BoyCott those who are cancel culture advocates. Censorship is un-American and you can't support that with your dollars or with your silence.

[Crakhobarbie]

The entire idea of "cancel culture" is wrong.

Cancel culture is just the modern name for public shaming. Now that Donald has set the bar so low, Republicans are following suit by whining and whinging and complaining about everything. It's fkn pathetic.

 

[What if...?]

But the question I ask -- and it is best to take as an example some other situation -- is whether it is moral and ethical, or immoral and unethical, to want to maintain one's own community, nation, or region. I do not think that this has exclusively to do with melanin content and I think it is a deceptive argument that places all emphasis on this. (But I do not deny that that is one of the factors: somatic type). My starting point is one of morality and ethics, not of expediency.

I have concluded, myself, that it is not immoral or unethical to have race-composition as a criterion of concern. In fact a 'wise ruler' (in a speculative Platonic kingdom) would do well to consider the compatibility of people. But it has to be said because it is true: any talk about such matters is extremely frowned on. One of my concerns however is in the analysis of *causal chains*. And I feel confident that one of the causes of social conflict in America today has a great deal to do with what I have described: a deliberate policy of demographic shift. I do not think that I am acting immorally in bringing this up, yet there is no doubt that it will be seen as an immoral concern and topic. Additionally, I regard the argument that would vilify someone for having race-concerns as itself immoral and unethical -- and I could argue my points I think quite well and successfully.

In this respect if someone from any other country or region told me that they desired to preserve their people, community or nation -- and told me what their terms were for this -- I do not believe that I could offer them a sound argument against their chosen position. I think I would respect their choice. So I have used the example of 'Japan' or 'Nigeria'. And even for example what I have read of some American Indian's and African American's (of a separatist leaning) opinions and desires on this topic. In fact I do not think it is 'racist' to be concerned for the make-up of one's own community (or region or nation, etc.) What interests me is the forbidden nature of the topic. And that coercive tactics are used when someone, anyone, expresses such a concern. At the same time it is simply a fact that it is part of an anti-whiteness ideology -- an anti-whiteness praxis -- that whites are clearly not allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments. And this also interests me a great deal.

And if I did create or conceive of an argument to be used against them -- against any people, anywhere who desired to conserve their peoplehood or nationhood of 'community integrity' if you wished to put it like this -- I have tentatively concluded that it would be through a defective and a morally corrupt argument. It would be a contrived and likely a defective argument and one based in coercion of some sort, not necessarily in truth. So, if this is true, I also suggest that 'whites have been turned against themselves' through devious processes. And I seek to discover and to name what those are.

You could try to argue against Muhammad Ali -- but you would be in the thick of it! (I submit this as an amusing anecdote and not as a serious argument, though he argues from a very common-sense position and a 'natural' position).

I reject the premise on it's face though.

Because iit is not genetic. It is cultural. Always. Every single aspect is about how they chose to do things not how they were genetically predisposed.

So you want to have a moral argument based on facts not in evidence.

And America needs to stop engaging in such "arguments"

We need to agree, for instance, that it isn't "race", gentics. It's "culture", shared behaviors developed over time.

This more accurately reflects the situation.

So would you like to restate by this definition or do we need to argue the above first?

I am quite prepared to do so.

 

[bearpoker]

The arbitrary and capricious part is your opinion.

I actually got banned from the Amazon chat rooms years ago. The mods were bots. The charge was "spiteful posts". They never told me which posts were spiteful. There was no appeal. I thought it was artitrary. I could have come back as a sock, but I figured the same thing would happen, since I didn't know which posts were considered spiteful and so couldn't correct my behavior. I started posting here instead. Amazon has since eliminated all of it's chat rooms. It never occurred to me to think that my free speech was violated. Fair or not, it was Amazon's playground and Amazon's rules. I just went elsewhere.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Because it is not genetic. It is cultural. Always. Every single aspect is about how they chose to do things not how they were genetically predisposed.

So you want to have a moral argument based on facts not in evidence.

The problem here is that you are determining, somewhat autocratically, what are the facts that you will take as facts. Sure, under your rules and according to your tenets your argument has soundness.

