Racism

[Wizard22]

What do you mean, "Jews are good people"? Some will be good and some will be bad, just like any other collection of people. What ethnicity or race of people would you describe as bad people?

Yours?

[FlashDangerpants]

What a confident and confrontational post. You must be quite ready to answer simple questions.

So tell us which racisms are true please.

Please rebuke your pal, Hairball, for his recent Anti-Semitic bagel jokes. Let's make a deal, moshe.

Those jokes are anti-nazi not anti-semitic and are at Jacobi's expense in the main. You don't really need to worry about it, you aren't the main character.

Now please tell us which racisms are true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

St Mike can get us all properly oriented. If you are a foodie you will appreciate all his videos.

[Wizard22]

Those jokes are anti-nazi not anti-semitic and are at Jacobi's expense in the main. You don't really need to worry about it, you aren't the main character.

Now please tell us which racisms are true.

It's very important that your Anti-semitism is not a double-standard. Rebuke your pal.

[Harbal]

If I were more interested, my first stop would be the BBC, what do you have to say about that?

Uncertain. I read once that the BBC used to be considered a standard of sound, objective journalism but that it gradually became compromised.

The BBC are accountable for what they report in a way that most news sources are not. Human bias cannot be completely eliminated from anything that human beings are involved in, but I trust BBC reporting more than most others. Those who I spoke of earlier, right wing propagandists, despise the BBC and some other news outlets, citing them as instruments of the "the left", which kind of makes me trust the BBC even more.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is the crux of the matter thus far:

What I'm saying is that racism is part of human nature; we are all racist to some extend. We tend not to like people who are different to ourselves. It's just that people like you try to invent rational excuses to justify your prejudice, rather than having the courage to be honest.

Can you tell me specifically what views and opinions I have about race and racism that make me a "wokie"?

I suspect you can't, and will just avoid answering the question.

You outed yourself as a wokie when you idly sat by, silent, on the issue of grown/adult men dressed in drag, going into women's restrooms, explicitly with teenage or prepubescent girls in there. Because you balk on that, I know that you, and the rest of your contingent, are full-blown American Wokies. You're part of the cult that has become endemic and proliferated throughout the West. Why are you a coward on the matter? Because you would rather spite me, than agree with whom you perceive as an enemy. And why am I an enemy? Because I made the class clown look foolish in class. Normally you bully others and turn them into the butt of your jokes—you're not used to somebody turning this around on you, and doing it better.


Now that that's out of the way...the matter of "honest racism".

If anybody pays attention to the thread carefully (as I seem to be one of a handful of people who do...have literacy skills), then you'll notice here that Hairball admits "We (Wokies) are racist", "everybody is", "rather than the courage to be honest". So this is the tacit admission from the Liberal-Left spectrum. This isn't a surprise. This isn't a shocker. Then Hairball commented something like, "but why are you (the Conservative-Right) so open and proud about it?" I can't find the exact quote after looking through a few pages. Maybe I will if this is a pressing matter. But this also exposes something very deep in these conversations. It implies that the liberal-left are in fact ashamed of their personal experiences and transgressions of "Racism", which they newspeak as "Systemic Racism".

So the Left cannot see why 'The Right' is open about their Racism (so Hairball contradicts himself, "the courage to be honest"), or moreso, "proud" about it.


Because of these admissions, a further inquiry can be leveled. Is it true what Harball implied and claimed? Maybe, maybe not.

Is "Racism" inherently wrong or immoral? What about when it's True? I suspect that double-digit IQ pooeypants, would say Yes-absolutely, it's especially racist when it's true. Thus, to a moron like him, merely making others aware of US FBI Crime Statistics, dats racis! And pointing-out BLM+Antifa riots had a net negative effect on the black community and American society in general, dats racis! And Joe Biden or Hunter Biden saying some of the most racist shit imaginable... dats not racist???

So why the double-standard? Return to my main arguments in this thread.

Because it's politically-convenient for the liberal-left-wokies, to accuse others of racism, offload their own guilt, be politically Offensive (not Defensive), and then they don't have to worry about "their own racism" because it's never an issue...for them. Why would it be? It's (morally) forgivable *edit* for them to be racist, but not the conservative-right.

Now let's watch flashpoopants do some mental backflips, wave around his illiteracy on full public display, like a July 4th Firework celebration, and see what kind of Ad Homs, emoting, we can produce??

