Wikipedia - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Sports, Hobbies and all things unrelated to Politics.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14905525
Agent Steel wrote:Yet you totally neglect to mention that JT has repeatedly pointed that he believes blacks are superior to whites in certain areas.

Oh, I've no doubt he thinks black men make great basketball players, are naturally talented jazz musicians, and have enormous penises. :lol:

Agent Steel wrote:If the statement I just made about IQ is in fact the truth, is there any way to speak the truth without being a white supremacist?

Racial disparities in IQ testing are a fact. The question is not whether this is true, but why it is true. The white supremacist narrative is that black people are little better than animals and are inherently stupid, and let's stop the conversation there. Meanwhile, the actual research on the issue shows that the reasons are much more complicated - including cultural differences, education, and even things as basic as disparities in quality of nutrition.

So yes, there are ways to talk about this issue without being a white supremacist. Of course, there is no way to say "N***** are stupid monkeys, end of discussion" without being a white supremacist - which is what Taylor and his acolytes do, in more genteel fashion.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905526
Pants-of-dog wrote:then you are clearly using force to dominate over other races, which is exactly what white supremacy is.


So when the black south Africans end up dominating the white minority in SA through land expropriation, according to your definition (which is not the definition of white supremacy btw), that would mean they are black supremacists by your own definition.

Either way, you're misusing and equivocating on definitions and begging the question.

...So many fallacies, so little time.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905531
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So when the black south Africans end up dominating the white minority in SA through land expropriation, according to your definition (which is not the definition of white supremacy btw), that would mean they are black supremacists by your own definition.

Either way, you're misusing and equivocating on definitions and begging the question.

...So many fallacies, so little time.


You tend to see fallacies where there none. Which is why you always accuse people of making them but rarely explain how it is actually a logical fallacy.

Your equivocation ignores facts like colonialism. Blacks in South Africa are trying to reverse the established historical facts of colonialism by returning land to the communities from whom it was stolen. White nationalists are not.

But since you do not refute my point about how white supremacy is required in order to accomplish the goals of white nationalism, can we say that you agree that there are no significant qualitative differences between the two?
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905546
Pants-of-dog wrote:You tend to see fallacies where there none. Which is why you always accuse people of making them but rarely explain how it is actually a logical fallacy.


Actually I often explain them:

1. you define white supremacy and white nationalism as equivalent and from wikipedia to boot, which was the point under contention, thus you posting such as an authoritative definition is begging the question. You assumed that which was to be proven in the midst of it being contended in a debate.

2. You equivocated on the definition of supremacist, by first defining it as inherent superiority and then as dominating another group, which are not the same, and thus using that term but in two different ways is also a fallacy, called equivocation.

Pants-of-dog wrote: Blacks in South Africa are trying to reverse the established historical facts of colonialism by returning land to the communities from whom it was stolen. White nationalists are not.


Irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right and your definition of dominating another race does not include retribution for perceived wrongs in the past as an exception of its definitional scope. Thus, unless you modify the definition you gave (which was the second meaning to the same term used differently in the same post), your definition requires you to admit that blacks expropriating white lands (a from of dominance) is in fact, black supremacism.

Thus, either you gave a shitty definition you need to retract and rework, OR... you need to accept that appropriating white lands would be in fact racist black supremacy (according to the definition you gave). Either way you are wrong about something.

Pants-of-dog wrote:can we say that you agree that there are no significant qualitative differences between the two?


That inference would not follow from the premise, so no.

Besides, your definition of supremacy being domination is not the same as your first definition from wikipedia being inherent superiority, so there is nothing to refute as you do not have a coherent definition due to equivocation in the first place.

Likewise, if domination implies supremacy as an ideology, than any time a race ever dominated another race, that would imply they were supremacist at that moment.

