Disgusting ANTIFA: Pure Terrorist Group

this isn't about offending anyone its about convincing people to think like white nationalist. You are so oblivious

 

I neither deny nor confirm it. I don’t know what his true purpose is. I am only concerned with whether his argument (what he is actually saying, not your speculative extrapolations) makes sense or not.

 

Thinking about whether diversity is a strength or a weakness in a given context should not convince anyone who isn’t a white nationalist to be a white nationalist.

Defeat what you consider to be bad ideas with better ideas — not by punishing those who give voice to those bad ideas. This is the essence of free speech in a liberal society. And demonstrate the flaw in what they are saying without taking cheap shortcuts like complaining about words, or making insinuations on their true motivations, or resorting to unearned Hitler comparisons. I think political discourse in the media and among the public would be far improved if we all committed ourselves to this practice —actually allowing ourselves to be challenged by ideas we disagree with.

 

So you are saying don't stand up to hate instead tell people to love?

Your thinking is called appeasement. Appease the racists and it will all go away. You still don't get it. You can keep your blinders on and just think this is about affirmative action. It's not but I guess that's what you want it to be so that's all you can see. I am not a leftist. I am a moderate. But the not jobs call you antifa as soon as you disagree. It's shocking to see you on that side

 

Is that how this works? You just declare yourself the winner of a debate and it holds true? Can't say I am surprised after being shown your history here.

It's cool. I honestly feel sorry for you after seeing that. I can't take anything you say seriously so this will be my last response to anything you say. Take care

 

I don't see how this helps your case. The original meaning of the phrase is quite literal, in that no matter your race or origin, you can add to your country or company or whatever. That's the original meaning of the phrase. Racist countered by saying "No, it is not our strength" it's very clearly dipped in racism.

If the original phrase said by liberals (and honestly, Republicans too before Trumpism took control of the party...) means literally that we find strength in our diversity then how is questioning its correctness NOT racist?

I'm honestly uncomfortable that so many people think that racist ideas are even up for argumentation. As a wise man once said, my freedom is not up for debate. It's not an 'opinion' that I should have to sit down and honor. If everyone I've seen that says that phrase is an actual White Nationalist then what do you think I will think about when I hear it from ANYONE?

An important part of argumentation is also choosing your words. Words have a lot of power in politics. In fact, they are the weapon of the good politician. Often slogans win races. Diversity is not our strength is their thing.

They use it to convert 'normies' to get them thinking negatively about 'diversity' and you know why it works? Because what you said earlier. A liberal will get on TV and say "We embrace our diversity in this school..." and the liberal will LITERALLY mean the spectrum of races, gender, and religion...and what is the counter to that again?

 

Cowards. I bet these guys would stain their pants before the noose of that beautiful braided rope tied the necks, that's what happened to nazis. now if you could still heil hitler as you took your last breath, then that's loyalty.

 

.

If “diversity is our strength” only means that that a diverse society has its positives, I agree that a rejection of that is a form of bigotry. Because it says that there is nothing valuable that people from outside cultures can bring.

If it means that adding people from the outside can only bring positives to a society and no negatives whatsoever, then I think that is naive. Social systems are too complex for such a claim to be accepted unquestioned.

And as soon as we allow that increasing diversity can bring both positives and negatives, then it is a legitimate sociological question to ask if the positives outweigh the negatives, or vice versa. This is a hard problem, not easily answered. If you silence free debate of that topic and force people into non-interacting silos, you actually enable echo chambers in which false ideas (including racist ones) can flourish.

Well, if you think that anyone who says that phrase must be a white nationalist, of course that’s what you’ll think of anyone who says it. That doesn’t really mean anything to me.

Fair enough, but you are talking about something different. Yes, argumentation as a means to persuade others requires careful consideration of wording. However, argumentation as a means for self-reflection and finding the truth is a different matter.

I have no issue whatsoever with people who embrace diversity. Shutting down or punishing people who do not embrace diversity as they do is what I think is problematic.

 

This is what it means, this is what most people mean when they say it. They are in general talking about diversity.

And this is what I mean by saying they (White Supremacists) subvert things.

What you talk about is immigration, why can't it just be about immigration and not diversity? These are different concepts entirely to me.

Yes, because it is a slogan from them. I'm not sure how else to make you see this but to show you videos of various White Nationalists talking about this very thing.



Jared Taylor is a classic white nationalist and if you ask the guy he'll probably tell you he's not racist. White Nationalists want racism to be up for debate. This is where the anger from many people like myself comes from. That so many people are like "Wait, let's just listen to what these white supremacists have to say. They are all about moving the overton window so that racism is just some idea that should be debated.

Well, the people that are arguing against "Diversity is a strength" are quite literally arguing about the demographics of this country. EXCEPT for Tucker who continues to claim "It's not about race" but won't ever really tell you what it's about except "We must have things in common."

What exactly does that mean? Is he talking about language? What?

Well, if you're not supporting diversity then you are supporting the opposite of it, segregation. I don't see how that's something that should be debated.

Even if you take race/ethnicity out of it, you are basically saying that living in an Orwellian state should be up for debate. Can you see how some people don't want to debate this?

Or a more extreme example. What if a politician came out and said "Slavery is good, hear me out..." do you think people would really like to debate this?

 

I don’t think the choice is accepting “diversity is a strength” vs “we just segregate”. Supporting merit-based immigration policies or hiring/promotion practices over policies and practices that prioritize diversity as an end goal is clearly not segregation.