So tell us which racisms are true please.

[Harbal]

What do you mean, "Jews are good people"? Some will be good and some will be bad, just like any other collection of people. What ethnicity or race of people would you describe as bad people?

Yours?

Those jokes are anti-nazi not anti-semitic and are at Jacobi's expense in the main. You don't really need to worry about it, you aren't the main character.

Now please tell us which racisms are true.

It's very important that your Anti-semitism is not a double-standard. Rebuke your pal.

It is very easy to forget that you are an adult sometimes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So tell us which racisms are true please.

This is the sort of question that a person whose mind functions through hot, rhetorical terms will show itself to work.

These terms themselves become blocks to free thinking. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and some other such words, have been established through negative associations as terms to describe wrongness, badness, retrograde thinking, and also evilness. So, when these terms are used they actually pre-limit any discussion. They are designed to stop any conversation from occurring. If you say to someone *You are racist!* or *That's racist!* you put them immediately in a position where they are forced to defend themselves. But what actually goes on is that the one who defends themself has agreed to accept the meaning or the implication of the word, and as I say it is so laden with associations, and these are all thoroughly bad associations, that the one who employs this term puts his opponent in a pickle.

This is what Flash has done and this is what Flash regularly does.

Now, I suggest that he does this because -- and here focus on his question which is obviously a trap -- he feels certain that he can *head off at the pass* any conversation that touches on race issues. He knows, and the Woke-Left certainly knows, that if you stop and say "Wait, we have to drill down into this term 'racist' and 'racism' and see how laden it is", that you are placed in a position in which you are made to seem as if you are defending the most negative associations that we all have been exposed to about racism and racists.

To illustrate this point I will refer to a scene from a popular movie Mississippi Burning. The man in the barber's chair is a real bona fide racist. The FBI agent who has gone off the rails of *proper procedures* in order to break up the racist order in a small Mississippi township, is in my interpretation you. I mean, the spectator of this cathartic enactment is you, the one watching. That is you who is going to punish Clinton and, because of your own sense of implication and guilt, it does not matter that you need to violate any *Constitutional* or legal protection because you are history's righteous actor, and you are going to put things to right! The anger you unleash, and which you live out vicariously, is really Divine retribution being enacted against the morally evil. You have seen the light! You place yourself on the righteous side of history. And to do this you can only and must only understand things in strict black & white moral terms.

Naturally, because of the presentation I make here, I have as a result potentially implicated myself and, perhaps, revealed that I am a *racist*. This is how the use of hot terms is designed to function. That is, against any level of closer and more careful analysis. What I have come to understand is that these fallacious modes of framing issues are so rampant that almost everyone as a result does not, and cannot, actually examine the issues that are in play -- as genuine concerns that a thinking person really should think about. It is through these rhetorical tricks that people dupe themselves and dupe others.

Flash is one example, but a good one, of a man who has wedded himself to these sorts of usages. But here is the thing. This is a philosophy forum and here, if anywhere, people should have received training to be able to think properly, to be able to discern rhetorical tricks and fallacious assertions. But that does not seem to be the case. What does this point to then?

A general intellectual degeneration.

So what, if anything, is required here in relation to the question of racism? It is hard indeed, this I admit, but you have to go completely back to the drawing board and recognize that racism, in the European age of exploration, was a form of applied anthropology. The European, so wedded to his categories, could only see the primitive man as 'inferior' and nearly another species. We know the origins of racism of that sort and we recognize that it is inaccurate and misleading (self-duping) to see humanity in such terms.

But though this is so, and everyone writing on this thread likely sees humanity as being equal at least generally, or broadly, if we examine those who, let's say for example in Denmark or Holland or France who are concerned about what has been (broadly) termed 'replacement' or the over-infusion of foreign peoples into their generally homogenous societies, when the term *racist* and *racism* is applied it is applied, more often than not, by people who like Flash are weilding hot rhetorical terms in order to stop or inhibit the conversation, any conversation, from occurring.

If this is so, and I assert that it is, one then has to back-track into political and ideological motivations. That is, what impels people like Flash to act as praxis-driven activists and to use language-tools quite bound up with moral blame to accuse those who may be genuinely and fairly concerned about their societies, as a properly responsible adult should and must be, as being bad, wrong, retrograde and effectively evil. Because as we all know the ur-racist is the *Nazi*, and when the term Nazi is employed, and for Flash it is one of his go-to terms, all responsible conversation is obliterated right at the start. Lurking behind the usage is the multi-use Hitlerian Figure, a simile of Satan.