Thus when the Turks dominated Greeks they were supremacists at their moment of dominance, but when the Greeks returned the favor, they were supremacist, hence, any people would have to be supremacist depending on whether they were holding a dominant position or acting on such at a given time. Which is absurd and bears no resemblance to common conception of "supremacy" when talking about racial supremacy or white supremacy specifically.
By skinster
#14905661
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Would you say that those who advocate for a ethnically Jewish nation-state, an "Israel for the Jews!" sorta thing, that they too are ipso facto racists? No matter how sophisticated they may act?


Yes, of course. Zionism, the ideology of Israel, is racist. A child could tell you that, now that the notion has become mainstream. Ask your kids. :D
User avatar
By Crantag
#14905681
The IQ thing has come up A bit. I recently learned most humans have neandertal DNA, though not Africans. Possible link? Not trying to be A racialist but human origins is interesting.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905721
skinster wrote:Yes, of course. Zionism, the ideology of Israel, is racist.


Well at least you're consistent. You have more balls to answer this test of consistency than most men on here, namely because they can't bring themselves to condemn the "blessed Jews" and their ethno-nationalist state. Kudos.

As an Ancap, I really don't care, I don't even want a nation-state at all....but if you're going to condemn people that want a white homeland solely in virtue of the proposition, it does sound like a specifically anti-white attack unless you likewise condemn the same for those advocating for a "black homeland" or a "jewish homeland." They either are all racist concepts or none of them are.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905797
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually I often explain them:

1. you define white supremacy and white nationalism as equivalent and from wikipedia to boot, which was the point under contention, thus you posting such as an authoritative definition is begging the question. You assumed that which was to be proven in the midst of it being contended in a debate.

2. You equivocated on the definition of supremacist, by first defining it as inherent superiority and then as dominating another group, which are not the same, and thus using that term but in two different ways is also a fallacy, called equivocation.

Irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right and your definition of dominating another race does not include retribution for perceived wrongs in the past as an exception of its definitional scope. Thus, unless you modify the definition you gave (which was the second meaning to the same term used differently in the same post), your definition requires you to admit that blacks expropriating white lands (a from of dominance) is in fact, black supremacism.

Thus, either you gave a shitty definition you need to retract and rework, OR... you need to accept that appropriating white lands would be in fact racist black supremacy (according to the definition you gave). Either way you are wrong about something.

That inference would not follow from the premise, so no.

Besides, your definition of supremacy being domination is not the same as your first definition from wikipedia being inherent superiority, so there is nothing to refute as you do not have a coherent definition due to equivocation in the first place.

Likewise, if domination implies supremacy as an ideology, than any time a race ever dominated another race, that would imply they were supremacist at that moment.

Thus when the Turks dominated Greeks they were supremacists at their moment of dominance, but when the Greeks returned the favor, they were supremacist, hence, any people would have to be supremacist depending on whether they were holding a dominant position or acting on such at a given time. Which is absurd and bears no resemblance to common conception of "supremacy" when talking about racial supremacy or white supremacy specifically.


Your confusion results from your misconception that I am defining things.

Using the accepted definitions of white nationalism and white supremacy, it seems clear that to attain or work towards the goals of white nationalism, you need to engage in white supremacy.

From the perspective of feelings or beliefs, the two may be different.

In practice, they are essentially synonymous.

As for your history examples, you are still ignoring context in order to falsely see them as equal. Not all nationalist movemnets are supremacist.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905822
Pants-of-dog wrote:Using the accepted definitions of white nationalism and white supremacy, it seems clear that to attain or work towards the goals of white nationalism, you need to engage in white supremacy.


Please demonstrate this logically necessary relationship that you are claiming. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your confusion results from your misconception that I am defining things.


Then how can you make an intelligible argument if you have no defined terms to use? :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:As for your history examples, you are still ignoring context in order to falsely see them as equal. Not all nationalist movemnets are supremacist.


