Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976

White supremacists are the biggest ideological threat to American lives, by far


https://forward.com/fast-forward/429...arlottesville/

White supremacists have murdered 73 people since the Charlottesville march. I don't believe any other ideology, including extremist versions of Islam, comes close. I've thought that the thread title has been accurate for pretty much all of American history, but it's becoming more urgently dangerous in the last couple of years, as compared to recent decades.

This has always been the worst of America, and the biggest ideological danger to Americans, IMO. If you disagree, what other ideology do you think possess such a clear and deadly threat to Americans?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #2  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:48 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
How are you measuring Ďdangerousí? Is it overall body count? Frequency of attacks? Deaths per capita? Some combination of the three?

Also, what counts as a ďwhite supremacist?Ē Do Trump voters count? If so, does it matter why they voted Trump?
  #3  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:50 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
How are you measuring ‘dangerous’? Is it overall body count? Frequency of attacks? Deaths per capita? Some combination of the three?



Also, what counts as a “white supremacist?” Do Trump voters count? If so, does it matter why they voted Trump?
Semantics is the last refuge of the fascist.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #4  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:04 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,176
If I posted, "Communist are the biggest ideological threat to American lives, by far", would questioning the definition of communist be fascist? It is a legit question. Is my 85 year old Uncle a "White Supremacist" or just a cranky old man who uses non-PC words?

Don't start an argument from an unassailable position. Next comes, "I know when I see it".

It is really sad the White Supremacist are still organized and in fairly large numbers in this day. It sucks in fact. You would hope we were moving past this and that younger generations would be free of it.
  #5  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:07 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,575

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Semantics is the last refuge of the fascist.
This looks like you are calling another poster a fascist. Do not insult other posters in this forum.

[/moderating]
  #6  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:33 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Semantics is the last refuge of the fascist.
Pithy, but stupid. The argument hinges on how iiandyiiii is defining dangerous. For example, if he's going by body count alone, then all the white supremacist murders in the last 20 years combined don't equal 10% of the death toll of 9/11. So the answer is that white supremacists aren't the biggest ideological threat to American lives.

On the other hand, if he's going by frequency of attacks, then white supremacists probably are the biggest threat (at least, I can't think of another). So definitions matter.

Also, it's pointless trying to have a debate about white supremacy without clearly defining exactly what it is. Of course, in past years this wasn't a problem. Ten years ago, you tell me Bob is a white supremacist and I'd know exactly what you meant. Today, you tell me Bob is a white supremacist and I don't know if he's a member of the KKK or just owns a MAGA hat. Again, definitions matter.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 08-10-2019 at 09:35 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Pithy, but stupid. The argument hinges on how iiandyiiii is defining dangerous. For example, if he's going by body count alone, then all the white supremacist murders in the last 20 years combined don't equal 10% of the death toll of 9/11. So the answer is that white supremacists aren't the biggest ideological threat to American lives.

On the other hand, if he's going by frequency of attacks, then white supremacists probably are the biggest threat (at least, I can't think of another). So definitions matter.

Also, it's pointless trying to have a debate about white supremacy without clearly defining exactly what it is. Of course, in past years this wasn't a problem. Ten years ago, you tell me Bob is a white supremacist and I'd know exactly what you meant. Today, you tell me Bob is a white supremacist and I don't know if he's a member of the KKK or just owns a MAGA hat. Again, definitions matter.
Feel free to use your own definition - I've talked about mine in many, many threads. It's okay if you disagree - I'm interested in what others think about this statistic and my supposition.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #8  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:50 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,246
It's not just the number killed, it's the number of Americans whose skin is various shades of black or brown or yellow or whatever who are terrorized by the combination of the attacks themselves, the increased level of hostility in meatspace and online, and a government that, at multiple levels from the President down to local racist cops, clearly is on the side of those hostile to these minorities rather than taking the side of the minorities over against those who would make them feel threatened.

White supremacists at all levels feel far more empowered than they did just a few years ago. This is Trump's doing, but given how much things have changed since he took power, getting rid of Trump won't be nearly enough to rewind things to where they were five years ago.
  #9  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:00 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
My only disagreement is that White supremacy isn't just a danger to Americans. It's the greatest danger to everyone living on this planet.
  #10  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:02 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Feel free to use your own definition - I've talked about mine in many, many threads. It's okay if you disagree - I'm interested in what others think about this statistic and my supposition.
I haven't read around enough to be 100% familiar with your definition but my impression (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's considerably more expansive than mine. My definition of a white supremacist is someone who believes that America should be a white ethnostate. If such a person got into power, they'd deport non-whites, ban interracial marriage, forbid immigration from non-white countries and other things. To me, white supremacy is an ideology in a way that simple common-or-garden racial bigotry isn't.

