Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:50 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
For the record, I think global climate change is indisputably the greatest threat to not only American lives, but the entire planet. But ethno-nationalism is dangerous in that it complicates how nations and leagues of nations coordinate responses to cataclysmic climatic changes. Civilizations have been extinguished by climate change, and also in part because civilizations were inept when it came to adapting in the face of such events.

A nuclear war or a war involving weapons of mass destruction is absolutely within the realm of the possible, and while not every nationalist movement is fueled by racial divisions, nationalist movements are much more likely to be inspired by ethnic tensions than nationalist movements that occur elsewhere.
  #52  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:09 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
No it's not. We can, as a people reject the ideology, and ensure that we do not elect leaders who espouse it.
This is a childish pipe dream. We can’t guarantee that future generations won’t lapse into white supremacy in the face of severe adversity. Therefore, we can’t ensure that white supremacists will never have any influence over the White House or the military. Therefore, your notion that we can’t even propose that nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy until this condition has been met is profoundly unreasonable.

Before we go further down this Panglossian rabbit hole, let’s make one thing clear. In October 1962, a nuclear stand-off almost saw human civilisation blasted back into the Stone Age. That stand off had nothing to do with white supremacy. Literally not a damn thing. To say we can’t assert that nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy until white supremacy has been eradicated is just utter nonsense. Nuclear war has already come closer to ending the world than white supremacy has, and on that occasion neither side was motivated by white supremacy.

Quote:
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.
Nuclear war could, theoretically, be caused by white supremacists. Does that mean we can’t say nuclear war is a greater threat to civilisation than white supremacy until white supremacy has been eradicated? That makes no sense. Nuclear war could be caused by a bunch of different things. Following your logic, we’d have to eradicate them all before we could argue that nuclear war is a greater threat than any of them...at which point nuclear war wouldn’t be a threat anymore anyway! One of the biggest reasons why nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy is because it can be caused by lots of different things. Just because one ideology could spark nuclear war doesn’t mean that that ideology in and of itself is more dangerous to civilisation than nuclear war, because there are a bunch of different ideologies which can also cause nuclear war.

It’s like if I say the biggest threat to our health is cancer, and you say asbestos is a bigger threat to our health because asbestos can cause cancer. Well, yeah. It can. But we shouldn’t hold off on curing cancer just because some buildings still have asbestos in them. Because cancer can be caused by a bunch of different things, it’s a bigger threat to our health than any one of its causes.

Furthermore, if we were to list all the ideologies which are likely to cause nuclear war, a quick glance round the world shows that white supremacy would be pretty much at the bottom of that list.

Quote:
That's a threat to Israel, not to the world.
That’s the most staggeringly naive thing I’ve ever read. If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, what do you think would happen next?

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9bfriender
In other words, you feel that they are inferior morally and intellectually, and therefore, need to be told what to do
Do I think I’m morally superior to the Iranian Mullahs? People who hang gays and throw women in prison for not wearing hijab?

Yes. I’m morally superior to them. So are you. So is almost everyone who’s not them. Does that make me a white supremacist, or something? Is that what you’re driving at? If not, I can’t see why you think this sentence is relevant to anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K9bfriender
It's only a coincidence that our only ally in the region is predominantly white, right?
What a silly thing to say. Firstly, Israel wasn’t always the close ally it is today. Secondly, Israel provided a useful counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East during the Cold War. Thirdly, Israel shares America’s commitment to fighting jihadism. Fourthly, the US gives Israel a large amount of aid in return for advancing US interests. I could go on. US support for Israel is based on mutual political gain. The notion that it’s based on racial superiority is just a weird conspiracy theory of yours.

But you’re losing track of the argument. Even if we posited, purely for the sake of entertaining your little conspiracy, that US support for Israel was 100% race based (which it isn’t), that wouldn’t change the fact that a nuclear Iran would pose an imminent threat to Israel and that threat wouldn’t have a damn thing to do with white supremacy.

Quote:
Once again, calling others morally or intellectually inferior because they refuse to bow to our rule.
Believe it or not, I’m quite comfortable saying that I’m morally superior to the mad scion of a despotic crime family who keeps his subjects in a state of perpetual terror and starvation. Yes. Kim Jong Un is my moral and intellectual inferior. Isn’t he yours???

Quote:
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.
Okay, first of all. You’re defending Kim Jong Un. I don’t think getting the last word in any thread is worth that.

Secondly, I’m saying - not “insinuating”, I’m stating it outright - that he’s not right in the head because he assassinated his own brother, because he lives in obscene luxury while his people subsist on his table scraps, because he runs death camps, because he’s personally ordered the executions of over 300 people, including his education minister for allegedly showing a “disrespectful posture” during a meeting, and because his preferred method of execution is to have his victims blown to smithereens by anti-aircraft guns.

I’m not saying he’s crazy because he sees us as a threat. I’m saying he’s crazy because he’s fucking crazy! And crazy people shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, because they might do something crazy with them.

