SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Bacle]

There is moderate white nationalism, as opposed to the hardcore white nationalism. Specifically talking about race realism, mentioning cases of nonwhite-on-white violence whenever they occur (and which the media typically downplays), defending free speech, including extremely unpopular political positions, et cetera. Also advocating in favor of ending racial discrimination such as Joe Biden's anti-white farm relief bill.

There is no such thing as 'moderate white nationalism' and 'race realism' is just a new mask for WN/WS types to try to hide under.

The legit issues you mentioned should have nothing to do with one's race, and should offend anyone who actually believes in true equality under the law.

 

[WolfBear]

There is no such thing as 'moderate white nationalism' and 'race realism' is just a new mask for WN/WS types to try to hide under.

The legit issues you mentioned should have nothing to do with one's race, and should offend anyone who actually believes in true equality under the law.

Well, race realism involves speculating on genetic causes for average human group gaps on various important traits.

And frankly, talking about nonwhite-on-white crime makes one a white advocate, does it not?

 

[Stargazer]

There is moderate white nationalism, as opposed to the hardcore white nationalism. Specifically talking about race realism, mentioning cases of nonwhite-on-white violence whenever they occur (and which the media typically downplays), defending free speech, including extremely unpopular political positions, et cetera. Also advocating in favor of ending racial discrimination such as Joe Biden's anti-white farm relief bill.

Ehhhhhhhhh. Why does that have to be "white" nationalism? That suggests you only care about "nonwhite on white violence" or the "antiwhite farm bill" because white people are involved, and wouldn't care if some other racial group was affected. I believe in and advocate liberty and justice for all, not just for white people. I think it's very dangerous to get into a pattern of thinking in terms of what benefits specific "races", and it's just not part of my value system.

Also, defending free speech is hardly a value unique to white nationalism.

 

[WolfBear]

Ehhhhhhhhh. Why does that have to be "white" nationalism? That suggests you only care about "nonwhite on white violence" or the "antiwhite farm bill" because white people are involved, and wouldn't care if some other racial group was affected. I believe in and advocate liberty and justice for all, not just white people. I think it's very dangerous to get into a pattern of thinking in terms of what benefits specific "races", and it's just not part of my value system.

Also, defending free speech is hardly a value unique to white nationalism.

I actually agree with all of this. I'm just saying that when the current elite tends to dismiss these things (such as nonwhite-on-white violence, while aggressively hyping up any cases of white-on-nonwhite violence), it's good to have someone emphasize these things for the sake of balance. And it's similar for free speech: It's beneficial for all, but nowadays, a lot of the main people whom the elites seek to silence are those who question existing dogmas in regards to things such as race.

 

[Stargazer]

I actually agree with all of this. I'm just saying that when the current elite tends to dismiss these things (such as nonwhite-on-white violence, while aggressively hyping up any cases of white-on-nonwhite violence), it's good to have someone emphasize these things for the sake of balance. And it's similar for free speech: It's beneficial for all, but nowadays, a lot of the main people whom the elites seek to silence are those who question existing dogmas in regards to things such as race.

Ok, then don't call it white nationalism.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I actually agree with all of this. I'm just saying that when the current elite tends to dismiss these things (such as nonwhite-on-white violence, while aggressively hyping up any cases of white-on-nonwhite violence), it's good to have someone emphasize these things for the sake of balance. And it's similar for free speech: It's beneficial for all, but nowadays, a lot of the main people whom the elites seek to silence are those who question existing dogmas in regards to things such as race.

Yes, but they push this for two reasons. Inflame the populace to divide them and to distract from the fact the nonwhite-on-nonwhite violence is at least an order of magnitude worse than cross-racial violence in either direction.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes, but they push this for two reasons. Inflame the populace to divide them and to distract from the fact the nonwhite-on-nonwhite violence is at least an order of magnitude worse than cross-racial violence in either direction.

Yeah, but no one (other than perhaps nonwhites themselves) actually cares that much about nonwhite-on-nonwhite violence, unfortunately, 'coz there's the feeling that it's more natural and thus not something to bother with.

Ok, then don't call it white nationalism.

Is white advocacy OK instead?

 

[posh-goofiness]

Yeah, but no one (other than perhaps nonwhites themselves) actually cares that much about nonwhite-on-nonwhite violence, unfortunately, 'coz there's the feeling that it's more natural and thus not something to bother with.

Is white advocacy OK instead?

Personally I think it's worse than that. I think government policies are specifically designed to undermine and destroy nonwhites while the puppets pass more laws to reverse "systemic racism".