The ADL report linked to in the article in your OP doesn't say how it's defining white supremacy. They've included the Parkland massacre as a white supremacist incident, so I'm guessing they're using a more expansive definition than me as well. To me, that throws the cited death toll of 73 into question, which makes it difficult to offer an opinion.
  #11  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:08 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,435
A white supremacist could wear a MAGA hat or a white hood. But this thread isn't about counting the number of white supremacists; it's about assessing the damage they do. A guy in either sort of headgear who just stays at home posting rants online about Those People is loathsome, but mostly harmless. A guy in either sort of headgear who grabs his guns and goes out to shoot Those People is a serious problem.
  #12  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:19 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,573
The emergence of right-wing nationalism and white supremacists around the world is undoubtedly the greatest existential threat of our time. It isn't the body counts or the associated statistics linked to racially motivated crimes du jour - those are merely KPIs. It's the public sentiment and the shockingly large numbers of tacit supporters of this evil ideology that has been revealed that is truly staggering. Despite my own cynicism, it is to my shock and horror that I find democratic societies edging ever closer to the precipice of another worldwide tragedy fueled by fascism.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-10-2019 at 10:19 AM.
  #13  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:36 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
The emergence of right-wing nationalism and white supremacists around the world is undoubtedly the greatest existential threat of our time. It isn't the body counts or the associated statistics linked to racially motivated crimes du jour - those are merely KPIs. It's the public sentiment and the shockingly large numbers of tacit supporters of this evil ideology that has been revealed that is truly staggering. Despite my own cynicism, it is to my shock and horror that I find democratic societies edging ever closer to the precipice of another worldwide tragedy fueled by fascism.
You're not wrong, QuickSilver.

The problem with the spread of global nationalism and authoritarianism is that it takes a world that is predicated on cooperation between people, and replaces it with one in which there is an ever-intensifying competition for land and resources. Nationalists live in a zero-sum world, and they live based on assumptions of scarcity. It is the assumptions of scarcity that allow them to justify both to themselves and to others the atrocities that they commit.

The rationalize goes something like this:

"What choice do WE have? THEY are invading and taking OUR resources! WE have to defend OURSELVES against THEM. WE must destroy the invaders and the backstabbers who enable THEM"

Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2019 at 10:36 AM.
  #14  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:46 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
A white supremacist could wear a MAGA hat or a white hood. But this thread isn't about counting the number of white supremacists; it's about assessing the damage they do. A guy in either sort of headgear who just stays at home posting rants online about Those People is loathsome, but mostly harmless. A guy in either sort of headgear who grabs his guns and goes out to shoot Those People is a serious problem.
I disagree. They guy who stays home and posts rants online helps create the culture where the supremacists feel both more aggrieved and more empowered to do anything about it. He and the large majority who won't do anything more in meatspace than yell derogatory things at brown-skinned people make the iceberg larger that the guys who grab their guns are the tip of. Larger iceberg, larger tip.
  #15  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:04 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I disagree. They guy who stays home and posts rants online helps create the culture where the supremacists feel both more aggrieved and more empowered to do anything about it. He and the large majority who won't do anything more in meatspace than yell derogatory things at brown-skinned people make the iceberg larger that the guys who grab their guns are the tip of. Larger iceberg, larger tip.
Agree 100%.

It's the people online who reinforce the attitudes of the MAGA hat-wearing goons and the white nationalist terrorists. Moreover, bit by bit, day by day, the online racist holy warriors also help to normalize their racist ideology. Sure, the average person understands that white nationalism is going to be found on sites like Stormfront, and everyone assumes and understands that they're on the fringe - that's not really the point.

The point is that while mainstream society recognizes that Stormfront and 8ch may be fringe spaces of the internet, they are visited by people who operate without notice in mainstream society - and that is the danger. There are seemingly "normal" people who go home on a Friday night, spend the entire weekend deepening their radicalization online, and head to work Monday with more hardened and toxic attitudes than they had when they came home on Friday. And they take toxic ideas and potentially toxic behaviors out into the mainstream world without anyone noticing until they show up at a synagogue or a shopping center with assault rifles and body armor.