But again, you’re losing track of the argument. If crazy Kim Jong Un were to get ahold of nuclear weapons and do something crazy with them, that wouldn’t have anything to do with white supremacy.

Quote:
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.
Again, I can only boggle at the notion that anyone could be so naive as to say that a nuclear conflict involving about 20% of the world’s population would simply be “annoying” for the rest of us.

Also, while the conflict may have its roots in the 1947 partitioning, it also has roots in religious and tribal conflicts which are much, much older. So even if the partition happened yesterday, you couldn’t lay all the blame at the door of the British Empire. Regardless, partition was 72 years ago, and you can’t blame the British forever.

Quote:
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.
It was a question which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the matter at hand. Still, since you insist, no. White supremacism and Nationalism aren’t mutually exclusive, but I’ve no earthly idea what that has to do with anything.

And your notion that the US is more likely to use a nuke than any other nation isn’t based on anything. It’s not 1945 anymore.
  #53  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,416
...when the question was put to presidential candidates Beto O'Rourke and Elizabeth Warren "Is Donald Trump a White Supremacist?" the answer both gave was a resounding "yes."

Neither of them think that Trump dresses in a white robe or that he is a signed up member of the KKK. Its that they think that he holds an inherent belief that white people are superior to people that are not-white. And the evidence of that is plentiful. How he talks about Mexicans. The Border Wall. "Shithole countries." The people he employs. The language he has been reported using in private. The policies his administration has instituted. His history as a landlord. The Central Park 5.

We know who Donald Trump is because of what he tolerates. Even if you dispute the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist, there can be no doubt to the affiliation Stephen Miller has. Miller has survived all the purges and is arguably the most powerful unelected official in the Trump administration. The architect of the Muslim ban? Miller. The concentration camps? Miller. The ICE Raids that are terrorising immigrant communities? Miller. Miller has a disproportionate amount of power and he is wielding it to devestating effect.

The thing about White Supremacy is that if you aren't in the crosshairs you won't even notice that its happening. Lets look at something like refugee numbers. The Obama administration set the refugee acceptance level at 110,000 for 2017. The Trump administration reduced that to 50,000, then to 30,000, then to 15,000 for 2019. To date they have only resettled 15,000 refugees this year. Refugees from Syria went from 15,000 in 2016 to 3000 in 2017 to only 11 (for the first half of 2018).

Just think about those numbers for a minute and translate that to what is happening on the borders at the camps. Think about how drastically reduced the chances are of being granted asylum, and think about exactly why the situation on the borders has turned into a "crisis.' Its an entirely manufactured crisis: remove "catch and release", reduce the amount of refugees that America will accept, then let the camps fill up and build more because they just "keep on coming." The cruelty is the point. Its all part of the effort to "Make America White Again."

How you treat people who want to be Americans says everything we need to know about America. Your nation is in the hands of a White Supremacist regime. It was a nation that was founded on the blood of indigenous Americans, on the sweat of black slaves. If you are white and you live in America then you are going to be just fine. Just fine. If this is what you want America to be then you don't need to do anything.

But white supremacy is a threat to anyone in America who is not white. And because of the tendency towards misogyny its also a threat to women and a threat to LGBT communities, and with the rise of nationalism everywhere its a big fucking threat to the world.
  #54  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:40 PM
Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
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.
What countries in the world run by non-whites would the typical Trump voter prefer to live in as a regular citizen? I'm guessing pretty much none. So, it shouldn't be much of a surprise when those people object to the people from these 'shithole' countries coming to their country. The fear being that eventually both countries become 'shitholes'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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?
People didn't go across the seas to fight racial supremacy. No one would have cared (much) if Germany wiped out it's own Jews or took Poland, or even conquered Russia. It was only when Germany turned west that anyone in the West started to care. And the US didn't get involved until it was directly attacked years later.
  #55  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:29 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I’m 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 I’d definitely expand my definition to include that.
Then you didn't have the dubious pleasure of living through a time when these people did not hide their bigotry, in fact they got elected thanks to it. Back then immigration was restricted, so that was not an issue, but they did not favor deporting anyone.
Segregation was not at all like white ethnostate. Whites in the south needed blacks for the shit jobs. One of the stories in The Martian Chronicles was about blacks fleeing the South for Mars - of course lots fled the South for the North, such as Chicago.
Basically, your definition of white supremacy is way off base.
  #56  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:14 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post
What countries in the world run by non-whites would the typical Trump voter prefer to live in as a regular citizen? I'm guessing pretty much none. So, it shouldn't be much of a surprise when those people object to the people from these 'shithole' countries coming to their country. The fear being that eventually both countries become 'shitholes'.
I didn't mention Trump, those who voted for him, or fears about immigration. Did you mean to reply to my post?
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #57  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:24 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This looks like you are calling another poster a fascist. Do not insult other posters in this forum.