I did not bring up the issue of genetics. A regard all ethnic groups as 'fuzzy sets' in any case.

But I do recognize a core. And in fact so do all people. Something is there and it is recognized. It is comprised of many different factors and elements, and never just one. Culture, somatics, even aesthetics I'd suppose.

 

[What if...?]

The problem here is that you are determining, somewhat autocratically, what are the facts that you will take as facts. Sure, under your rules and according to your tenets your argument has soundness.

I did not bring up the issue of genetics. A regard all ethnic groups as 'fuzzy sets' in any case.

But I do recognize a core. And in fact so do all people. Something is there and it is recognized. It comprises many different factors. Culture, somatics, even aesthetics I'd suppose.

Yes, but it does not limit to anyone based on the color of their skin. That is an arbitrary way to determine who possesses the elements you are seeking in a society to live in. Many white people will not live up to your standards. Many folks of other "races" might cleave quite tightly. Religion is an example of this. Christians tend to be more "racially" like other christians of other "races" than they are to people of other religions of their own "race". Genetic Jews are quite similar genetically to some Arabs as well. Yet their cultures are very distinct.

So what we are doing is examining why "whiteness" is a characteristic one would seek in a community. As opposed to "Central European" which is probably what you are really describing.

I think that it's just lazy minded thought control. It's just easier to teach people they are better than others when they can just do it by looking at them and don't have to do any actual behavioral comparisons. Lets scumbags feel good about themselves.

 

[SheWolf]

When you arbitrarily and capriciously determine to who the rules and how the rules will be administered then you do violate peoples rights, if not the very letter of the law then certainly the intent.. Democrats/liberals tend to "feel" a certain way and then try to adapt the rules to their feelings. Rules and laws and their intent don't seem to matter to them.

Freedom of association is not a simple issue of applying rules, it’s a constitutional right that does not need to be justified to the public. There are men only clubs, women only clubs, etc. There are a variety of different rules regulating public institutions like the universities. I do support Title 7 protections which prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, etc. political ideology is not a protected class.

Furthermore, the right wing people in the news being stripped of honors are not experiencing discrimination as a whole group. These are targeted individuals on the right whom the public feels culpable in spreading a dangerous lie about election integrity and inciting as insurrection against the country.

You’re not in danger as a right wing person. If you didn’t storm the capitol or shelter anybody who did, you are not danger of punishment.

 

[Integrityrespec]

But the question I ask -- and it is best to take as an example some other situation -- is whether it is moral and ethical, or immoral and unethical, to want to maintain one's own community, nation, or region. I do not think that this has exclusively to do with melanin content and I think it is a deceptive argument that places all emphasis on this. (But I do not deny that that is one of the factors: somatic type). My starting point is one of morality and ethics, not of expediency.

I have concluded, myself, that it is not immoral or unethical to have race-composition as a criterion of concern. In fact a 'wise ruler' (in a speculative Platonic kingdom) would do well to consider the compatibility of people. But it has to be said because it is true: any talk about such matters is extremely frowned on. One of my concerns however is in the analysis of *causal chains*. And I feel confident that one of the causes of social conflict in America today has a great deal to do with what I have described: a deliberate policy of demographic shift. I do not think that I am acting immorally in bringing this up, yet there is no doubt that it will be seen as an immoral concern and topic. Additionally, I regard the argument that would vilify someone for having race-concerns as itself immoral and unethical -- and I could argue my points I think quite well and successfully.

In this respect if someone from any other country or region told me that they desired to preserve their people, community or nation -- and told me what their terms were for this -- I do not believe that I could offer them a sound argument against their chosen position. I think I would respect their choice. So I have used the example of 'Japan' or 'Nigeria'. And even for example what I have read of some American Indian's and African American's (of a separatist leaning) opinions and desires on this topic. In fact I do not think it is 'racist' to be concerned for the make-up of one's own community (or region or nation, etc.) What interests me is the forbidden nature of the topic. And that coercive tactics are used when someone, anyone, expresses such a concern. At the same time it is simply a fact that it is part of an anti-whiteness ideology -- an anti-whiteness praxis -- that whites are clearly not allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments. And this also interests me a great deal.