The danger is, you don't know who from "normal" world is lurking and engaging in these fringe spaces. It could be your boss, your co-worker, your next door neighbor, or even a friend or relative. You'd have no idea.
  #16  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:11 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,435
That's why I said mostly harmless. And I meant that by comparison with the crazies who go on shooting sprees. Even mostly-harmless folks can be dangerous in sufficient numbers.

Or to put it a different way: If there were only a small number of the stay-at-home trolls, they wouldn't be a problem. But even a small number of shooters is a problem.
  #17  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:17 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,167
ISTM that if this same thread had been written 10 years ago, but replaced "white supremacists" with "muslims", then the posters who are nit-picking and arguing would have been 1000% "F*ck yeah!"

The argument that young muslims were radicalized by online echo chambers would have been accepted without dispute, and all arab mulims would have been suspect and tarred with the same bruch. Yet now, we observe the identical process occurring, but with white people, and OMG!

Shoe, meet other foot.
  #18  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:21 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I disagree. They guy who stays home and posts rants online helps create the culture where the supremacists feel both more aggrieved and more empowered to do anything about it. He and the large majority who won't do anything more in meatspace than yell derogatory things at brown-skinned people make the iceberg larger that the guys who grab their guns are the tip of. Larger iceberg, larger tip.
Stochastic terrorism.

Most of them are not going to do physical harm themselves, but you get enough of them together, with them all stoking each others fears and hatreds, and the chances that one of them goes out and starts shooting people starts going up quickly.

Individually harmless; collectively a very serious threat.
  #19  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:23 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
ISTM that if this same thread had been written 10 years ago, but replaced "white supremacists" with "muslims", then the posters who are nit-picking and arguing would have been 1000% "F*ck yeah!"

The argument that young muslims were radicalized by online echo chambers would have been accepted without dispute, and all arab mulims would have been suspect and tarred with the same bruch. Yet now, we observe the identical process occurring, but with white people, and OMG!

Shoe, meet other foot.
Literally no-one in this thread is doing that
  #20  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:28 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
ISTM that if this same thread had been written 10 years ago, but replaced "white supremacists" with "muslims", then the posters who are nit-picking and arguing would have been 1000% "F*ck yeah!"

The argument that young muslims were radicalized by online echo chambers would have been accepted without dispute, and all arab mulims would have been suspect and tarred with the same bruch. Yet now, we observe the identical process occurring, but with white people, and OMG!

Shoe, meet other foot.
Bullshit! But thank you for the broad brush that you used.
  #21  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:30 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
ISTM that if this same thread had been written 10 years ago, but replaced "white supremacists" with "muslims", then the posters who are nit-picking and arguing would have been 1000% "F*ck yeah!"

The argument that young muslims were radicalized by online echo chambers would have been accepted without dispute, and all arab mulims would have been suspect and tarred with the same bruch. Yet now, we observe the identical process occurring, but with white people, and OMG!

Shoe, meet other foot.
Other than one day in September 18 years ago, radical Muslims haven't been much of a problem in the United States.
  #22  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:48 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://forward.com/fast-forward/429...arlottesville/

White supremacists have murdered 73 people since the Charlottesville march. I don't believe any other ideology, including extremist versions of Islam, comes close. I've thought that the thread title has been accurate for pretty much all of American history, but it's becoming more urgently dangerous in the last couple of years, as compared to recent decades.

This has always been the worst of America, and the biggest ideological danger to Americans, IMO. If you disagree, what other ideology do you think possess such a clear and deadly threat to Americans?
Depends on how "direct" a death has to be to pose a "threat." As much flack as Neil DeGrasse Tyson caught for his insensitive tweet, he had a point: Society doesn't consider all deaths the same. The 73 deaths that you are talking about are outright killing deaths, but if there is an ideology that "climate change is fake," that ideology could indirectly lead to millions of American deaths.
  #23  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:00 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Feel free to use your own definition - I've talked about mine in many, many threads. It's okay if you disagree - I'm interested in what others think about this statistic and my supposition.
You started the thread, why don't you give us the summarized version of what White Supremacist means because until 2 weeks ago, I thought it meant KKK & Neo-Nazis.
  #24  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
You started the thread, why don't you give us the summarized version of what White Supremacist means because until 2 weeks ago, I thought it meant KKK & Neo-Nazis.
In my understanding, the ADL is using it to describe all the folks who target non white people and Jews for violence. Which seems fair to me.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #25  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:05 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Depends on how "direct" a death has to be to pose a "threat." As much flack as Neil DeGrasse Tyson caught for his insensitive tweet, he had a point: Society doesn't consider all deaths the same. The 73 deaths that you are talking about are outright killing deaths, but if there is an ideology that "climate change is fake," that ideology could indirectly lead to millions of American deaths.
I don't know that climate change denial is entirely separated from white supremacism. It is the countries that are full of people who are not white who stand to suffer the most, and who have contributed the least towards the problem.