[/moderating]
Rebuke acknowledged and accepted.
__________________
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.
  #58  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:29 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 415
White Supremacy is a big problem in the US, and it's come out into the open more during the Trump Era.

Trump is a demagogue who gives aid and comfort to the racists. He targets and pointing to some version of the "other", whether it's muslims, mexicans, immigrants, blacks, or any group that he thinks can please his fanbase. He talks about invasions and infestations, the way people talk about rats or insects.

But Trump didn't invent this phenomenon, and it won't go away when he leaves the White House. Republicans have been winking at and tolerating race-mongers within the US for decades. Race has been used to get white support from many people who are not helped by Republican economic policies. Think about what Republicans did in 2017 after Trump was elected, and they had majorities in both houses of Congress. They passed a big corporate tax cut, which has not delivered the explosion of growth that was promised, but only an increase in debt.

Also, White Nationalism exists in various forms around the West, not just in the US. It will make it more difficult for countries to work together to address problems, such as climate change. It will make trade policy more confrontational. It will make alliances like NATO lose the ability to function. And it will ultimately result in a more poor and isolated US, which hurts everyone whether white, black, hispanic, asian, or any other group. The irony is that this ideology actually hurts the groups who support it the most.
  #59  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:55 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
This is a childish pipe dream. We can’t guarantee that future generations won’t lapse into white supremacy in the face of severe adversity. Therefore, we can’t ensure that white supremacists will never have any influence over the White House or the military.
Future generations can take care of themselves. That future generations may embrace things we fight against is no excuse not to fight against them now.
Quote:
Therefore, your notion that we can’t even propose that nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy until this condition has been met is profoundly unreasonable.
I make no notion of the sort. You are welcome to propose any concerns you have. I am just expressing my viewpoint. Though by saying that, you do seem to making this into a notion that I can't even propose that white supremacism is a greater threat, which I do agree with you that that would be profoundly unreasonable.
Quote:
Before we go further down this Panglossian rabbit hole, let’s make one thing clear. In October 1962, a nuclear stand-off almost saw human civilisation blasted back into the Stone Age. That stand off had nothing to do with white supremacy. Literally not a damn thing. To say we can’t assert that nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy until white supremacy has been eradicated is just utter nonsense. Nuclear war has already come closer to ending the world than white supremacy has, and on that occasion neither side was motivated by white supremacy.
Did I say that White supremacy is, always has been, and always will be the greatest threat? No. Currently? Yes, it does seem to be.
Quote:
Nuclear war could, theoretically, be caused by white supremacists. Does that mean we can’t say nuclear war is a greater threat to civilisation than white supremacy until white supremacy has been eradicated? That makes no sense. Nuclear war could be caused by a bunch of different things. Following your logic, we’d have to eradicate them all before we could argue that nuclear war is a greater threat than any of them...at which point nuclear war wouldn’t be a threat anymore anyway! One of the biggest reasons why nuclear war is a greater existential threat than white supremacy is because it can be caused by lots of different things. Just because one ideology could spark nuclear war doesn’t mean that that ideology in and of itself is more dangerous to civilisation than nuclear war, because there are a bunch of different ideologies which can also cause nuclear war.
This doesn't address anything that I have said, so, rather than watch you continue down this road all by yourself, I will reiterate my point here:

If a white supremacist pushes the button because of white supremacy ideology, then that is the cause. There may be other reasons at different times, but at this time, the one that we are living in, the one that we are affected by and the one that we can effect, the most likely motivator to initiate world ending nuclear exchanges is white supremacy. Our ancestors and our descendants can take care of themselves, and the only reason to invoke them is to absolve the descendants of our ancestors and the ancestors of our descendants of all responsibility.
Quote:
It’s like if I say the biggest threat to our health is cancer, and you say asbestos is a bigger threat to our health because asbestos can cause cancer. Well, yeah. It can. But we shouldn’t hold off on curing cancer just because some buildings still have asbestos in them. Because cancer can be caused by a bunch of different things, it’s a bigger threat to our health than any one of its causes.
However, if we were still building buildings with asbestos in them and people were getting cancer from it, then it would be a very valid point. That we stopped using it, and spent a great deal of money and effort in cleaning it up, is why it no longer is a big concern. If we can force white supremacy back under the rock it crawled out from, then other things will become of greater concern as well.
Quote:
Furthermore, if we were to list all the ideologies which are likely to cause nuclear war, a quick glance round the world shows that white supremacy would be pretty much at the bottom of that list.
You mean ideologies that arise in response to the western world's imperialism?
Quote:

That’s the most staggeringly naive thing I’ve ever read. If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, what do you think would happen next?
The more important question to ask yourself is what happened in the lead up that caused Iran to nuke Tel Aviv.

Sure, if Iran just randomly nuked a foreign capital, then there'd be some repercussions. But, if they do that in retaliation for Israel nuking Tehran, which is something that they have threatened to do, what response do you think should happen next?

