Black lives matter vs. All lives matter (an experiment)

Strawman. Typical liberal response. Fwiw with respect to the actual topic of the thread, it depends on the context. I don't think it's racist to compare technological, cultural achievments between civilizations. It's like comparing Aztecs and Chinese.

But really, it's been a question to me as to how you guys never discuss those comments with in the threads they're actually in. Maybe because I beat you in those threads? Who knows. I seldom respond to accusations about me being a white supremacist because you guys take it as an opportunity to derail the thread.

 

Typical alt-right, white supremacist response. Let's review.


This is where you said you should go into a black neighborhood to provoke people enough to give you an excuse to end people.

Then you professed to be ready for a race war.

Then you said your race war prepared, white supremacist self wasn't a bad guy.

Then you said you were only a white supremacist based on broad liberal definitions, like being prepared for a race war and wanting to go into black neighborhoods to end people (legally of course, heh), and that it's fair to say white supremacists aren't bad people. What?

Then you said liberals were quick to call people racists though that's precisely the behavior you've exhibited on this board.

 

You don't want to respond to being a white supremacist because that's the alt-right way. You don't want to be known as the white supremacist because that rightly has a societal stigma for being a scumbag. You want to troll your garbage without taking responsibility for what you espouse.

Let's discuss these comments because you never responded to them.

 

Cometswin just owned you, by the way...yes it is fair to compare civilizations but it is then racist to say "If it weren't for white people, they'd all be in mud huts" that is then racist. Which is pretty much what you said about black people.

Not only do these posts show complete ignorance of history but it's exactly something you'd read out of Stormfront. At least Jcee admits he's racist. You on the other hand are one of those racists that says these things and then go "Racism? Racism is dead!" but don't worry, you aren't fooling anyone.

 

It's upsetting that stupid people on both sides have been dominating this conversation of late, ceasing all potential intelligent conversation. That's pretty much the state of things these days. The dumb people among us are speaking the loudest and that's why we get BS like Trump, Hillary, and BLM riots.

 

How's that a typical alt-right response? Because it's smart?

I never said black anywhere in that. I just wanted to end criminals.

Considering the atmosphere mostly promulgated by the black community, I don't see being ready for a race war, if it comes to me as a bad thing. I don't see being prepaeed for it as being any different as preparing for a natural calamity.

This is the problem, you love to strawman.

I made that response to an accusation that that I'd plant evidence.

I said that considering how wide the brush is for liberals to paint people as white supremavists, I think the label's lost credibility.

I mean up until this point when you finally gave some definition for white supremacism like being prepared for a race war (not a bad thing) and going into black nwighborhoods to end black people (which I said I'm not), your grounds for calling me a white supremacist were a mystery.

Yawn.

 

Yeah, smart in a dumbass Trump sorta of way.

The context was perfectly clear. You're ready for a race war and you want to go into a black neighborhood to instigate a confrontation so you can end someone.

That's because you're a white supremacist, you think preparation for a race war is a logical response to protest and civil disobedience over justice and equality.

Yeah, it has plenty of credibility when someone is actually a white supremacist like you are.

No actually you said white people built America. Then you tried to create a definition of white culture that doesn't actually exist. Then you morphed a non-existent white culture into western civilization to claim a racial superiority and claimed that third world nations would be better off under white imperialism. That's including all the stupid things you've said in this thread.

Of course espousing white supremacy, race wars, and ending people in black neighborhoods doesn't make you a bad guy. You're just a friendly neighborhood white supremacist.

Nice job guy.

 

Go ahead, explain. Here's my post.

I said your post was typical liberal because it was a strawman. What makes my post a "typical alt-right" post?

Awwww, you're the one who desperately jammed that idea in there m8o. And you're confusing the order of things now. I said that I'm prepared for a race war after I said I'd pull the same thing as the guy in the vid. And again, I never said black anywhere.

This is what protest and civil disobedience looks like to CometsWin.

Circular argument. "Calling you a white supremacist even though I never gave a definition is credible because you're a white supremacist."

How does that make me a white supremacist? Give me a definition.

 

Lol I read this and Sweet Lou is still the most racist dbag on this entire board.

 

Go look up the definition, then read your posts, and then go waste someone else's time. Troll on white power.

 

It's actually pretty simple. When you said that other countries would be better if they had more white people you revealed yourself to be a white supremacist. Maybe you don't think you are but you can say that 'Today I learned I am a white supremacist.'

Not only that, this isn't even addressing your posts where you heavily implied that mixed babies are white genocide. That's because you think there is some purity to your 'race' that is being ruined. Another idea of the definition of racist, that is thinking that your race is better than others.

