At least 8 white nationalists are running for federal office (video) (1 Viewer)

[BWWzfc]

Meaning: That we minority whites will by force take and keep the reigns for a period of unspecified time....since we are the "advanced race".

That's consistent with your method of ignoring what doesn't fit your narrative to insist on the truth of the narrative. It's why you cannot afford to answer my questions.

You are not addressing the point of the exercise, you are sidestepping it, the article is racist and extreme.

Apparently you do not comprehend my response. I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time. Your response to that is to baselessly deny it (stating that it means what your argument needs it to mean).

It is not me, it is not "culture" It is WFBJr expressing that the white race is "advanced".There is no "subtext", this is called pure, unadulterated projection by you.

Perhaps you're not sophisticated enough to have a subtext to your argument. Maybe you just naively believe that "advanced race" means genetic superiority despite no shred of supporting evidence in the rest of the article. If that's the case I apologize for granting you the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, you could clear all that up by answering the questions I posed to you.

And of course you can't afford to do that.

 

[BWWzfc]

OMG....yer responding...to YOURSELF!

OMG yer replying to my post emphasizing that you're dodging while continuing to dodge!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.

Lets assume this is correct, WFBJr's "white culture" equals white race, and that this race is superior, in his mind. This means that the black race is inferior. That is a statement of racism.

 

[BWWzfc]

Lets assume this is correct, WFBJr's "white culture" equals white race, and that this race is superior, in his mind. This means that the black race is inferior. That is a statement of racism.

Aw, son, you're too vague!

If you assume that I am correct that Will was talking about white culture (no need to assume it--the context supports it) it does not follow that "'white culture' equals white race" as you state. Logically that's a non sequitur.

But maybe you're saying we assume that "white culture"="white race" which then leads to the conclusion that calling white culture superior counts as a statement of racism. That's perfectly true, but it's also a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question (it is the assumption that white culture=a statement of genetic racial superiority that serves as the key to the conclusion).

If you're saying something other than what I described with the two possibilities above you'll need to make a greater effort to make that meaning clear.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Aw, son, you're too vague!

If you assume that I am correct that Will was talking about white culture (no need to assume it--the context supports it) it does not follow that "'white culture' equals white race" as you state. Logically that's a non sequitur.

It cannot be a non-sequitur, it is the equivalence YOU created:

I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.

But maybe you're saying we assume that "white culture"="white race" which then leads to the conclusion that calling white culture superior counts as a statement of racism. That's perfectly true, but it's also a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question (it is the assumption that white culture=a statement of genetic racial superiority that serves as the key to the conclusion).

Again, it cannot be me creating BTQ, since it was the premise YOU created.

If you're saying something other than what I described with the two possibilities above you'll need to make a greater effort to make that meaning clear.

I don't understand how taking one sentence YOU made where YOU equated "white culture"="advanced race" is either "vague" or not "clear". I did not create this supposed thing that is "vague", they are your words, your equivalence. It is even the 2nd question you demanded I had to answer yesterday.

 

[BWWzfc]

It cannot be a non-sequitur, it is the equivalence YOU created:

I've shown how you manipulated the quotation by leaving out relevant material that shows that "advanced race" refers directly and only to the white culture of the time.

Again, it cannot be me creating BTQ, since it was the premise YOU created.

What are you smoking? It doesn't follow at all. I do not equate "white culture" with genetic racism. The questions I asked you (the ones you continue to dodge) would make that even more clear.

I don't understand how taking one sentence YOU made where YOU equated "white culture"="advanced race" is either "vague" or not "clear".

I'll spell it out for you again: You present Will's term "advanced race" as though it refers to genetic racial superiority (the classic definition of racism). I'm pointing out to you that the context shows that Will is not using "advanced race" to refer to genetic racial superiority but instead to the white culture at the time. And Will specifically states his intended hope that white and black culture would attain equilibrium at a high level.

That's entirely different from claiming that white culture equates with genetic racism. You're committing a fallacy of equivocation.

I quote myself: "Maybe you just naively believe that "advanced race" means genetic superiority despite no shred of supporting evidence in the rest of the article."

There should have been no way you could mistake my meaning. If you persist in this type of behavior it will accumulate as evidence of intentional dishonesty on your part.

I did not create this supposed thing that is "vague", they are your words, your equivalence.

That is your imagination.

It is even the 2nd question you demanded I had to answer yesterday.

1) I made no demand. I said I would expect you to answer if you were capable of debate. And I said you could dodge. You've opted for the latter.
2) The question makes no statement of equivalency. It asks you to take a position on the issue of equivalency. The difference is not small.