Not that it matters, as it seems we are going to be going to war with Iran in the next few hours/days anyway. By the time you read this Tehran may already be a smoking crater.

This is the problem with thinking of your enemies as insane and irrational. You just assume that they will make an irrational act out of nowhere, and that then you must respond to it, while entirely ignoring the reasons for them taking that action. Then, when they act in entirely predictable ways in response to your aggression, you use that response as an excuse to escalate further.
Quote:
Do I think I’m morally superior to the Iranian Mullahs? People who hang gays and throw women in prison for not wearing hijab?
Because we have no people in this country that would treat minorities with any sort of disrespect. If you are going to judge a country by the worst of its actions, then you have to compare them to the worst actions of your own.

The people of Iran are trying to move to a more democratic, freer society, but the threats that we impose on them bolster their old guard. If we left them well enough alone for a bit, they'd be able to work out some of their issues.

Go back just a little bit in our history, and you see that we had officially sanctioned acts that were as bad or worse. We were able to grow out of that, but our actions directly interfere with similar growth in countries that we have decided that we are morally superior to.
Quote:
Yes. I’m morally superior to them. So are you. So is almost everyone who’s not them. Does that make me a white supremacist, or something? Is that what you’re driving at? If not, I can’t see why you think this sentence is relevant to anything.
Actually, the insistence that you are morally superior to "them" is a form of othering that is a key tool in the white supremacist toolkit.

Which "them" are we talking about here, anyway? Is it the govt that Iran democratically elected, the govt that we imposed after overthrowing that government, or the government that overthrew our puppet, to which we responded by aligning with Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran? Or is it the government that we sold weapons to so that they could fight against our ally Iraq?
Quote:
What a silly thing to say. Firstly, Israel wasn’t always the close ally it is today.
Not always, only since its founding.
Quote:
Secondly, Israel provided a useful counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East during the Cold War. Thirdly, Israel shares America’s commitment to fighting jihadism. Fourthly, the US gives Israel a large amount of aid in return for advancing US interests. I could go on. US support for Israel is based on mutual political gain. The notion that it’s based on racial superiority is just a weird conspiracy theory of yours.
I invoke no conspiracy theory, I just made an observation. You are welcome to read into as much irrelevant "notions" and conspiracies as you like, it doesn't mean that they have anything to do with what I wrote.
Quote:
But you’re losing track of the argument. Even if we posited, purely for the sake of entertaining your little conspiracy, that US support for Israel was 100% race based (which it isn’t), that wouldn’t change the fact that a nuclear Iran would pose an imminent threat to Israel and that threat wouldn’t have a damn thing to do with white supremacy.
You have that exactly backwards, nuclear armed Israel currently poses an imminent threat to Iran, and a nuclear Iran means that Israel doesn't pose as much of a threat anymore, and the western powers have less power to bully the middle eastern countries around.
Quote:

Believe it or not, I’m quite comfortable saying that I’m morally superior to the mad scion of a despotic crime family who keeps his subjects in a state of perpetual terror and starvation. Yes. Kim Jong Un is my moral and intellectual inferior. Isn’t he yours???

Okay, first of all. You’re defending Kim Jong Un. I don’t think getting the last word in any thread is worth that.

Secondly, I’m saying - not “insinuating”, I’m stating it outright - that he’s not right in the head because he assassinated his own brother, because he lives in obscene luxury while his people subsist on his table scraps, because he runs death camps, because he’s personally ordered the executions of over 300 people, including his education minister for allegedly showing a “disrespectful posture” during a meeting, and because his preferred method of execution is to have his victims blown to smithereens by anti-aircraft guns.

I’m not saying he’s crazy because he sees us as a threat. I’m saying he’s crazy because he’s fucking crazy! And crazy people shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, because they might do something crazy with them.
Right, this is all dehumanizing language. I do not defend Kim Jong Un, I simply point out to dismiss people as crazy has both the problem of making you more comfortable with dehumanizing those you disagree with, and also puts you in a position to underestimate those you have dismissed as "fucking crazy".

It is so insidious that it would cause you to assert that I am somehow doing something morally wrong, and claim that I am "defending" him, right after I agreed that he was a paranoid psychopath, but didn't go far enough to demonize him, and that you would do it with a straight face and without a second thought. Unless I agree that he is a monster, and animal, a beast that doesn't understand reason or rationality, then I am "defending" him, and therefore, there is something wrong with *me*.

By that logic, might as well say that because you will not join me in condemning white supremacy as the currently most dangerous ideology of the world that you are "defending" white supremacy.

North Korea has the problems it does because we decided that we knew better than the Koreans how to run their country, and we fought those who wanted to run it their way. We split up a country that had thousands of years of history because we knew better, and dehumanized those who were against us.