Also, apparently not.

 

[WolfBear]

Personally I think it's worse than that. I think government policies are specifically designed to undermine and destroy nonwhites while the puppets pass more laws to reverse "systemic racism".

Also, apparently not.

I heard that on some measures, such as unemployment and the illegitimacy rate, blacks fared better relative to whites under Jim Crow than after Jim Crow. That's not an argument in favor of Jim Crow, of course, but this does raise the question of whether some of the Left's subsequent policies have been misguided.

I meant in your own honest opinion.

 

[Stargazer]

Is white advocacy OK instead?

Not really. If there's a law that targets white people, it's wrong because discrimination is wrong, not because white people should be protected. I think we're better off getting away from racial thinking altogether. If you don't get that then you didn't really agree with what I said.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I heard that on some measures, such as unemployment and the illegitimacy rate, blacks fared better relative to whites under Jim Crow than after Jim Crow. That's not an argument in favor of Jim Crow, of course, but this does raise the question of whether some of the Left's subsequent policies have been misguided.

I meant in your own honest opinion.

Personally, I think that the better fitting hypothesis is that affirmative action combined with intentionally subversive education destroyed the culture of blacks (and whites).

My honest opinion is that you should advocate for yourself individually. White, black, hispanic, asian it doesn't matter. It's all the same collectivist trap we've been mired in since the early 1900s.

 

[WolfBear]

Not really. If there's a law that targets white people, it's wrong because discrimination is wrong, not because white people should be protected. I think we're better off getting away from racial thinking altogether. If you don't get that then you didn't really agree with what I said.

Agreed with your general premise here. I think that racial, sex, et cetera discrimination should be avoided unless it satisfies a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored towards achieving this specific state interest.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

unless it satisfies a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored towards achieving this specific state interest.

i definitely disagree with this completely.

 

[Stargazer]

Agreed with your general premise here. I think that racial, sex, et cetera discrimination should be avoided unless it satisfies a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored towards achieving this specific state interest.

I wouldn't allow for racial discrimination for any "state interest". In any case, this is getting off topic. Point is, minorities having abortions at a disproportionately higher rate is an evil thing, as abortion in general is evil. If abortion bans result in a higher birth rate for minorities, good, because that means less abortions are being performed.

 

[WolfBear]

i definitely disagree with this completely.

So, no racial profiling at all, then?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@WolfBear
Looking for a person of a specific skin tone is not racism. It's called narrowing the suspect pool.

What you were advocating was government sponsored whatever'ism (racism, sexism, etc...) because it benefitted the government.

You had it right in the 1st part of your statement, "I think that racial, sex, et cetera discrimination should be avoided..."

 

[Stargazer]

I'm not sure why this guy brought up white nationalism and the "Great Replacement" in the first place. No one was asking what white nationalists think about abortion bans.

 

[Sailor.X]

So, no racial profiling at all, then?

Yeah no racial profiling. 30 years ago I came home wearing my US Navy Dress Blue Uniform. And an Old White lady saw me and clutched her purse tight as I passed by. That one incident still bugs me yet to this day. I was thinking to my self like "Really Lady" You think an Active Duty US Navy Sailor is gonna purse snatch you???" Racial profiling can lead to that level of idiocy.

 

[WolfBear]

Yeah no racial profiling. 30 years ago I came home wearing my US Navy Dress Blue Uniform. And an Old White lady saw me and clutched her purse tight as I passed by. That one incident still bugs me yet to this day. I was thinking to my self like "Really Lady" You think an Active Duty US Navy Sailor is gonna purse snatch you???" Racial profiling can lead to that level of idiocy.

FWIW, when one profiles, one generally uses race along with various other attributes, such as sex, class, age, et cetera. So, a young black man in a suit would look less threatening than a young black man wearing ghetto clothes. But Yeah, it is sad, but it's a fact of life that when you're being followed by a young black man who's wearing ghetto clothes, then the odds of you getting mugged, raped, or murdered are considerably higher than when you're being followed by an old Korean woman who's wearing fancy clothes. It's very sad, but the former population has much more bad apples than the latter population has, and sometimes not engaging in profiling can result in great harm occurring either to oneself or to others.

 

[Simonbob]

I'll ask the question again.

Why is it that there can be black supremists, hispanic supremists, and asian supremists, but white supremists are to be hunted down?

Rules for Thee, but Not for Me, I guess.


(You know, I wouldn't bother with any of this, if I didn't feel that imbalance. If all the supremists groups were treated the same, I'd ignore them all. But, they aren't.)