If this is the case (as I am sure you are thinking of non-white nationalist movements), then it would stand to reason that certain white nationalist groups could also be non-supremacist....or are the white nationalists the only nationalists that are necessarily supremacists? :roll:

If you say that they (white nationalists) are the only ones that must be supremacists, then you admit that only white nationalists are racial supremacists, but other ethno-nationalists may not be, hence only white people are/can be supremacist (thus only white people, no matter what, can be racist in a supremacist sense, no matter the context).

But if you say that white nationalists can also be non-supremacist, you would be contradicting your earlier point that they are "essentially the same" (your words).

So which is it?
By Pants-of-dog
#14905844
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Please demonstrate this logically necessary relationship that you are claiming. Thanks.


As I already said, if you want to make the US all white, you have to ethnically cleanse the USA of all people of colour, which requires you dominating them through force. This is, for all practical purposes, white supremacy.

Then how can you make an intelligible argument if you have no defined terms to use? :eh:


As I already said, I am using the accepted definitions.

If this is the case (as I am sure you are thinking of non-white nationalist movements), then it would stand to reason that certain white nationalist groups could also be non-supremacist....or are the white nationalists the only nationalists that are necessarily supremacists? :roll:

If you say that they (white nationalists) are the only ones that must be supremacists, then you admit that only white nationalists are racial supremacists, but other ethno-nationalists may not be, hence only white people are/can be supremacist (thus only white people, no matter what, can be racist in a supremacist sense, no matter the context).

But if you say that white nationalists can also be non-supremacist, you would be contradicting your earlier point that they are "essentially the same" (your words).

So which is it?


As I already said, you are ignoring history in order to make these fallacious equivalencies. Since whiteness is not a nation, white nationalism is qualitatively different from actual nationalist movements.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905850
Pants-of-dog wrote:As I already said, if you want to make the US all white, you have to ethnically cleanse the USA of all people of colour, which requires you dominating them through force. This is, for all practical purposes, white supremacy.


Not all white nationalists advocate for that though...so that would not be a necessary relationship.

The most prominent white nationalists I know just want to get away and have their own space. For instance, what about a white ethno-state in Greenland or Anatarctica, or the Falklands, or some remote part of Montana....or even back to their natural homeland of Europe?

How is such necessarily supremacist? As you have previously argued?

Pants-of-dog wrote:As I already said, I am using the accepted definitions.


You just said you didn't offer definitions in response to me pointing out that you were using two different definitions (fallacy)....so we are back to square one.

Since you now claim that you are using definitions, which "accepted" definition are you in fact using?

Because the post in question was clearly using two different definitions as I have previously pointed out. Would you like me to quote the relevant portions of your original post and my prior response to it by way of reminder? I can do that for you. ;)

Pants-of-dog wrote:As I already said, you are ignoring history in order to make these fallacious equivalencies.


I am asking questions based on your argument, not putting forward an argument in propositional form, so unless I specifically used what is known as the complex question (please demonstrate that I did so), I cannot be committing a fallacy as no positive argument was made. I am just asking questions....

Pants-of-dog wrote: Since whiteness is not a nation, white nationalism is qualitatively different from actual nationalist movements


Since "blackness" is not a nation either, are you saying that such is in the same category as white nationalism then?Would it not follow then that, like you claim about white nationalism, black nationalism is necessarily supremacist? :eh:

Likewise, what about European nationalism or Slavic nationalism? are you saying that those movements are not supremacist then because they are an actual nationalism?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14905851
The inability, or unwillingness, to separate race from culture allows for all these ridiculous accusations.
Race is an ‘accidental’ part of culture. Just because someone prefers a ‘white culture’ can not honestly be considered racist. How do you explain the dark skinned people in the US who support a ‘white culture’ and voted for Trump? Answer, you simply ignore their existence.
Race is an accident of culture and has nothing to do with the color of the skin of the people who agree with the cultural values. It is only our dishonesty in refusing to separate them that results in race equating culture. Pure propaganda that causes unnecessary conflict.
If you were honest, you would discuss values and not skin color.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905853
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Not all white nationalists advocate for that though...so that would not be a necessary relationship.