North Korea is up against a hostile world, with belligerents at its doorstep. I disagree with the motives and desires, but the actions that they take are a perfectly rational, if brutal and inhumane, approach to achieving those motives and desires.
Quote:
But again, you’re losing track of the argument. If crazy Kim Jong Un were to get ahold of nuclear weapons and do something crazy with them, that wouldn’t have anything to do with white supremacy.
You must have missed the news from the last decade, he does have nuclear weapons, he doesn't need to get ahold of them. And he hasn't done anything crazy with them, he has just threatened to use them if we were to attack or invade. That's actually pretty rational. You try to paint him as some insane raving lunatic, so that you don't have to accept that his actions are perfectly predictable and are entirely based upon the actions that we take against him.

If he does anything, it will be in response to something that we do.
Quote:
Again, I can only boggle at the notion that anyone could be so naive as to say that a nuclear conflict involving about 20% of the world’s population would simply be “annoying” for the rest of us.
Boggle away. If there were a nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India (which would most likely come about because our actions destabilize the govt of Pakistan and allow weapons to fall into the hands of individuals who have less reason to hold back than a national government), then yes, it's not going to kill anyone in California.
Quote:
Also, while the conflict may have its roots in the 1947 partitioning, it also has roots in religious and tribal conflicts which are much, much older. So even if the partition happened yesterday, you couldn’t lay all the blame at the door of the British Empire. Regardless, partition was 72 years ago, and you can’t blame the British forever.
Yeah, you had tribes and areas that had animosities towards each other. That caused a bit of conflict here and there. Then we turned them into countries and pitted them against each other on a much grander scale. Not as if we haven't done any meddling since then.
Quote:
It was a question which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the matter at hand. Still, since you insist, no. White supremacism and Nationalism aren’t mutually exclusive, but I’ve no earthly idea what that has to do with anything.
You made it an either/or proposition.
Quote:
And your notion that the US is more likely to use a nuke than any other nation isn’t based on anything. It’s not 1945 anymore.
No, it's not 1945 anymore, that's at least one thing you got right. The US (or US allies) is the only country that could drop a nuke on a foreign country and not be wiped out by the retaliation. We have a president who has on many occasions publicly condoned the use of nukes. We also have a president who shares in the white supremacist ideology that these other countries are full of people who do not matter, and that we can demand that they bend to our will, or face eradication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi View Post
People didn't go across the seas to fight racial supremacy. No one would have cared (much) if Germany wiped out it's own Jews or took Poland, or even conquered Russia. It was only when Germany turned west that anyone in the West started to care. And the US didn't get involved until it was directly attacked years later.
No, we went to fight fascism, which is an infectious ideology that takes very good root in the fertile soil of white supremacy. You are right that we didn't care about them wiping out their own Jews or taking over Poland, but the fact that it wasn't stopping there, that is was continuing to grow without being sated, was why we ended up needing to fight it.
  #60  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:17 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
k9bfriender, you start out with this premise "white supremacy is the biggest threat" and try to shoehorn it into everything.
  #61  
Old 08-11-2019, 01:34 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
k9bfriender, you start out with this premise "white supremacy is the biggest threat" and try to shoehorn it into everything.
Agreed. This line in particular struck me as silly nonsense:

"at this time, the one that we are living in, the one that we are affected by and the one that we can effect, the most likely motivator to initiate world ending nuclear exchanges is white supremacy."

It's just stupid on its face. If we're going to have a nuclear "exchange" with anyone big enough to be considered "world-ending", the only candidate is Russia, a country full of white people. How is "white supremacy" supposed to figure into two predominately-white countries having a world-ending nuclear exchange (not to mention that if there's even a half-truth behind the Dems incessant howling of "Russia! Russia! Russia!" since the 2016 election, then President Trump should be exactly the least-likely president to nuke Russia that we've had for as long as we've had nukes).
  #62  
Old 08-11-2019, 02:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
k9bfriender, you start out with this premise "white supremacy is the biggest threat" and try to shoehorn it into everything.
That's because it works its way into nearly everything. That's my point. It is infectious and insidious. I see plenty of hateful and dehumanizing language right in this very thread that is a result of white supremacy influence. Your steeping in it, and you don't even know or care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Agreed. This line in particular struck me as silly nonsense:

"at this time, the one that we are living in, the one that we are affected by and the one that we can effect, the most likely motivator to initiate world ending nuclear exchanges is white supremacy."

It's just stupid on its face.
Is it really necessary for you bring out so much hostility in order for you to participate in an online discussion?