And if I did create or conceive of an argument to be used against them -- against any people, anywhere who desired to conserve their peoplehood or nationhood of 'community integrity' if you wished to put it like this -- I have tentatively concluded that it would be through a defective and a morally corrupt argument. It would be a contrived and likely a defective argument and one based in coercion of some sort, not necessarily in truth. So, if this is true, I also suggest that 'whites have been turned against themselves' through devious processes. And I seek to discover and to name what those are.

You could try to argue against Muhammad Ali -- but you would be in the thick of it! (I submit this as an amusing anecdote and not as a serious argument, though he argues from a very common-sense position and a 'natural' position).

Question: Is it right or wrong for a people to preserve their cultural heritage? Ever been to a heritage celebration anywhere? My wife's family comes from the upper Michigan area and on numerous occasions we were in town for the local Italian heritage festival. Lots of fun, great food. Is it wrong for these groups to work to preserve their cultural history and celebrate it? This is true for all culture, European, African, Asian, Native American and I's sure I'm leaving some out. Is this appropriate or should we be trying to truly become one ethnicity?
I think your heritage is important you culture is worth preserving and being a part of a bigger blended culture is important also. America is the culmination of lots of immigration, lots of groups, lots of different culture. Why do some what to change that, to stamp it out?

 

[SheWolf]

The opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, or Park 51 is an outlier. It is not a normal situation at all. Take a similar situation and apply it here. If a group of reformed skinheads decided to build a national headquarters for ex skinheads next door to the 16th st Baptist Church I'm sure the community and in fact the country would be appalled and understandingly so. A tragic, sick and unforgivable event would cause great animosity and I'm sure everyone would understand and think their moving there would be a bad idea. To want to build a mosque which would invoke memories of the 9/11 terrorist attack would not be a good plan less than a decade later. So each situation has is slightly different circumstances and those are normally considered. Would you be in favor of either of those buildings?

You’re for cancel culture. In fact you’re perfectly displaying your own self serving, bigoted attitude right now. Admit it, you do think that you should be a protected class and be insulated from boycotts. I could only imagine how you would feel if Muslims boycotted the construction of a Christian Church the way you boycotted Muslims, and they have the right to do that.

This conversation isn’t about consistency with you, nor can you recognize that everybody has the same rights. To you, this is a matter of your feelings. You feel that it’s wrong to see people you like experience a boycott whereas it’s fine to boycott ideas and groups you hate. The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings, it cares about everybody’s rights.

So as you claimed in your OP, would you be willing to die for the rights of Muslims to have the same freedom of speech as you and to boycott a Christian church? It’s a nice quote.

 

[bomberfox]

Sure lets boycott Bush supporting businesses for cancelling the dixie chicks

 

[Integrityrespec]

You’re for cancel culture. In fact you’re perfectly displaying your own self serving, bigoted attitude right now. Admit it, you do think that you should be a protected class and be insulated from boycotts. I could only imagine how you would feel if Muslims boycotted the construction of a Christian Church the way you boycotted Muslims, and they have the right to do that.

This conversation isn’t about consistency with you, nor can you recognize that everybody has the same rights. To you, this is a matter of your feelings. You feel that it’s wrong to see people you like experience a boycott whereas it’s fine to boycott ideas and groups you hate. The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings, it cares about everybody’s rights.

So as you claimed in your OP, would you be willing to die for the rights of Muslims to have the same freedom of speech as you and to boycott a Christian church? It’s a nice quote.

You know nothing. You are not ver perceptive and your narrow-mindedness is showing. Hey that's your right. Your one coherent thought seems to be, "The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings, it cares about everybody’s rights." That is so true and you don't seem to understand that is what I've been saying. maybe you just don't understand what are and are not your rights.
Have you ever stood between a person nothing like you and protected them from an angry person with a weapon? Well I have and more than once, in fact had to physically protect them and rescue them from harm. So don't get self righteous with me because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That is an arbitrary way to determine who possesses the elements you are seeking in a society to live in.

I accept that you regard it -- whatever this *it* is -- as arbitrary. You seem to me to be arguing an abstract and idealistic point and in your terms I agree. I am as convinced as you are convinced by your arbitrary argument!