The most prominent white nationalists I know just want to get away and have their own space. For instance, what about a white ethno-state in Greenland or Anatarctica, or the Falklands, or some remote part of Montana....or even back to their natural homeland of Europe?

How is such necessarily supremacist? As you have previously argued?


Greenland has Inuit people. The Falklands had Latinos, which white racists often consider a race. Montana has indigenous people. But feel free to move to Antarctica.

You just said you didn't offer definitions in response to me pointing out that you were using two different definitions (fallacy)....so we are back to square one.

Since you now claim that you are using definitions, which "accepted" definition are you in fact using?

Because the post in question was clearly using two different definitions as I have previously pointed out. Would you like me to quote the relevant portions of your original post and my prior response to it by way of reminder? I can do that for you. ;)


Yes, I did not offer new definitions. I used existing and accepted definitions.

I am asking questions based on your argument, not putting forward an argument in propositional form, so unless I specifically used what is known as the complex question (please demonstrate that I did so), I cannot be committing a fallacy as no positive argument was made. I am just asking questions....


....and your questions imply an ignorance of history.

Since "blackness" is not a nation either, are you saying that such is in the same category as white nationalism then?Would it not follow then that, like you claim about white nationalism, black nationalism is necessarily supremacist? :eh:

Likewise, what about European nationalism or Slavic nationalism? are you saying that those movements are not supremacist then because they are an actual nationalism?


They may or may not be depending on historical context.

White nationalism is pretty much supremacist because of historical context.

The historical context is how Europeans used colonialism and imperialism to subjugate and oppress people of colour. This continues to the present day. So when white nationalists try to make their ideals real, they are perpetuating these acts of oppression.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905856
Pants-of-dog wrote:Greenland has Inuit people. The Falklands had Latinos, which white racists often consider a race. Montana has indigenous people. But feel free to move to Antarctica.


You are missing the point, is the advocation for a white homeland necessarily supremacist?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I did not offer new definitions. I used existing and accepted definitions.


Thats not the point, you used two different definitions that are not the same, which is still equivocation, it does not matter that the two definitions are both accepted or not.

There are several definitions for the word "matter" that are all accepted in different fields, but I cannot use each one in the course of the same argument whenever I please, that would be a fallacy....the one your are guilty of.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They may or may not be depending on historical context.


Please give me a historical context where an ethno-nationalism other than white nationalism was supremacist.


Pants-of-dog wrote:The historical context is how Europeans used colonialism and imperialism to subjugate and oppress people of colour. This continues to the present day. So when white nationalists try to make their ideals real, they are perpetuating these acts of oppression.


How would finding an unclaimed region to call their own be perpetuating oppression?

Also, you still have not explained how retributive ethno-nationalism (like expropriating white lands in SA) is not supremacist. You have assumed this, but not proven it, because even with such being an alleged rectification of past wrongs, the very act still comports with both the definitions you gave for supremacism earlier in the thread.
By Pants-of-dog
#14905861
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You are missing the point, is the advocation for a white homeland necessarily supremacist?


In some thought experiment where history took a different turn, advocating for a white homeland would not be necessarily supremacist.

In our current reality with our history, it is.

Thats not the point, you used two different definitions that are not the same, which is still equivocation, it does not matter that the two definitions are both accepted or not.

There are several definitions for the word "matter" that are all accepted in different fields, but I cannot use each one in the course of the same argument whenever I please, that would be a fallacy....the one your are guilty of.


I am using the Wikipedia definitions for both white supremacy and white nationalism. I have no idea why you are getting so hung up on this.

Please give me a historical context where an ethno-nationalism other than white nationalism was supremacist.


German nationalism under the Nazis.

How would finding an unclaimed region to call their own be perpetuating oppression?


Because unclaimed regions do not exist? And they have not existed for the past ten thousand years or so.