Anyway, moving on...
Quote:
If we're going to have a nuclear "exchange" with anyone big enough to be considered "world-ending", the only candidate is Russia, a country full of white people. How is "white supremacy" supposed to figure into two predominately-white countries having a world-ending nuclear exchange
I said initiate. And yes, dropping a "small" tactical nuke on Iran is initiating a nuclear weapon escalation. Do you really think that Russia is going to appreciate us detonating nukes in their backyard?
Quote:
(not to mention that if there's even a half-truth behind the Dems incessant howling of "Russia! Russia! Russia!" since the 2016 election, then President Trump should be exactly the least-likely president to nuke Russia that we've had for as long as we've had nukes).
Putin did not help Trump get into office because they were pals, he helped him get into office to destabilize our country.
  #63  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:07 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,255
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?
That seems an awfully low number, to be honest. I'm guessing you aren't going by deaths, but put that in for impact? I was thinking of ideologies that caused deaths, so I did a quick google search. Know how many Americans die each year from vaccine preventable diseases? It's almost 4 orders of magnitude more...and this doesn't even touch on how many die in other countries because Americans push for no vaccines there. I was a bit surprised on the magnitude (50k-90k is the estimate).

Anyway, I do think that nationalism is on the rise, and it's certainly dangerous. White supremacist's though? I did another quick google search on this and found that the FBI says there is around 1100 (and a cross check by civil rights organizations seem to corroborate that with estimates from 900-1000) such groups in the US in 2018 with an average of 100 in each (this is up btw since 2016...wonder why?...where it was less than 700). That's 110000 people. Even if that's off by an order of magnitude, it seems a pretty small number of folks to be the greatest ideological threat to the US, unless you are using a very loose definition of 'white supremacist' (I only read the OP, so you might have later clarified).

Nationalism, though...yeah, I could see that as being a big threat to US ideology depending on your perspective. Of course, what is or isn't a threat is going to depend on the view point of the person making the judgement. But, world wide, I think nationalism is on the rise, and Trump's own brand certainly has a lot of followers and is certainly a threat.

ETA: I think the biggest threat to the US isn't from an ideology, even one as toxic as white supremacists'. I think ignorance is the biggest threat to the US, and I think that Trump and his supporters exemplifies this issue perfectly.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-11-2019 at 04:10 PM.
  #64  
Old 08-11-2019, 04:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Is it really necessary for you bring out so much hostility in order for you to participate in an online discussion? ...
For this board, "silly nonsense" and "stupid on its face" are incredibly tame. If you want to start making a habit of calling out "hostility" though, I could probably point you in the right direction.
  #65  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
I've got a question about the claim in the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://forward.com/fast-forward/429...arlottesville/

White supremacists have murdered 73 people since the Charlottesville march. ...
The source for that "murdered 73" figure appears to be this ADL report:

Quote:
White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology. These numbers include the deadly white supremacist shooting rampages in Parkland, Pittsburgh, Poway and El Paso, the deadliest white supremacist attack in more than 50 years.
Parkland seems like a weird inclusion in that list. There's rather scant evidence that the Parkland shooter was a white supremacist (the most I've found is this CNN article which says "A user going by the name of Nikolas Cruz also included slurs against blacks and Muslims in his posts.") and virtually nothing that indicates that his motive for shooting up the school was racial animosity. In the creepy-as-hell videos he recorded the day of the shooting, the closest he gets to offering a motive was "I've had enough being told what to do and when to do." Seems like more than a stretch to claim his attack was "clearly" motivated by white supremacy.
  #66  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonem...ooting#Suspect

"Police said that he held "extremist" views; social media accounts that were thought to be linked to him contained anti-black and anti-Muslim slurs."

"Items recovered by police at the scene included gun magazines with swastikas carved in them. One student reported that Cruz had drawn a swastika and the words "I hate niggers" on his backpack."

"CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views. He said he wanted to kill gay people and Mexicans, and talked about keeping black people in chains. He said he hated black people "simply because they were black," and Jewish people because he believed "they wanted to destroy the world." He also referred to white women who engaged in interracial relationships as traitors."
  #67  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:32 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
That seems an awfully low number, to be honest. I'm guessing you aren't going by deaths, but put that in for impact? I was thinking of ideologies that caused deaths, so I did a quick google search. Know how many Americans die each year from vaccine preventable diseases? It's almost 4 orders of magnitude more...and this doesn't even touch on how many die in other countries because Americans push for no vaccines there. I was a bit surprised on the magnitude (50k-90k is the estimate).
I've wondered if killing Osama bin Laden was worth it due to this effect. Since there's nothing to fuel a conspiracy theory like the conspiracy theory occasionally turning out to be true, the CIA finding bin Laden through a fake vaccination campaign certainly fed the anti-vax flames in Pakistan, leading to who knows how many deaths, versus the possible deaths that bin Laden could have organized.
  #68  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:05 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've got a question about the claim in the OP:



The source for that "murdered 73" figure appears to be this ADL report:

Even if we grant their numbers.
In a country with 330 million people a rally with 330 attendees is no big deal. 36 people killed a year is no threat either. More people are killed by lightning, stinging insects, and lawn mowers.
  #69  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:06 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,832
On purpose?
  #70  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:11 PM
Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, we went to fight fascism, which is an infectious ideology that takes very good root in the fertile soil of white supremacy. You are right that we didn't care about them wiping out their own Jews or taking over Poland, but the fact that it wasn't stopping there, that is was continuing to grow without being sated, was why we ended up needing to fight it.
We didn't really care that they were fascist, either. We only cared that they wanted to take over everything else. It wouldn't have mattered if they were theocratic, fascist, communist, imperialistic or even democratic until they started rolling tanks into areas we actually cared about.
  #71  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:05 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Even if we grant their numbers.
In a country with 330 million people a rally with 330 attendees is no big deal. 36 people killed a year is no threat either. More people are killed by lightning, stinging insects, and lawn mowers.
Hate crime is widely under-reported, according to police.