I have a question for you Dei, you claim to not be a racist so you'll answer truthfully. In a previous thread a poster said jokingly "Asia for asians, africa for africans, etc etc." your response was "The better question is whether or not some of those places would be better off colonized by whites again."

Why is that? Why is that a question to you?

 

Definition. Give me a definition. You just keep quoting me and saying they're white supremacist without any rubric for qualification outside of something hurting your feelings. You're making a judgment based on emotion.

 

Ending criminals is not your job and is illegal and unethical. I'm not sure how that qualifier makes anything better.

We've discussed before, I think. However scary BLM gets to be to you, nobody is in any position to start a race war except white people. If a race war ever starts it'll be started by white nationalists. At 13% of the population, black people are in no position to draw lines around race and start fighting.

I'd actually like to hear your definition. Or rather what you'd like to label yourself as and what the definition of that is. I've seen some touchy-feely alt-right propaganda that says it's not about supremacy but about having a home for white people. And then I hear about how white people invented all this stuff and built all this stuff and that other countries can't succeed without the help of white people and that other races tend to barbarism. It's a rare year that a white nationalist can come to left-leaning mainstream community like this and feel safe to say what you mean. So go ahead and lay out the reasonable argument for your position now before the cloak of political correctness again descends on Nov 8. You've said some things that were perhaps rash, so take a reset and give a definition. I probably won't come around since I'm already a race traitor, but I'm genuinely interested to understand.

 

You are on the internet sir, it's not that hard to find a definition.

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun

a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

Happy? Now can you come to terms with what you are or either explain what you meant by some of the things you've said?

Also, I'm not sure why you think you've hurt anyone's feelings. This is the D&D, you made some posts and I replied to them. I never called you stupid or ignorant or have said anything that would resemble 'hurt feelings'. I call you a racist just by fact but you've taken it as an insult. That's on you. Another poster (Jcee) takes pride in that word, I guess you don't.

 

I didn't ask for a definition, I asked for the definition you were using. My accusation was that your brush was too broad in painting people to be racist. You just kept by quoting my posts and saying they're racist without ever explaining why so there was no other reason to think you consider them racist apart from you being upset.

But if you're going by that definition, then it depends on what "believing that one's own group is 'superior' to others". Is that inherent or is any comparison ending in any favorability racist? When someone says that the Japanese are more industrious and disciplined than many of their neighbors is that racist? I don't really see any difference from saying there are many 3rd world countries that would be better off being ruled by whites again on the virtue that Western governance is less corrupt and more competent.

BTW, I remember the "Asia for asians, africa for africans, etc etc." question. I remember answering it with "yes if they can continue civilization". No people have the inherent right to exist against the forces of nature. Like any civilization in history, they should be able to subsist. And with that in mind, it's fair to mention that many millions of Africans would instantly die the moment we cease sending them food and medicine aid.

And you're railing me for asking whether or not those countries would be better off being ruled by white people again. When stuff like this happens



I think that's a fair question to ask.

 

Self defense.

Not every war involves a symmetrical force.

I don't label myself as anything.

 

Well that was a disgusting waste of time. What are we going to talk about next?

Holocaust denial with idiots who ignorantly support it with a wink and smile?

 

What is there to explain? When you think that white genocide is thanks to mixed babies there really isn't much to explain there. It's just a racist thought and I explained why it was above.

Also btw you did ask for a definition. "Give me a definition." was exactly what you said. As to this point it seems it has made its way over your head.

Any ways you are being obtuse. You know, no it wouldn't be racist if one said "Japanese are more industrious..." because that's a nation. That's not what you said, what you said and I quote..

Do you see the difference? I do. If you said "Americans are hard workers." then your not being racist. In this thread you made it a point to also brag about how white people created america and then there was this as well...

Then you want people to explain why that is racist?

Good job, you're saying Mugabe is African's standard then? That would be like me saying Hitler is Europe's standard and going "Well, these white folk can never be peaceful. Just look at Hitler. Mirite?" maybe we should judge all Asian countries by Kim Jong Un.

You basically take one example and then go "well, guess blacks can't farm, guess they need white people to do it for them." That is your position is it not? If it is not then why is that the 2nd time you have shown that story as if it proves your point that "If white people didn't come there, they'd still be building mudhuts"

 

It's funny though, you have a guy saying openly racist things and going "What? What is racist about any of this? All I said was that mixed babies are white genocide. All I said was that white people need to be in 3rd world countries. I don't get it guys, what's racist about that?!"