In fact, a common refrain from those who do not think that we should do anything about climate change is to point at developing countries and demand that they get their act together before we lift a finger in our.

In the future, after climate change has started creating millions more refugees, most of whom will not be white, white supremacy will again rear its head to come up with excuses as to why we cannot take them in.
  #26  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't know that climate change denial is entirely separated from white supremacism. It is the countries that are full of people who are not white who stand to suffer the most, and who have contributed the least towards the problem.

In fact, a common refrain from those who do not think that we should do anything about climate change is to point at developing countries and demand that they get their act together before we lift a finger in our.

In the future, after climate change has started creating millions more refugees, most of whom will not be white, white supremacy will again rear its head to come up with excuses as to why we cannot take them in.
Then substitute anti-vaxx ideology, or some other ideology that doesn't involve killing with guns, but nonetheless is dangerous. I think the OP is only referring to violent-killing deaths in his ideology, not indirect deaths.


As for the 73 deaths caused by white supremacists, it has never caused me to worry for my own safety. 73 deaths is an absolutely tiny fraction of a percent of the U.S. population; I have never worried about someone gunning me down while I'm at Walmart or McDonald's.
  #27  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:10 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In my understanding, the ADL is using it to describe all the folks who target non white people and Jews for violence. Which seems fair to me.
OK, just to refine this a hair more. Does target mean active acts or just negative remarks? Creepy jerk attacking any minority group seems pretty easy though I would not have lumped them into White Supremacists myself. But cranky old person both before WWII saying inappropriate things, I'm not going to agree with.
  #28  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:24 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Then substitute anti-vaxx ideology, or some other ideology that doesn't involve killing with guns, but nonetheless is dangerous. I think the OP is only referring to violent-killing deaths in his ideology, not indirect deaths.
Have there been even 73 deaths due to anti-vaxx in the US? That could become a problem, but at the moment, it's not really having the viral growth as White Supremacism does. I don't see anti-vaxx growing in quite the same fashion either.

It's more than just direct deaths, it is oppression and exploitation as well.
Quote:

As for the 73 deaths caused by white supremacists, it has never caused me to worry for my own safety. 73 deaths is an absolutely tiny fraction of a percent of the U.S. population; I have never worried about someone gunning me down while I'm at Walmart or McDonald's.
Well, I'm not too worried about being targeted by a white supremacist either, but then, I'm white, so there's that...

The danger of white supremacy is that it is insidious and infectious. It tells young white men that they are special, that they should have better lives, and that the reason that they don't, the source of all their problems and ills, is the "other". It's easy to fall for, as it is flattering to the listener. The listener feels like they are smarter than, and now less ignorant than the rest of the population that just doesn't get it yet. The more they listen, the more they get flattered, and the more the "other" is denigrated.

If we had never seen any point in history where white supremacism didn't get out of control and cause wars and violence, then maybe this would be an academic discussion, and you could compare a white supremacist to people who do hot yoga. But, as white supremacy des in fact have a history of inciting violence and oppression wherever it has taken hold, this is not such an ephemeral argument.
  #29  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:26 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
OK, just to refine this a hair more. Does target mean active acts or just negative remarks? Creepy jerk attacking any minority group seems pretty easy though I would not have lumped them into White Supremacists myself. But cranky old person both before WWII saying inappropriate things, I'm not going to agree with.
Do you consider there to be a significant difference in culpability between one who commits an act of violence and the others who encouraged it?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-10-2019 at 01:26 PM. Reason: cuz i kan spel
  #30  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
My only disagreement is that White supremacy isn't just a danger to Americans. It's the greatest danger to everyone living on this planet.
This sounds like silly hyperbole.
  #31  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:34 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,148
I think Apple is the biggest ideological threat to American lives.
  #32  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:37 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
My only disagreement is that White supremacy isn't just a danger to Americans. It's the greatest danger to everyone living on this planet.
Look, there's no need to jump to hyperbole. It's enough to say that X is bad. Pushing it extremes doesn't help the case.