Additionally, a recent FBI report revealed that 87% of hate crime is not reported as such:

Quote:
The FBI says 16,149 law enforcement agencies in the country participate in their program. Of those, only 2,040, or less than 13%, reported a total of 7,175 crimes.
That means 87% of the participating agencies reported zero hate crimes in 2017.
An example, as linked above, is Heather Hayer, who's murder, despite the high profile of the case was not reported as a hate crime.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #72  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:24 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,538
So all those people doing the shooting in Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit are white?
  #73  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:36 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So all those people doing the shooting in Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit are white?
You know the Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others"?...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #74  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:39 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
How are you measuring ‘dangerous’? Is it overall body count?
The very first sentence of the OP makes this clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck
So all those people doing the shooting in Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit are white?
The OP makes it amply clear that he is not discussing common crime, but is discussing ideologically motivated murder, e.g. terrorism. Common crime isn't an "ideology." It is literally in the title of this thread, and you know it, so your attempts to deflect it back into "black people are violent" stuff is obviously disingenuous nonsense.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 08-12-2019 at 08:43 AM.
  #75  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:48 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,528
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.
White people not the same as white supremacists
Muslims not the same as radical islamicists (or whatever you want to call them).

Please.
  #76  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:11 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Democracy is by far the most dangerous ideology. The number of people jailed by democratic governments in the US far exceeds the white supremacists damage. Also the number of killings by democratic agents (the coppers) exceeds the number of killings by these open white supremacists.

Your OP deftly evades the damage done by the federal democratic government overseas. Is this due to a nationalistic impulse?
  #77  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:15 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.


Do you think that WWII didn't have anything to do with White Supremacism?

Do you think anyone , anywhere is responsible for their own actions and not directly the fault of the US government (or in this case the white supremacists ) ?

I find this a lot in all talks about just about everything. Liberals tend to blame (or excuse ) everyone else but the person for whom the blame should lie with.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 08-12-2019 at 09:19 AM.
  #78  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:16 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonem...ooting#Suspect

"Police said that he held "extremist" views; social media accounts that were thought to be linked to him contained anti-black and anti-Muslim slurs."

"Items recovered by police at the scene included gun magazines with swastikas carved in them. One student reported that Cruz had drawn a swastika and the words "I hate niggers" on his backpack."

"CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views. He said he wanted to kill gay people and Mexicans, and talked about keeping black people in chains. He said he hated black people "simply because they were black," and Jewish people because he believed "they wanted to destroy the world." He also referred to white women who engaged in interracial relationships as traitors."
Calling someone who believes that a small number of Jews can control all “white” nations a white SUPREMACIST is a mistake.
  #79  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:29 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
In addition to democracy doing much more damage than any other ideology, it is also wholeheartedly endorsed by a huge majority of the public and is preached as gospel in schools. It has control over the most powerful military apparatus in human history. It is in control of a government which confiscates more wealth than any organization in human history.

There really is no equal to democracy as a dangerous ideology besides perhaps communism or real-deal socialism, both of which are relatively non-influential today.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-12-2019 at 09:29 AM.
  #80  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:33 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Democracy is by far the most dangerous ideology. The number of people jailed by democratic governments in the US far exceeds the white supremacists damage. Also the number of killings by democratic agents (the coppers) exceeds the number of killings by these open white supremacists.

Your OP deftly evades the damage done by the federal democratic government overseas. Is this due to a nationalistic impulse?
Your response deftly avoids the OP by introducing criminal/penal laws and ongoing wars that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Any chance that a large proportion of those killed by police were killed during the commission of an actual crime? Or have you accounted for that in your well cited argument?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #81  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:36 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
In addition to democracy doing much more damage than any other ideology, it is also wholeheartedly endorsed by a huge majority of the public and is preached as gospel in schools. It has control over the most powerful military apparatus in human history. It is in control of a government which confiscates more wealth than any organization in human history.

There really is no equal to democracy as a dangerous ideology besides perhaps communism or real-deal socialism, both of which are relatively non-influential today.
Well, it is the worst system of government, unless you include all the others.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #82  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:38 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Calling someone who believes that a small number of Jews can control all “white” nations a white SUPREMACIST is a mistake.
I prefer, "Nazi Classic".
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #83  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:40 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Your response deftly avoids the OP by introducing criminal/penal laws and ongoing wars that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. Let's stay on topic, shall we?
The topic is dangerous ideologies. Democracy has begat criminal/penal laws and wars. I can drop the war stuff to satiate the OP’s barely veiled nationalism if you wish.