 

[YorkshirePete]

At least 8 white nationalists running for federal office

MSNBC’s Morgan Radford spoke with white nationalists who are running for federal office this year on the Republican ticket. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, at least eight white nationalists are running, more than ever before.
=============================================
Tiki torch sales will be booming come November. American Nazi Party, Holocaust deniers, Trump fans. One big happy party.

Let me guess, don the con supporters?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What are you smoking? It doesn't follow at all. I do not equate "white culture" with genetic racism. The questions I asked you (the ones you continue to dodge) would make that even more clear.I'll spell it out for you again: You present Will's term "advanced race" as though it refers to genetic racial superiority (the classic definition of racism). I'm pointing out to you that the context shows that Will is not using "advanced race" to refer to genetic racial superiority but instead to the white culture at the time. And Will specifically states his intended hope that white and black culture would attain equilibrium at a high level.
That's entirely different from claiming that white culture equates with genetic racism. You're committing a fallacy of equivocation.
I quote myself: "Maybe you just naively believe that "advanced race" means genetic superiority despite no shred of supporting evidence in the rest of the article."There should have been no way you could mistake my meaning. If you persist in this type of behavior it will accumulate as evidence of intentional dishonesty on your partThat is your imagination.1) I made no demand. I said I would expect you to answer if you were capable of debate. And I said you could dodge. You've opted for the latter.2) The question makes no statement of equivalency. It asks you to take a position on the issue of equivalency. The difference is not small.

I have no idea what "classical" definition of "racism" you are citing. It is understood that race defined on genetics is a very incomplete idea, "white" has lots of variations in terms of the 99.9% of genes we all share, it is not homogeneous, which is why I am fine using Buckley's "culture", since culture=ethnicity=race as it is understood today. Even in the 1950's South there were a significant number of blacks that had Euro "white" genetics, yet were still classified as black. Arguments about genetics is just pedantic, a way of not seeing the forest.

Buckley clearly uses "culture" to differentiate, and clearly states one is superior to the other, which is racist as we understand today.

 

[BWWzfc]

I have no idea what "classical" definition of "racism" you are citing.

It's a pity you don't know about it. Maybe it's a good idea for you to do some research.

It is understood that race defined on genetics is a very incomplete idea, "white" has lots of variations in terms of the 99.9% of genes we all share, it is not homogeneous,

That aspect of science is often used as a repudiation of racism. And it's mystery why that would be, unless racism was understood to have genetic basis. Right?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin

which is why I am fine using Buckley's "culture", since culture=ethnicity=race as it is understood today.

LMAO

Citation? Will you use an article from the 1950s as your evidence of racism as it is understood today?

You're hilarious. I can't wait to see your citation.

Even in the 1950's South there were a significant number of blacks that had Euro "white" genetics, yet were still classified as black. Arguments about genetics is just pedantic, a way of not seeing the forest.

There is no forest of racism without genetic trees. Ever heard of "cultural appropriation"? If one can appropriate culture then one's culture is not fixed as is one's race. Take that route and you clear the forest. Clean cut.

Buckley clearly uses "culture" to differentiate, and clearly states one is superior to the other, which is racist as we understand today.

You'll need a better argument than equivocation to reach that conclusion. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's a pity you don't know about it. Maybe it's a good idea for you to do some research.



That aspect of science is often used as a repudiation of racism. And it's mystery why that would be, unless racism was understood to have genetic basis. Right?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin

You are making my point, race as we understand NOW is not about genetics, the variation in skin color, skull shape, etc, is so small as to mean nothing. Race is much more about your ethnicity, the customs of your tribe....CULTURE...which AGAIN is why I am fine with Buckley using "culture" =race.

He still is claiming superiority of the "white" culture, it is still....wait for it..racism.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Will you use an article from the 1950s as your evidence of racism as it is understood today?

What is next? Slavery in the 1850's was not racist....because there was no scientific understanding of genetics then?

Absurdity.

 

[BWWzfc]

You are making my point,

No, I'm not making your point. But it's certainly impressive how many times you can conclude otherwise.

race as we understand NOW is not about genetics, the variation in skin color, skull shape, etc, is so small as to mean nothing. Race is much more about your ethnicity, the customs of your tribe....CULTURE...

That's completely ridiculous. The point of the science-based critique is to undercut the rational basis for racism. So what we need is a new rational basis for racism using cultural differences? No, it doesn't work. It ends in futility, as I've already described to you. If all cultures are fundamentally equal (relativism) then racism still can't have a rational basis. But if some cultures are better than others in objective ways then racism may turn rational again. And that's why I pointed out that you, if you believe some cultures are better than others, are an extremist like Buckley.

which AGAIN is why I am fine with Buckley using "culture" =race.