If I want to promote an anti-leukemia campaign, I can just say it's a bad, bad disease. I don't have to claim that it's the deadliest killer on the planet.
  #33  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:42 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This sounds like silly hyperbole.
Fair enough.

It is a much greater danger to those who do not subscribe to White Supremacy than to those who do. For them, things like being anti-vaxx are more likely to kill them and their children.

And of course, if you happen to be of a demographic favored by white supremacists, then you also may not find the threat to be all that great, as the threat is to other people, not to you.

Unfortunately, even if they manage to eradicate or subjugate all the people they feel are inferior, they will still be living on a much worse planet.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-10-2019 at 01:44 PM.
  #34  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:51 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Look, there's no need to jump to hyperbole. It's enough to say that X is bad. Pushing it extremes doesn't help the case.

If I want to promote an anti-leukemia campaign, I can just say it's a bad, bad disease. I don't have to claim that it's the deadliest killer on the planet.
Right, if you just ignore the times that race has been used as a reason to oppress or murder people, then you can sweep it under the rug as not that big a deal.

The entire world was at war over this not all that long ago. Is it because the generation is now dying that had to go across the oceans to die for the notion that racial supremacy has no place among us that people are thinking of this as some ephemeral notion that has never taken hold, and so could never pose a threat?

You may not think that it is that big a deal, but you have not posed any argument as to why, just provided examples of other things that we also need to be concerned about, not explained how they are worse than an ideology that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous.
  #35  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:02 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
You may not think that it is that big a deal, but you have not posed any argument as to why, just provided examples of other things that we also need to be concerned about, not explained how they are worse than an ideology that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous.
What about nuclear war? The Cuban missile crisis was a lot more recent than the end of WW2, and nuclear weapons are growing ever more prevalent.
  #36  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:05 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatopescado View Post
I think Apple is the biggest ideological threat to American lives.
[Aging Religious Far Righter]
You see?!? We told you that The Beatles were a menace to America!!!
[ARFR]

  #37  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:10 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I haven't read around enough to be 100% familiar with your definition but my impression (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's considerably more expansive than mine. My definition of a white supremacist is someone who believes that America should be a white ethnostate. If such a person got into power, they'd deport non-whites, ban interracial marriage, forbid immigration from non-white countries and other things. To me, white supremacy is an ideology in a way that simple common-or-garden racial bigotry isn't.
By that definition George Wallace and the other segregationist Southern governors of the early '60s were not white supremacists. Want to refine your definition?
Quote:
Pithy, but stupid. The argument hinges on how iiandyiiii is defining dangerous. For example, if he's going by body count alone, then all the white supremacist murders in the last 20 years combined don't equal 10% of the death toll of 9/11. So the answer is that white supremacists aren't the biggest ideological threat to American lives.
Was Islamic extremism a threat before 9/11 but after the first WTC bombing, when the death toll was small?
  #38  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:13 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What about nuclear war? The Cuban missile crisis was a lot more recent than the end of WW2, and nuclear weapons are growing ever more prevalent.
Yes, nuclear war could very well be a result of White Supremacy getting out of hand. Thank you for the example.
  #39  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:17 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Was Islamic extremism a threat before 9/11 but after the first WTC bombing, when the death toll was small?
And what have they done on US soil or in US airspace in the past 18 years?
  #40  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:23 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager
By that definition George Wallace and the other segregationist Southern governors of the early '60s were not white supremacists. Want to refine your definition?
Iím not American, and my knowledge of Wallace is limited, but he seems to fit my definition more than not. He was opposed to interracial marriage and immigration. He may not necessarily have wanted an all white ethnostate but segregationist is only one step removed from that. That said, I certainly think segregationist is a white supremacist policy so Iíd definitely expand my definition to include that.
  #41  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:27 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,530
White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior and should dominate non-whites. A white supremacist might be just fine having black people close, hell, have them as a big part of their personal life, but they're going to think whites are best left in charge. One of the biggest problems we (whites) have had is that we've turned racist into cartoon characters. It's very easy for whites to say to themselves, "I'm not wearing a white robe or goose stepping down the street so I'm not racist. I'm just being real."