Quote:
Any chance that a large proportion of those killed by police were killed during the commission of an actual crime? Or have you accounted for that in your well cited argument?
Even if they were committing a “crime”, it would only be a legitimate killing if it was in proportion to the damages caused by the killed individual. Many are killed while committing “crimes” with no victim.
  #84  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:43 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Well, it is the worst system of government, unless you include all the others.
If by worst system of government you mean it is the most dangerous active ideology because it controls the most powerful and active governments, you might be correct.

If white supremacy had control of the many government institutions, it would probably be the most dangerous. It doesn’t, so it isn’t.
  #85  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:44 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If white supremacy had control of the many government institutions, it would probably be the most dangerous. It doesn’t, so it isn’t.
You've not been paying attention.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #86  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:48 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You've not been paying attention.
Yes so much has been done in the name of white supremacy under Trump and Republicans. Lol

They haven’t even built a wall.

No. Democracy has given us all of the policies of the US govt.
  #87  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:51 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 969
Just going to drop this NPR article here:

White Supremacy Has Never Been Fringe


Quote:
it has historically been politically inconvenient for government officials to confront violent white supremacy. This is in large part because it is impossible to find any period in American politics in which the notion that there should be a racial order with white people at the top, or the idea that the United States is and should remain a country for white people, has not enjoyed a robust mainstream constituency.
  #88  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:51 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes so much has been done in the name of white supremacy under Trump and Republicans. Lol

They haven’t even built a wall.

No. Democracy has given us all of the policies of the US govt.
You are very good at changing the subject. Your persuasive arguments need work.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #89  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:04 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You are very good at changing the subject. Your persuasive arguments need work.
Ok bud. Good luck finding those boogeymen.
  #90  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:45 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...North Korea has the problems it does because we decided that we knew better than the Koreans how to run their country, and we fought those who wanted to run it their way. We split up a country that had thousands of years of history because we knew better, and dehumanized those who were against us.

North Korea is up against a hostile world, with belligerents at its doorstep. I disagree with the motives and desires, but the actions that they take are a perfectly rational, if brutal and inhumane, approach to achieving those motives and desires.

You must have missed the news from the last decade, he does have nuclear weapons, he doesn't need to get ahold of them. And he hasn't done anything crazy with them, he has just threatened to use them if we were to attack or invade. That's actually pretty rational. You try to paint him as some insane raving lunatic, so that you don't have to accept that his actions are perfectly predictable and are entirely based upon the actions that we take against him....
"We" split up Korea?

And why is the DPRK "up against a hostile world"? Nobody would want to invade then if not for their actual aggression against the RoK and Japan. The DPRK does not have "belligerents at its doorstep", they have a nation that was invaded by them in 1950 worried they will try again.
  #91  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:46 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok bud. Good luck finding those boogeymen.
You too.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #92  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:13 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I have never worried about someone gunning me down while I'm at Walmart or McDonald's.
Do you ever worry about being asked to see your green card? If not, then perhaps you don't have as much to worry about when it comes to being targeted by white supremacists.
  #93  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:37 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you ever worry about being asked to see your green card? If not, then perhaps you don't have as much to worry about when it comes to being targeted by white supremacists.
White supremacists are among many ideologues who favor restrictions on immigration.
  #94  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:41 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
White supremacists are among many ideologues who favor restrictions on immigration.
And blueberries taste good in oatmeal.
  #95  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:13 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If white supremacy had control of the many government institutions, it would probably be the most dangerous. It doesn’t, so it isn’t.
White supremacists have control over the executive branch of the United States government.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #96  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...iolini/595543/

Quote:
White-supremacist terrorists—the ones who have left dozens dead in attacks in Pittsburgh, New Zealand, and El Paso, Texas, in recent months—aren’t just trying to outdo one another, he told us. They’re trying to outdo Timothy McVeigh, the anti-government terrorist who blew up an Oklahoma City federal building and killed more than 100 people in 1995—the worst terrorist attack in the United States before September 11, 2001.
  #97  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:16 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you ever worry about being asked to see your green card? If not, then perhaps you don't have as much to worry about when it comes to being targeted by white supremacists.
People worried about being asked to see their green card.
People targeted by white extremists.

I'd like to post a Venn diagram for this. This is a poor if:then statement.
  #98  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:29 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you ever worry about being asked to see your green card?
Never.
  #99  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:35 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Never.
If a white supremacist on a shooting spree were to see you, what are the chances he would say "OMG! It's a brown invader!!"
  #100  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:40 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If a white supremacist on a shooting spree were to see you, what are the chances he would say "OMG! It's a brown invader!!"
Quite high chances, but the odds of me (or any American) being in the immediate vicinity of a shooting spree like El Paso are extremely low. Airplane-crash odds low.
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 06:07 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