preached. And while I disagree with him on topics such as religion, ethnic nationalism, and the impotence of nonviolence, I think that he played a very important part in achieving most of the actual progress against American racism of the Civil Rights era.

But they achieved their personal gain by preaching an ideology, and the ideology lived on. You cannot deny that times have changed after Malcolm X's death. Interracial marriage is much more acceptable now. We've had a black president. The ethnicity ratio of the NBA is about flipped from what it was. Ditto for NFL. The knockout game is real.

The knockout game is probably something a couple kids have done and then they got suspended from their high school. Rightist media desperate for victimization did their best to blow it out of proportion but nobody took the bait. And then out of your list interracial marriage is, I would say, the most important thing, although Malcolm X didn't really support it. Next, the black president, is perhaps an important token victory that will be symbolic to future generations of young boys of color, but it ultimately didn't achieve anything directly, only in providing a new mainstream representation of black people that will be available to children of the future. And then irrelevant things like representation in sports and media aren't really important in the destruction of racism, which lives in socioeconomic institutions.

It's hard to take your "Malcolm X was actually the opposite of a racist" comment serious.

You must be one of those people who doesn't understand what racism is.

"The black man in Africa had mastered the arts and sciences. He knew the course of the stars in the universe before the man up in Europe knew that the earth wasn't flat."

Not racism. Racism is institutional socioeconomic oppression based on qualities of external appearance influenced by ethnic origin, or behavior that perpetuates this oppression. What he says is black nationalist rhetoric-- while I don't support black nationalism, I think its rhetoric cannot be termed racist.

"The white man, in his press, is going to identify me with 'hate.'"

I disagree with attributing the capitalist media only to white people, but he was just essentially using the term "white media" to describe mainstream news outlets. Which is also not racist, and isn't even that untrue, given that the time's media was virtually completely controlled by white people.

"White America is in the minority."

What are you even calling racist here? Because he's referring to white Americans? Maybe provide me some context and I can discuss it more in depth.

"History proves that the white man is a devil."

More black nationalist rhetoric, still not racist.

"All I held against Jews was that so many Jews actually were hypocrites in their claim to be friends of the American black man."

This is the most problematic quote so far, and Antisemitism among black nationalists is a disgusting and recurrent problem that repels me even further from the ideology. Nonetheless, although this is troublesome semantics, I can't technically call this racism. However, I would be inclined to agree with you if, on this sentiment alone, you termed him racist. You didn't though. You chose instead, for the most part, to refer to his actions against white supremacy, which are anti-racist actions in reality.

Even if you don't find all of these statements to be racist, you should at least admit some of them are.

I suppose the last one partially qualifies, and outside of semantic technicalities it does, although a more accurate term to use would've been Antisemite.

 

[Hygro]

It's part of my contract. Can't keep my identity for too long, or otherwise I might get angry letters from Putin.

That sounds cool.

 

[Ryika]

Not racism. Racism is institutional socioeconomic oppression based on qualities of external appearance influenced by ethnic origin, or behavior that perpetuates this oppression. What he says is black nationalist rhetoric-- while I don't support black nationalism, I think its rhetoric cannot be termed racist.

Ah yes, the "If I redefine racism, its not racist"-game.

You're using a definition of racism that only makes sense when used while discussing structures of racism, not interpersonal racism, that is clearly present in the quotes.

That sounds cool.

It is. But it's also rather dangerous, because you never know if there's money or anthrax in the envelop.

 

[ashendashin]

This is the most problematic quote so far, and Antisemitism among black nationalists is a disgusting and recurrent problem that repels me even further from the ideology. Nonetheless, although this is troublesome semantics, I can't technically call this racism. However, I would be inclined to agree with you if, on this sentiment alone, you termed him racist. You didn't though. You chose instead, for the most part, to refer to his actions against white supremacy, which are anti-racist actions in reality.

This is what makes reading these threads somewhat entertaining. You see no form of racism in calling whites devils and putting blacks above them, but on the barely offensive mention that many Jews apparently weren't so friendly to American blacks as portrayed, you suddenly become more willing to see racism. Minorities must rule your world, huh?

 

[inthesomeday]

Ah yes, the "If I redefine racism, its not racist"-game.

You're using a definition of racism that only makes sense when used while discussing structures of racism, not interpersonal racism, that is clearly present in the quotes.

Racism only exists on a scale where it is an ism.

This is what makes reading these threads somewhat entertaining. You see no form of racism in calling whites devils and putting blacks above them,

I do see racism in "putting blacks above whites". The difference is that hasn't really happened in recorded human history ever, especially not on a scale consistent with the definition of racism. In a world where black supremacy was the norm, calling white people Devils would be racist. However we do not live in that world.

but on the barely offensive mention that many Jews apparently weren't so friendly to American blacks as portrayed, you suddenly become more willing to see racism. Minorities must rule your world, huh?

No, capitalists rule my world. Yours too. And those capitalists have been thriving off of actual racism for a very long time.

 

[Hygro]

It is. But it's also rather dangerous, because you never know if there's money or anthrax in the envelop.

Good luck.

 

[ashendashin]

No, capitalists rule my world. Yours too. And those capitalists have been thriving off of actual racism for a very long time.

Capitalists. Only they can benefit from encouraging racial division! Beware their monopoly over controlling populations!

And encouraging hate towards a majority race in a country is only racist when they no longer hold their long established majority over important positions. Words of wisdom, truly.

 

[Ryika]

Racism only exists on a scale where it is an ism.

Racism

- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
- a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
- a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
- a political or social system founded on racism
- racial prejudice or discrimination
- Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.
- The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes
- Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity

Just to quote a few of the definitions that can be found in various dictionaries. As you can see, your definition of racism is very narrow, and does not capture the entirety of what is racism. Do we agree that under some of the above definitions, his statements could be understood as racist?