Also, you still have not explained how retributive ethno-nationalism (like expropriating white lands in SA) is not supremacist. You have assumed this, but not proven it, because even with such being an alleged rectification of past wrongs, the very act still comports with both the definitions you gave for supremacism earlier in the thread.


Please explain how taking back land that was stolen from blacks or indigenous people is supremacist. Thanks.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14905934
Pants-of-dog wrote:In some thought experiment where history took a different turn, advocating for a white homeland would not be necessarily supremacist.


Cute. This is called modal reasoning, but I doubt you knew that, and if you mean this, this would demonstrate that there is not logical connection between white nationalism and white supremacy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In our current reality with our history, it is.


you still haven't demonstrated this with evidence. Please demonstrate that no white nationalism on earth in 2018 can possibly be anything but supremacist.

Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the Wikipedia definitions for both white supremacy and white nationalism.


You defined, in the post in question, white supremacy as domination of other races and as inherent superiority, which are not the same thing.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because unclaimed regions do not exist? And they have not existed for the past ten thousand years or so.


What about Antarctica? According to international law, that region has no claim by any one power and no indigenous people would be displaced by its appropriation.

Likewise, some white nationalism aspire to a white homeland in their native homeland of europe, in some places, this would require little to no displacement of large numbers of minorities, especially in certain slavic states.

Furthermore, just as black nationalism in native black regions is not supremacist (according to your logic), how would white nationalism in white native regions be supremacist under the same logic? Especially if no non-white indigenous were displaced?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please explain how taking back land that was stolen from blacks or indigenous people is supremacist. Thanks.


1. You are answering a request for an explanation (that was not satisfied) with a question, so I have no obligation to answer you since you have refused to the case I first requested.

2. Assuming that supremacy is one race dominating another (which was the second definition YOU GAVE), my claim is that the expropriation of white lands in south africa by blacks would meet your definition of racial supremacism. You rebutted this and said that such "doesn't count" because of colonialism or whatever; however, I pointed out that your definition does not admit of that exception, nor would your other definition admit of that exception.

You gave two definitions, these are YOUR definitions.

Definition one: racial supremacy is belief in one's race as inherently superior.
Definition two: racial supremacy is the domination of one race by another.

Neither of these definitions give exception to retributive acts.

Thus, no matter which of the definitions you use, blacks expropriating white lands would be supremacist and it doesn't matter if the whites had colonized previously, as neither of your definitions admit for those exceptions.

Thus, if blacks expropriate lands of whites, if it is a form of dominating a minority race (which it is) it would be immoral racial supremacism.

OR

if they did so out of a feeling of racial superiority, it would also be racial supremacism.

and a desire for revenge is irrelevant to either of these definitions.

You must either use different definitions, or admit that blacks expropriating white lands in South Africa is a racist and supremacist policy.

Thus, unless you can prove otherwise, the burden of proof is one you based upon the nature of your own definitions.

So please provide evidence for your claims.

Thanks.
By Pants-of-dog
#14906284
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Cute. This is called modal reasoning, but I doubt you knew that, and if you mean this, this would demonstrate that there is not logical connection between white nationalism and white supremacy.


I never claimed there was a logical connection. I am talking about a practical and historical connection.

you still haven't demonstrated this with evidence. Please demonstrate that no white nationalism on earth in 2018 can possibly be anything but supremacist.

Thanks.


Actually, I have already explained it at least twice.

You defined, in the post in question, white supremacy as domination of other races and as inherent superiority, which are not the same thing.


Well, ethnically cleasning people of colour requires domination, and is based on the incorrect belief that whites have a superior and inherent claim to the land being cleansed.

What about Antarctica? According to international law, that region has no claim by any one power and no indigenous people would be displaced by its appropriation.

Likewise, some white nationalism aspire to a white homeland in their native homeland of europe, in some places, this would require little to no displacement of large numbers of minorities, especially in certain slavic states.

Furthermore, just as black nationalism in native black regions is not supremacist (according to your logic), how would white nationalism in white native regions be supremacist under the same logic? Especially if no non-white indigenous were displaced?