But I am not concerned for abstractions and idealisms. I am only concerned for the way these issues play out, in real time and in the dimension of the real.

 

[SheWolf]

You know nothing. You are not ver perceptive and your narrow-mindedness is showing. Hey that's your right. Your one coherent thought seems to be, "The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings, it cares about everybody’s rights." That is so true and you don't seem to understand that is what I've been saying. maybe you just don't understand what are and are not your rights.
Have you ever stood between a person nothing like you and protected them from an angry person with a weapon? Well I have and more than once, in fact had to physically protect them and rescue them from harm. So don't get self righteous with me because you don't know what you are talking about.

You disagree with Muslims and supported cancel culture in that case. You quoted a beautiful quote that you yourself do not Exemplify n this very thread.

 

[What if...?]

Question: Is it right or wrong for a people to preserve their cultural heritage? Ever been to a heritage celebration anywhere? My wife's family comes from the upper Michigan area and on numerous occasions we were in town for the local Italian heritage festival. Lots of fun, great food. Is it wrong for these groups to work to preserve their cultural history and celebrate it? This is true for all culture, European, African, Asian, Native American and I's sure I'm leaving some out. Is this appropriate or should we be trying to truly become one ethnicity?
I think your heritage is important you culture is worth preserving and being a part of a bigger blended culture is important also. America is the culmination of lots of immigration, lots of groups, lots of different culture. Why do some what to change that, to stamp it out?

"White" is not a culture though. That's the issue. You justtalked aabout an Italian festival. There are also polish and Irish and others that are all white.

And many you might not like. There had been animus between different white subgroups forever.

There simply is no "white" culture that can defined as "the" white culture.

But they're all white.

 

[What if...?]

I accept that you regard it -- whatever this *it* is -- as arbitrary. You seem to me to be arguing an abstract and idealistic point and in your terms I agree. I am as convinced as you are convinced by your arbitrary argument!

But I am not concerned for abstractions and idealisms. I am only concerned for the way these issues play out, in real time and in the dimension of the real.

Ah, sweet reality.

You still can't explain why "whiteness" is some kind of valid determinant for why someone should want to live somewhere. What if every single one is an asshole? There certainly are white assholes, they come in every color. What if they worship a different god? What if they have radically different sexual mores?

Why is "whiteness" somehow a criteria? Why not the individual cultural elements that can be and are shared all over the world by people of varying levels of melatonin?

What if a higher melanin culture made some advance that would make you whitenenss culture better? Wouldn't you just reject it because they weren't white? Shouldn't you, to be consistent, to avoid contamination?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

There is no such thing as “cancel culture.” Folks have the right to choose who they spend money with, listen to, respect, etc.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The point is it's wrong based on how they apply their TOS, arbitrary and capricious.

The point is, social media membership is not mandatory. No one is forced to do that.

If you can't abide by the platform TOS then that's your shortcoming, not theirs.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You still can't explain why "whiteness" is some kind of valid determinant for why someone should want to live somewhere. What if every single one is an asshole? There certainly are white assholes, they come in every color. What if they worship a different god? What if they have radically different sexual mores?

I am not sure that I myself have to offer that explanation. But I return to one plank in my argument offered previously: I say that a given people have a right to define their own terms about themselves, about their community. As I said these examples seem to gain poignancy when they are based in other cultural situations. If a Japanese or a Nigerian sat down and told me what are his or her criteria about selfhood and cultural belonging, I do not think I would have ground to dismiss those identifications as false. But more importantly I would not feel myself to be in a position to judge those criteria.

You must recognize that I certainly understand that any conversation on whiteness or Caucasian-European being, especially in the context of the US, is by definition problematic. I suppose that if you wanted to work through all the various arguments or explanations of what this identity entails that you could begin to assemble them. I mean, they definitely exist. But more interesting to me is the argumentation brought out against this identity. Obviously, it has become socially unacceptable to identify in strong ways, or in militant ways, as 'white'. Whiteness therefore has become problematic for those who have issues with it. And, naturally and also predictably, what Nietzsche referred to as ressentiment

Ressentiment, in philosophy and psychology, is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for "resentment". Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

becomes active against 'whiteness'. From what I have observed the *issue of whiteness* has become a really big deal. And as you may have gathered I definitely recognize a powerful animus -- an attack -- that operates in it.