What you mean is you're fine redefining what he's saying because you don't yet realize the futility of the argument.

He still is claiming superiority of the "white" culture, it is still....wait for it..racism.

So there's no citation and you're back to using the loaded term "racism" even after you've emptied it of its traditional meaning.

Let's try this question again, just to allow us to laugh when you evade it again: Do you believe some cultures are better than others?

 

[BWWzfc]

What is next? Slavery in the 1850's was not racist....because there was no scientific understanding of genetics then?

Absurdity.

You have a remarkable ability to turn questions into statements of fact.

Do you have other magical abilities as well that contradict the laws of science and logic?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No, I'm not making your point. But it's certainly impressive how many times you can conclude otherwise.



That's completely ridiculous. The point of the science-based critique is to undercut the rational basis for racism. So what we need is a new rational basis for racism using cultural differences? No, it doesn't work. It ends in futility, as I've already described to you. If all cultures are fundamentally equal (relativism) then racism still can't have a rational basis. But if some cultures are better than others in objective ways then racism may turn rational again. And that's why I pointed out that you, if you believe some cultures are better than others, are an extremist like Buckley.



What you mean is you're fine redefining what he's saying because you don't yet realize the futility of the argument.



So there's no citation and you're back to using the loaded term "racism" even after you've emptied it of its traditional meaning.

Let's try this question again, just to allow us to laugh when you evade it again: Do you believe some cultures are better than others?

There was no rational basis for Buckley to say that blacks should not be a part of the franchise. The idea of barring citizens from participating in government based on "culture" had no basis. There were no IQ tests, no culture test in place to show that black participation was going to harm the state any more than poor whites were doing so. This was and still is racism. I will never suggest that a citizen in the US cannot vote because of his or her culture.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You have a remarkable ability to turn questions into statements of fact.

Do you have other magical abilities as well that contradict the laws of science and logic?

And you whine about my supposed non-sequiturs.

Good grief.

Thanks for playing, pick up your consolation prize at the door.

 

[BWWzfc]

There was no rational basis for Buckley to say that blacks should not be a part of the franchise.

Do you seriously think anybody was proposing that blacks as a group should not be allowed to vote? That's not what Buckley was writing about. And if you want to claim Buckley had no rational basis for the argument he put forward your burden of proof obligates you to answer the argument he used, not to simply declare it non-rational without supporting reasoning.

The idea of barring citizens from participating in government based on "culture" had no basis.

If that's the case then what was Buckley's article about?

There were no IQ tests, no culture test in place to show that black participation was going to harm the state any more than poor whites were doing so.

Do you think there might have been evidence that in terms of education the median black had less education than the median white?

This was and still is racism. I will never suggest that a citizen in the US cannot vote because of his or her culture.

Ah. So you're not tired of dodging my questions. Am I surprised? Not at all.

Have you noticed the pattern in your argument? You repeat your conclusion without developing any relationship between premises that lead anybody other than yourself to accept that conclusion.

Declaring something racist doesn't make it racist. Can we agree on that?

 

[BWWzfc]

And you whine about my supposed non-sequiturs.

I don't whine, and your statement is another non sequitur because I did not state a non sequitur. You interpreted questions as declarative statements more than once, and the associated question made light of that.

Good grief.

Thanks for playing, pick up your consolation prize at the door.

Ah. So your other magical power is declaring winners and losers regardless of merit. Are there others?

 

[Somerville]

Name a "white nation" or shut the **** up.

 

[BWWzfc]

Name a "white nation" or shut the **** up.

To whom are you directing your comment, please?

 

[Xelor]

Click here: FRINGEWATCH 2018 - ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT BEASTS CLIMBING INTO POLITICS


See this too:

​

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Do you seriously think anybody was proposing that blacks as a group should not be allowed to vote? That's not what Buckley was writing about.

Of course he did, he compared the situation to what the British were doing at the time in Kenya in denying blacks the vote, he stated his desire for doing it in the South was not for "simply denying blacks the vote" but justifying it on cultural reasons.

And if you want to claim Buckley had no rational basis for the argument he put forward your burden of proof obligates you to answer the argument he used, not to simply declare it non-rational without supporting reasoning.

I did already, you addressed it below.

If that's the case then what was Buckley's article about?

Now that is a non-sequitur, it does not follow from my statement:

The idea of barring citizens from participating in government based on "culture" had no basis.