We turned racist into cartoon characters, in part, because overt displays of racism were stigmatized in many public arenas. It was no longer acceptable to express racist ideology in public without couching it in indirect language. The belief that was has to be violent, call for the export of all non-whites, etc,. etc. to be a white supremacist may be one of the reasons expressing such ideology has made a comeback. And it has made a comeback in our public lives.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #42  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:31 PM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 822
The OPís link leaves a little bit to be desired. Namely, how they arrived at the number 73. The first two hyperlinks within the cite are identical and the only thing resembling actual data is where those who attended the unite the right rally came from. Who cares? Another of the hyperlinks talks about right wing propaganda on college campuses. Again, who cares? I bet I could find all sorts of left wing propaganda on any university campus.
  #43  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:42 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yes, nuclear war could very well be a result of White Supremacy getting out of hand. Thank you for the example.
Weak. As you well know, I offered the example of nuclear war as a counterpoint to your ridiculous notion that white supremacy is the greatest existential threat on Earth.

The Cold War wasnít fuelled by white supremacy. Weíre not struggling to keep the Iranians from getting nukes because weíre worried about what Iranian white supremacists will do with them. If North Korea ever makes good on its long-standing promise to eradicate Seoul then it wonít be because of white supremacy. India and Pakistan arenít run by white supremacists.

Of all the potential nuclear flash points on Earth, not a one has anything to do with white supremacy. Nuclear war, if it ever breaks out, would decimate global civilisation. In all the places itís likely to break out, white supremacy isnít a factor. Therefore, we can (and should) consider nuclear war as a threat separate from white supremacy. Given that itís nearly happened before, and given that it only needs to happen once, I contend that nuclear war is a bigger threat to civilisation than white supremacy.
  #44  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:57 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Weak. As you well know, I offered the example of nuclear war as a counterpoint to your ridiculous notion that white supremacy is the greatest existential threat on Earth.
And as soon as we ensure that white supremacists never have any influence over the white house or military, then that may be a good point.
Quote:
The Cold War wasn’t fuelled by white supremacy. We’re not struggling to keep the Iranians from getting nukes because we’re worried about what Iranian white supremacists will do with them. If North Korea ever makes good on its long-standing promise to eradicate Seoul then it won’t be because of white supremacy. India and Pakistan aren’t run by white supremacists.
We are worried about Iran getting nukes because if they had them, then we would no longer be able to threaten and oppress them. North Korea isn't going to eradicate Seoul unless we do something to trigger it. India and Pakistan have the problems that they do because they were created with arbitrary borders by white supremacists who didn't think it mattered which side of a line those brown people lived.
Quote:
Of all the potential nuclear flash points on Earth, not a one has anything to do with white supremacy. Nuclear war, if it ever breaks out, would decimate global civilisation. In all the places it’s likely to break out, white supremacy isn’t a factor. Therefore, we can (and should) consider nuclear war as a threat separate from white supremacy. Given that it’s nearly happened before, and given that it only needs to happen once, I contend that nuclear war is a bigger threat to civilisation than white supremacy.
Do you think that white supremacy and nationalism are mutually exclusive? If there is a nuclear exchange, the most likely one is a country of predominantly white people dropping that nuke on a country of predominantly not white people.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-10-2019 at 02:58 PM.
  #45  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:02 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If there is a nuclear exchange, the most likely one is a country of predominantly white people dropping that nuke on a country of predominantly not white people.
You've linked together two unrelated things. If, say, North Korea nuked Seoul and America nuked Pyongyang in return, that has zilch to do with skin color.


Do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because Americans were white and Japanese were not?
  #46  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:18 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
And as soon as we ensure that white supremacists never have any influence over the white house or military, then that may be a good point.
You know that’s impossible. The fact that we can’t guarantee that white supremacists will never have any influence over the US military is no reason not to consider the threat of nuclear war as something separate from white supremacy. Especially since all the places where the existence of nuclear weapons poses the greatest threat to global stability are noticeably bereft of white supremacists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
We are worried about Iran getting nukes because if they had them, then we would no longer be able to threaten and oppress them.
We don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons because (a) they would then pose an existential threat to Israel (b) Iran is run by a bunch of god-boggled theocrats against whom the logic of MAD may not prove persuasive and (c) because of the risk that those weapons may fall into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah. It has nothing to do with our desire to “oppress” them and everything to do with the fact that they’re a deeply unstable country overtly hostile to our only ally in the region.