The other questions you ask don't have a great deal of relevancy to the core of my argument nor to my focus.

Why is "whiteness" somehow a criteria? Why not the individual cultural elements that can be and are shared all over the world by people of varying levels of melatonin?

I do not want to dis-invalidate your enquiry -- you should pursue it -- but I do not feel compelled to answer these questions. They are infused more-or-less with your own views and perhaps shadows of some ideological position? I think that if you are interested in understanding how bone fide racialists or white preservationists define their concerns you could read their writing. Jared Taylor, Sam Francis -- there are numerous. They have very strong arguments and they are not unserious people by any measure. Yet again what interests me is their vilification. You see, through vilification their ideas are not allowed into 'the conversation'. So, vilification and the assignment of reprehensibility is often the *argument* that is used. And these are bad arguments, always.

What if a higher melanin culture made some advance that would make your whitenenss culture better? Wouldn't you just reject it because they weren't white? Shouldn't you, to be consistent, to avoid contamination?

This could be an interesting avenue of inquiry but it is not one that has much relevancy to my basic concerns. That concern has essentially to do with the morality, or immorality, of any given people's choice to 'preserve' and 'protect' themselves. And I am of course interested in the entire issue of 'social engineering' that I note has gone on and goes on.

I can only say that these are really large issues, very complex, and they dovetail with many different issues and concerns. My premise is that these things can and should be talked about, but that they are intensely repressed.

 

[OlNate]

The United State and the PGA Tour should be shamed for what they did to Moe Norman. Sure he was eccentric, but people came to love Moe "for being Moe" and he is the greatest ball striker that ever lived.

Been a minute since I've heard that name...

 

[What if...?]

The problem is that "whiteness" is not a "given people". It is genetics.

For instance I can say quite positively I would not like to live with Vikings.

Having been married to a Jewish woman for twenty years I would not like to be Jewish. Culturally. Behaviorally.

There is no comparison to japan or Nigeria. Those are distinct cultures developed over time. Nigerians and somalians might nit get along at aall, but both are "black". And all of the different African cultures are different from American "black" culture. So an American black may not like an African black's culture.

Yours is an intellectual argument in support of racism. You cannot define a "white" culture that is "the" "white culture. I doubt that you are a fan of hillbilly oxycontin culture. Are white trash whites included in your "whiteness". Are they included in your subset of "whiteness" just because they are white? And what of actual racists? They do exist. Racism as a concept Is based on a vestigial evolutionary adaptation. We are suspicious of people with different faces because we evolved in extended families. This instinctive reaction is exploited by racists as proof of racism's validity.

I was hoping to have a converstaion about propaganda, not any particular piece of it, which racism is.

You position is noted. I get the general gist. But as you cannot define "whiteness" in more than very general terms, you have no position. You have an intellectual excuse for it, not supportable so far.

There is no monolithic "whiteness". No single set of behaviors one can point to not shared by other racial groups. No set of behaviors that can be attributed to "whites". None of the things you mention can be defined as exclusive to whites. Every one cultural, not genetic.

So again, if you want to redefine as "culturally white" you might have some validity. Culturally American white would be more accurate.

But "whiteness" is no valid criteria. The set is undefined.

 

[What if...?]

I am not sure that I myself have to offer that explanation. But I return to one plank in my argument offered previously: I say that a given people have a right to define their own terms about themselves, about their community. As I said these examples seem to gain poignancy when they are based in other cultural situations. If a Japanese or a Nigerian sat down and told me what are his or her criteria about selfhood and cultural belonging, I do not think I would have ground to dismiss those identifications as false. But more importantly I would not feel myself to be in a position to judge those criteria.

You must recognize that I certainly understand that any conversation on whiteness or Caucasian-European being, especially in the context of the US, is by definition problematic. I suppose that if you wanted to work through all the various arguments or explanations of what this identity entails that you could begin to assemble them. I mean, they definitely exist. But more interesting to me is the argumentation brought out against this identity. Obviously, it has become socially unacceptable to identify in strong ways, or in militant ways, as 'white'. Whiteness therefore has become problematic for those who have issues with it. And, naturally and also predictably, what Nietzsche referred to as ressentiment



becomes active against 'whiteness'. From what I have observed the *issue of whiteness* has become a really big deal. And as you may have gathered I definitely recognize a powerful animus -- an attack -- that operates in it.