Do you think there might have been evidence that in terms of education the median black had less education than the median white?

Of course, and not only is that a condition intentionally created by white Southerners in power since the end of the Antebellum South, but is also not a defensible argument for barring them voting.

Ah. So you're not tired of dodging my questions. Am I surprised? Not at all. Have you noticed the pattern in your argument? You repeat your conclusion without developing any relationship between premises that lead anybody other than yourself to accept that conclusion.

Anybody? The only person I see here now not accepting that the article is racist...is you. You have shown you are not even able to define what racism or race is. I'm not going to convince someone like you that is holding to absurd positions like these, you are not a reasonable person.

Declaring something racist doesn't make it racist. Can we agree on that?

Begging the question again, making the assumption that that is all I have done.....which is an unreasonable, absurd position.

 

[BWWzfc]

Of course he did, he compared the situation to what the British were doing at the time in Kenya in denying blacks the vote, he stated his desire for doing it in the South was not for "simply denying blacks the vote" but justifying it on cultural reasons.

Your evidence doesn't match your claim. Comparing the situation to the one in Kenya only makes your point if the British generally denied the vote to blacks (Buckley instead refers to "universal suffrage" and also mentions the minimum voting age). You don't get to assume that (fallaciously begs the question). And your second sentence scarcely makes any sense given charitable interpretation.

I did already, you addressed it below.

You addressed nothing. Below, I emphasized what you hadn't and haven't addressed.

Now that is a non-sequitur, it does not follow from my statement:

The idea of barring citizens from participating in government based on "culture" had no basis.

It looks like you don't know what a non sequitur is. Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage. You declare his argument has no basis while providing no basis for your assertion. It's valid to criticize the baselessness of your argument and need not follow as any type of corollary to your baseless argument (as though anything could logically follow from a baseless assertion).

Of course, and not only is that a condition intentionally created by white Southerners in power since the end of the Antebellum South, but is also not a defensible argument for barring them voting.

You're generalizing and again repeating your conclusion as though that obviates the need for supporting evidence.

Anybody? The only person I see here now not accepting that the article is racist...is you. You have shown you are not even able to define what racism or race is. I'm not going to convince someone like you that is holding to absurd positions like these, you are not a reasonable person.

You're projecting. If I was being unreasonable then you ought to be able to point to a valid argument you've presented that I have rejected. But your arguments are of a kind. You started with one kind of racism (genetic, the one that's extreme) and changed it to cultural racism (the one you're probably guilty of yourself unless you're one of those extremists we call cultural relativists). But you don't have anything like that, so you find another conclusion to repeat that you can't support with evidence.

Begging the question again, making the assumption that that is all I have done.....which is an unreasonable, absurd position.

If it was an absurd and unreasonable position then the sensible thing to do is offer a counterexample. But instead you do your usual act of asserting your conclusion as though it is self-evident.

People seem to too easily forget that things that are truly self-evident are the easiest things to prove with a simple argument. There's no excuse for simply asserting your conclusions as fact over and over.


Edit to add
I recommend you read this. It may help dispel your misapprehensions about the limitations on black voting in the 1950s South.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Your evidence doesn't match your claim. Comparing the situation to the one in Kenya only makes your point if the British generally denied the vote to blacks (Buckley instead refers to "universal suffrage" and also mentions the minimum voting age). You don't get to assume that (fallaciously begs the question). And your second sentence scarcely makes any sense given charitable interpretation.

Ah, his comparison to the brits denying the vote to some blacks is not valid because it was not a wholesale denial of the vote...LOL....and the "cultural" defense for denying the vote in the US should be an easily understood reference since it is the heart of his argument for denying the vote to Southern blacks. And you complain about "dodging", indeed.

You addressed nothing. Below, I emphasized what you hadn't and haven't addressed.
It looks like you don't know what a non sequitur is. Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage. You declare his argument has no basis while providing no basis for your assertion. It's valid to criticize the baselessness of your argument and need not follow as any type of corollary to your baseless argument (as though anything could logically follow from a baseless assertion).

I'm sorry, you just acknowledged that Buckley was making an argument for denying blacks the vote, so I think we are done here.

You're generalizing and again repeating your conclusion as though that obviates the need for supporting evidence.

I do not have to provide evidence to support the concept for "universal suffrage" in the US, it is a basic guarantee of the Constitution.

You're projecting.

I can't be projecting, I am not saying the article is not racist. Obviously you don't know what the word means.

If I was being unreasonable then you ought to be able to point to a valid argument you've presented that I have rejected.