I am arguing for free speech and not punishing people who say things you disagree with. No one is compelling you to listen to them or debate them.

Probably not. But when someone says something ridiculous, you can either ignore it or (if you must respond) explain why what they are saying is ridiculous. If it’s so crazy as slavery is a good thing, the latter should be easy.

I’d add also that if someone says something you think is deeply wrong but which is tricky to argue against, then it is better to allow them to make their best argument and then take the time to counter it. If you leave arguments you consider to be dangerous unchecked and you only try to suppress expression of those arguments, you send the wrong message to proponents of those arguments.

 

This is another topic entirely I feel than just discussing diversity. Merit based programs are often diverse in the first place but people never accept that diversity, like Affirmative Action. The black students that get into Harvard get in on merit, but people against AA simply don't accept it...

Who said anything about punishing anyone for their speech?

If someone says something racist I have every right to call them out on it. This isn't punishment.

This is a very slippery slope and they rely on this slope to get their message out.

Gosh, all I ask is that the national media doesn't openly encourage their talking points. It's odd how so many people get on CNN for calling white men dangerous and then turn around and defend Tucker Carlson saying Diversity is bad and we all need to think alike to get along.

 

A lazy strawman. I've explained why I think it is racist. I've even shown actual racist explain to you why they make that argument. It feels like sometimes we can't call ANYTHING racist because openly racist things are just 'jokes' and subtly racist things aren't racist at all. Nothing is ever racist anymore according to most conservatives...except when CNN calls white men dangerous. Now that is racist.

This is why conservativism in America has an issue with race. Because when minorities say "Hey, there is a problem with this." You all ignore us completely and just shove aside our opinion. But let Don Lemon list off terrorism stats committed by white men, you all go up in arms about racism.

I'm discussing this right now, haven't once insulted you.

I've explicitly said that Tucker didn't mean for his comments to be racist but that they come with a racist origin. I've made this separation, I've even countered his argument I feel.

It's a complete dog whistle because of how people like Jared Taylor and David Duke hear it as such. There's a reason why Steve King says it. Why White Nationalists continue to say it and why they think Tucker Carlson is 'their' guy. It's now on Tucker to distance himself from them.

Where did I call Tucker Carlson racist? Quote me.

 

You're a more patient man than me. I used to post on this forum more frequently to try and engage in discussion. It usually results in words being put in your post you never even typed. Good luck.

 

I don’t think it’s an entirely different topic. A lot of the pushback against “diversity” isn’t due to a desire to keep certain people out, but rather a belief that treating diversity as an end in itself can lead to unfairness against certain individuals who don’t fit the right demographic.

Example: Using social media platforms to organize various protest or boycott campaigns in an effort to coerce an apology or a reprimand from someone’s employer is social punishment. It is designed to muzzle the free expression of unpopular views that are not acceptable to a certain segment of the population. I am generally against it.

You can call it what you like, and others don’t have to agree with you. If you try to silence them for saying something you don’t like, it is punishment. Convince that person’s audience that he is being racist and should not be taken seriously. It requires more work, but is ultimately much more effective than suppression of speech.

 

Well, since you've clarified that you weren't speaking of me, that's fine. It's just that I thought you were referring to me since I was the last to respond to you I think. Anyway, I did say that I did not think Tucker was racist, but I think he's being irresponsible. So I can't find a racist comment from Tucker because I don't think he's racist. I think he's being irresponsible, I'll explain below...

You are right, but a lot of pushback against diversity IS about keeping certain people out. Do you agree with this? I think it is dangerous to ignore that a lot of the anti-immigration push is driven by racism. If you don't recognize it then how do you fight against it?

At the end of the day it's on that company to punish their worker or not. You may be against it, but if someone who works for Nike says something disparaging about black people, a large part of their consumer base, you can bet your ___ NIKE is going to fire that person.

We had that story of that asian woman being racist on twitter and was it the NYT or some other publication held strong by her. It's the company's decision in the end. The people demandind apologies is all part of free speech. All of it is part of free speech.

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I linked a literal white supremacist in this thread and his views on the subject. I'm all for debating ideas and exposing these ideas for debate...

Here is what I think. The media has a responsibility to not only report the news factually but also carefully. The public as a whole is very impressionable, like a child or teenager, therefore mainstream journalists, like Tucker Carlson, have a responsibility with the language they decide to use.

He can buck that responsibility, that's fine, but people have a right to call him out on it and hope he learns from his mistakes. I know Tucker is a reasonable guy. His career is one of moderation. I'm sure he thinks he's turning a phrase here and that he's on the right side, but I'm not so sure about that.

So, not only is the public in general impressionable (This is why propaganda works...) but certain pockets of the public is moreso. White Supremacists are. It is a fact that the language used by our president and certain people in the media on the right are hyping them up. Whether they do so intentionally or not is irrelevant to me, what is relevant is that they are doing so. If you do not believe me, please, go to where they congregate, you'll see it yourself. They think they are winning, they openly call for violence, and then it's never a surprise when they actually do commit said violence. CNN wrote an article about this just recently.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-midterms-trump/index.html

You don't have to listen to CNN, just find literally any hotspot of white supremacy views on the net, lurk there, you'll see it yourself.

 

Lol. Log into those alts. You're done here

 

Portland Police are a disgrace