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.
The OP’s 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? :smack:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur, and your second is just baseless supposition.
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? :smack:
No it’s not. We can, as a people reject the ideology, and ensure that we do not elect leaders who espouse it.
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.
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.
In other words, you feel that they are inferior morally and intellectually, and therefore, need to be told what to do.
It’s only a coincidence that our only ally in the region is predominantly white, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s the most staggeringly naive thing I’ve ever read. If Iran nuked Tel Aviv, what do you think would happen next?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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 Millerhas. 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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean ideologies that arise in response to the western world’s imperialism?
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.
Because we have no people in this country that would treat minorities with any sort of disrespect. :rolleyes: 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.
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?
Not always, only since its founding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You made it an either/or proposition.
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.
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.