And as I say that is the basic function. That is the purpose of the use of such terms.

So let us very briefly consider, if we can, the topic of *replacement*. Is replacement a false-idea? That is to say a deliberate policy choice by those and among those ideological inclined to the general idea of, say, cultural blending, general assimilation, *applied diversity* if you will? How can we examine this through a fair and balanced lens? Is what some say is happening really happening? Or is it a Right-Wing lie?

May I thrown into the mix here a segment of a speech by a notable figure who lays out, rather plainly, that what is going on is intended and certainly happening? Or is what he says a lie?

What are we to think of this when presented in the way I present it? I mention these things because my point is that the real conversation is far more complex than we are allowed to realize when we our thinking and our conversations are deformed by fallacious terms that are based in fallacious reductions.

I am not going to go on here, my posts are usually long, but I hope that I have made my point at least somewhat clear. Should I summarize? Is that really needed?

[FlashDangerpants]

Is "Racism" inherently wrong or immoral? What about when it's True?

So tell us which racisms are true please.

So tell us which racisms are true please.

This is the sort of question that a person whose mind functions through hot, rhetorical terms will show itself to work.

It's an entriely relevant question so you can fuck off Jacobi.

[FlashDangerpants]

So what is Harbals solution to actual racism. Actual racism. What is Flash Dangerpants? Again.... actual racism. Woke is racism. You can't fight racism with racism and expect positive results.

So, like I said, your 'wokies' dog whistle brought out the two nazis to do their goose stepping thing and now you've gone silent?
Is your purpose just to set em up so GrandWizzard22 can knock 'em down?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's an entirely relevant question so you can fuck off Jacobi.

Can you offer a comprehensive commentary on the entire piece I just offered? Or is this all you have to offer here?

So, like I said, your 'wokies' dog whistle brought out the two nazis to do their goose stepping thing and now you've gone silent?

Ah, there it is. The Nazi has just made his appearance. It is the ultimate reduction.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's an entirely relevant question so you can fuck off Jacobi.

Can you offer a comprehensive commentary on the entire piece I just offered? Or is this all you have to offer here?

There are several people on this site who we both know are prime targets for your race reawakening project via replacement theory. So it suits me better to sit it out and see what sort of bite you get for the replacement theory stuff.

The rest of the post is banal pseudiferous tripe of the sort you will post every day from now until your death, and so there's no real reason to suddenly care about it today.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is why I say that everything about your argument is front-loaded, rhetorically, into your a priori position. Any sort of opposition, any counter-argument, reveals that one is that “Nazi” you are seeking and finding. All you need do is double-down on it. And that you will do as long as you get mileage from the tactic and strategy.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is why I say that everything about your argument is front-loaded, rhetorically, into your a priori position. Any sort of opposition, any counter-argument, reveals that one is that “Nazi” you are seeking and finding. All you need do is double-down on it. And that you will do as long as you get mileage from the tactic and strategy.

I gave you plenty of opportunities to explain why you wouldn't class holocaust denial as a conspiracy theory but would happily dimiss the fake moon landings and flat earth conspiracy theories out of hand on that same basis. I learned via experience that you have something in mind there that you absolutely cannot put out there in words.

A priori doesn't refer to things learned from experience.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now you have really revealed your cards, and you don’t play with a full deck.

I said — lo the many months! — that the Shoa and the destruction of European Jewry happened, and as our history records. I said that there are some differences in the data of these facts but generally it was as reported.

You zeroed in on those differences, as if I were proposing Holocaust denial, and you did this for your own strange psychological reasons. You thought “Ah ha! here is an angle I can exploit!” I did not respond to your bait and I don’t think I ever have. And you did what you intended to do from the start: you applied that label.

But this is what you do. In one way or another, behind any opposition to your ridiculous rhetorical “argument”, behind any correction, modification, in short any conversation that differs from your hopped-up position, it receives the label “Nazi”. It is total reductionism in chemically-pure form.

That is why I say that this method of thinking is a debilitation of thought. It is like a mental disease. It infects people as it seems to have infected you.