I already discussed Antarctica.

And in Europe, there are already ethnically diverse populations, for various reasons. If you wanted to make a white homeland in Europe, that boat already sailed. And it would not actually be white nationalism. It would be Polish nationalism or Hungarian nationalism or whatever actual nation was doing it.

1. You are answering a request for an explanation (that was not satisfied) with a question, so I have no obligation to answer you since you have refused to the case I first requested.

2. Assuming that supremacy is one race dominating another (which was the second definition YOU GAVE), my claim is that the expropriation of white lands in south africa by blacks would meet your definition of racial supremacism. You rebutted this and said that such "doesn't count" because of colonialism or whatever; however, I pointed out that your definition does not admit of that exception, nor would your other definition admit of that exception.

You gave two definitions, these are YOUR definitions.

Definition one: racial supremacy is belief in one's race as inherently superior.
Definition two: racial supremacy is the domination of one race by another.

Neither of these definitions give exception to retributive acts.

Thus, no matter which of the definitions you use, blacks expropriating white lands would be supremacist and it doesn't matter if the whites had colonized previously, as neither of your definitions admit for those exceptions.

Thus, if blacks expropriate lands of whites, if it is a form of dominating a minority race (which it is) it would be immoral racial supremacism.

OR

if they did so out of a feeling of racial superiority, it would also be racial supremacism.

and a desire for revenge is irrelevant to either of these definitions.

You must either use different definitions, or admit that blacks expropriating white lands in South Africa is a racist and supremacist policy.

Thus, unless you can prove otherwise, the burden of proof is one you based upon the nature of your own definitions.

So please provide evidence for your claims.

Thanks.


You are still deliberately ignoring colonialism and history in order to make this false equivalence.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14907311
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never claimed there was a logical connection. I am talking about a practical and historical connection.


Good, then there is no praexological or rational necessity to your claim and so it can safely dismissed as mere speculation based on some past correlations.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I have already explained it at least twice.


Nope, if you had clearly explained this I wouldn't have asked for a specific answer. Please answer the question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, ethnically cleasning people of colour requires domination.....


Agreed in some cases, but under that definition the policies of Zimbabwe and South Africa would also be domination, which you are denying. :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:is based on the incorrect belief that whites have a superior and inherent claim to the land being cleansed.


Not necessarily and as you have argued that would "depend on history" would it not? You have argued that "historical context" nullifies the dominance aspect in places where colonialism took places (Africa and the Americas), so would ethnic cleansing in Europe be non-supremacist then according to your position, since Europe is the native land of whites?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I already discussed Antarctica.


Not sufficiently or I wouldn't have asked the question, answer the question.

Pants-of-dog wrote: And it would not actually be white nationalism. It would be Polish nationalism or Hungarian nationalism or whatever actual nation was doing it.


So then you concede those to be non-supremacist nationalisms, and what if they joined together into a pan-european nationalism (white nationalism)? would that be an appropriate nationalism?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are still deliberately ignoring colonialism and history in order to make this false equivalence.


Actually no, I am using logic to argue that according to your own definitions there are no exceptions made for "retributive" actions of vengeance against a demographic for perceived past wrongs, thus either your definitions are flawed or the black majority of south Africa is guilty of racist supremacism against the white minority.

If you concede that your definitions are wrong, and change them to allow retributive justice against colonialism, then we have more topics to discuss... :D

It appears to me that your position sounds oddly like the claim that white nationalists would make about your type....that is, that according to your views, only whites are capable of racism and supremacism, which sounds like a racist generalization against white people (anti-white).....you are coming dangerously close to confirming their complaints that the Left is not merely anti-racist, they are necessarily anti-white.

Prove them wrong.

The Dokdo islands were designated as Korean terr[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

I was told there's a debate between Bae Corbyn and[…]

Are you suggesting that it was an alliance of car[…]

Trump and Russiagate

The United States intelligence community has concl[…]