I have, one example is your demand for sticking with 19th century "classic" definitions of "race".

But your arguments are of a kind. You started with one kind of racism (genetic, the one that's extreme) and changed it to cultural racism (the one you're probably guilty of yourself unless you're one of those extremists we call cultural relativists). But you don't have anything like that, so you find another conclusion to repeat that you can't support with evidence.

That is a total lie, you introed "genetics" and I was fine with Buckley's "culture". This again proves my point, you are not only unreasonable, you stoop to lying.

If it was an absurd and unreasonable position then the sensible thing to do is offer a counterexample. But instead you do your usual act of asserting your conclusion as though it is self-evident.

This is insane, I made the case for using "culture" as equal to race and provided supporting argument, you are ignoring it and you stooped to lying about this very example.

People seem to too easily forget that things that are truly self-evident are the easiest things to prove with a simple argument. There's no excuse for simply asserting your conclusions as fact over and over.

It really doesn't matter how you want to falsely portray what I have argued or how I argued, you have conceded that:

"Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage".

So, we are done.

 

[iguanaman]

The 'Southern Poverty Law Center' the anti-hate group that is a hate group. Yea I'm really not into what they are railing against these days.
BTW the term white nationalist doesn't sit well with me & historically a more appropriate description for these newcomers for federal office
would be ethno-nationalists!

You object to calling them white? What color are they?

 

[BWWzfc]

Ah, his comparison to the brits denying the vote to some blacks is not valid because it was not a wholesale denial of the vote...LOL

That's how you presented it, yet it wasn't the case.

....and the "cultural" defense for denying the vote in the US should be an easily understood reference since it is the heart of his argument for denying the vote to Southern blacks.

I don't know where you think you're getting that.

And you complain about "dodging", indeed.

As usual, your approach to argumentation is incoherent when it isn't simply fallacious.

I'm sorry, you just acknowledged that Buckley was making an argument for denying blacks the vote, so I think we are done here.

Denying universal suffrage isn't the same as denying blacks the vote. Just ask the ladies (who were denied suffrage regardless of race). You are able to commit the fallacy of equivocation effortlessly, it appears.

I do not have to provide evidence to support the concept for "universal suffrage" in the US, it is a basic guarantee of the Constitution.

Nor do you have to visit the URL provided and learn that your reply is non-responsive to my accusation. You generalized that Southern whites made sure that blacks weren't educated. The link contradicts that generalization.

I can't be projecting, I am not saying the article is not racist. Obviously you don't know what the word means.

You're projecting and committing a straw man fallacy to defend your action ("you are not a reasonable person"). It's like you don't even know how to argue but enjoy pretending otherwise.

I have, one example is your demand for sticking with 19th century "classic" definitions of "race".

I don't demand that you stick with the traditional definition of race (or racism). I simply noted that you changed the definition as you went. And you had to do that because you need two different definitions in order for your argument to work (equivocation fallacy be damned, full speed ahead). Instead of correcting your own problem you falsely accuse me of trying to limit what definition you use. I've never limited what definitions you use. In fact, I demanded that you provide the definition your argument would use (remember?). You're the one who couldn't stick with it, moving to cultural racism when the first definition started to look like it wouldn't float your argument.

That is a total lie, you introed "genetics" and I was fine with Buckley's "culture".

Rubbish. The definition you offered from the first was the simple genetic racism definition even though it didn't use the term "genetics." That's why one race supposedly "inherently" better than another. Because genetics are inherited. Culture isn't. "Race" is not the same as "culture."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

This again proves my point, you are not only unreasonable, you stoop to lying.

I am not lying and will back everything I say. You won't be able to do that except in your imagination.

This is insane, I made the case for using "culture" as equal to race and provided supporting argument, you are ignoring it

Your argument was reduced to absurdity. It's a pity you didn't notice. If you make "race" equal to "culture" and you find some cultures better than others it makes you a racist (and an extremist) by your own definition. The alternative is cultural relativism (all cultures are equal), which is the true extremist position. You're on the horns of dilemma and you're in denial.

and you stooped to lying about this very example.

Again, I'll back up everything I say. I'm not lying about anything.

It really doesn't matter how you want to falsely portray what I have argued or how I argued, you have conceded that:

"Buckley provides an argument for denying universal suffrage".

So, we are done.

It's truly amazing how denying "universal suffrage" is exactly the same as denying blacks suffrage--without the need for any argument whatsoever.

Again, that fits your pattern of declaring your conclusion is true while forgoing the steps that would logically lead to that conclusion. I'm starting to believe maybe that's how you think as well as how you act.