Quote:
North Korea isn't going to eradicate Seoul unless we do something to trigger it.
What, are you basing that on Kim Jong Un having a functioning brain or something? He’s a paranoid psychopath. As a general rule, you don’t want paranoid psychopaths to have nuclear weapons. Again, nothing to do with white supremacy.

Quote:
India and Pakistan have the problems that they do because they were created with arbitrary borders by white supremacists who didn't think it mattered which side of a line those brown people lived.
India and Pakistan have had decades to resolve their differences. If they go to war now it’s on them. Not the British government of the 1950s.

Quote:
you think that white supremacy and nationalism are mutually exclusive? If there is a nuclear exchange, the most likely one is a country of predominantly white people dropping that nuke on a country of predominantly not white people.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur, and your second is just baseless supposition.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 08-10-2019 at 03:20 PM.
  #47  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:19 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
You've linked together two unrelated things. If, say, North Korea nuked Seoul and America nuked Pyongyang in return, that has zilch to do with skin color.
That has nothing to do with what I said, so for you to say that I've linked unrelated things would be to say that you have linked two unrelated things, and then claimed that I said them.

If North Korea lashes out, that is a reaction to us trying to impose our will on them.
Quote:

Do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because Americans were white and Japanese were not?
Do you think that WWII didn't have anything to do with White Supremacism?
  #48  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
You know thatís impossible.
No it's not. We can, as a people reject the ideology, and ensure that we do not elect leaders who espouse it.
Quote:
The fact that we canít guarantee that white supremacists will never have any influence over the US military is no reason not to consider the threat of nuclear war as something separate from white supremacy. Especially since all the places where the existence of nuclear weapons poses the greatest threat to global stability are noticeably bereft of white supremacists.
No, if we allow white supremacists access to our nuclear weapons, then that is exactly the reason to consider the threat of nuclear war to be as something caused by white supremacy.
Quote:

We donít want Iran to get nuclear weapons because (a) they would then pose an existential threat to Israel
That's a threat to Israel, not to the world. And I don't really think that they would do so, as they are not stupid, and would know that they would face retaliation. However, if Iran had nukes, then Isreal would no longer feel free to impose its military on them.
Quote:
(b) Iran is run by a bunch of god-boggled theocrats against whom the logic of MAD may not prove persuasive and (c) because of the risk that those weapons may fall into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah.
In other words, you feel that they are inferior morally and intellectually, and therefore, need to be told what to do.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with our desire to ďoppressĒ them and everything to do with the fact that theyíre a deeply unstable country overtly hostile to our only ally in the region.
It's only a coincidence that our only ally in the region is predominantly white, right?
Quote:
What, are you basing that on Kim Jong Un having a functioning brain or something? Heís a paranoid psychopath. As a general rule, you donít want paranoid psychopaths to have nuclear weapons. Again, nothing to do with white supremacy.
Once again, calling others morally or intellectually inferior because they refuse to bow to our rule.

Yeah, Kim Jong Un isn't stupid. He's certainly paranoid, as the entire world is out to get him, and a psychopath is just one of the job requirements of being a brutal dictator. But to insinuate that he has a non-functional brain just because he sees us as a threat, which we are, is an unsupported assertion that only serves to denigrate and dehumanize.
Quote:

India and Pakistan have had decades to resolve their differences. If they go to war now itís on them. Not the British government of the 1950s.
For one, an exchange between them is a problem for them, not for the world, the fallout may be annoying, but not civilization ending. And two, you cannot so easily just ignore history. The roots of their conflict were created by white supremacists, and even though time has passed, that is still the case that the roots of their config were caused by white supremacists.
Quote:

Your first sentence is a non-sequitur, and your second is just baseless supposition.
No, the first was a question, which you dodged, and the second is based on the fact that currently, we are the nuclear power that is most likely to use a nuke, and we are most likely to use it on a country that is not predominantly white.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 08-10-2019 at 03:37 PM.
  #49  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:37 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This sounds like silly hyperbole.
You know, even Tucker Carlson takes a break once in a while.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #50  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:46 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I haven't read around enough to be 100% familiar with your definition but my impression (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's considerably more expansive than mine. My definition of a white supremacist is someone who believes that America should be a white ethnostate.
Virtually nobody wants that. Who would do the menial labor?

Your definition of white supremacists excludes slaveowners, the leaders of the Confederacy, and the Apartheid government of South Africa.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-10-2019 at 03:46 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017