The other questions you ask don't have a great deal of relevancy to the core of my argument nor to my focus.


I do not want to dis-invalidate your enquiry -- you should pursue it -- but I do not feel compelled to answer these questions. They are infused more-or-less with your own views and perhaps shadows of some ideological position? I think that if you are interested in understanding how bone fide racialists or white preservationists define their concerns you could read their writing. Jared Taylor, Sam Francis -- there are numerous. They have very strong arguments and they are not unserious people by any measure. Yet again what interests me is their vilification. You see, through vilification their ideas are not allowed into 'the conversation'. So, vilification and the assignment of reprehensibility is often the *argument* that is used. And these are bad arguments, always.


This could be an interesting avenue of inquiry but it is not one that has much relevancy to my basic concerns. That concern has essentially to do with the morality, or immorality, of any given people's choice to 'preserve' and 'protect' themselves. And I am of course interested in the entire issue of 'social engineering' that I note has gone on and goes on.

I can only say that these are really large issues, very complex, and they dovetail with many different issues and concerns. My premise is that these things can and should be talked about, but that they are intensely repressed.

Answered in post #119. Had to cut your qoute out for character limit.

 

[BitterPill]

But the question I ask -- and it is best to take as an example some other situation -- is whether it is moral and ethical, or immoral and unethical, to want to maintain one's own community, nation, or region. I do not think that this has exclusively to do with melanin content and I think it is a deceptive argument that places all emphasis on this. (But I do not deny that that is one of the factors: somatic type). My starting point is one of morality and ethics, not of expediency.

I have concluded, myself, that it is not immoral or unethical to have race-composition as a criterion of concern. In fact a 'wise ruler' (in a speculative Platonic kingdom) would do well to consider the compatibility of people. But it has to be said because it is true: any talk about such matters is extremely frowned on. One of my concerns however is in the analysis of *causal chains*. And I feel confident that one of the causes of social conflict in America today has a great deal to do with what I have described: a deliberate policy of demographic shift. I do not think that I am acting immorally in bringing this up, yet there is no doubt that it will be seen as an immoral concern and topic. Additionally, I regard the argument that would vilify someone for having race-concerns as itself immoral and unethical -- and I could argue my points I think quite well and successfully.

In this respect if someone from any other country or region told me that they desired to preserve their people, community or nation -- and told me what their terms were for this -- I do not believe that I could offer them a sound argument against their chosen position. I think I would respect their choice. So I have used the example of 'Japan' or 'Nigeria'. And even for example what I have read of some American Indian's and African American's (of a separatist leaning) opinions and desires on this topic. In fact I do not think it is 'racist' to be concerned for the make-up of one's own community (or region or nation, etc.) What interests me is the forbidden nature of the topic. And that coercive tactics are used when someone, anyone, expresses such a concern. At the same time it is simply a fact that it is part of an anti-whiteness ideology -- an anti-whiteness praxis -- that whites are clearly not allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments. And this also interests me a great deal.

And if I did create or conceive of an argument to be used against them -- against any people, anywhere who desired to conserve their peoplehood or nationhood of 'community integrity' if you wished to put it like this -- I have tentatively concluded that it would be through a defective and a morally corrupt argument. It would be a contrived and likely a defective argument and one based in coercion of some sort, not necessarily in truth. So, if this is true, I also suggest that 'whites have been turned against themselves' through devious processes. And I seek to discover and to name what those are.

You could try to argue against Muhammad Ali -- but you would be in the thick of it! (I submit this as an amusing anecdote and not as a serious argument, though he argues from a very common-sense position and a 'natural' position).

You practice a 'whiteness-ideology', but I see you are arguing that you aren't "allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments."

How can that be?

 

[BitterPill]

I reject the premise on it's face though.

Because iit is not genetic. It is cultural. Always. Every single aspect is about how they chose to do things not how they were genetically predisposed.

So you want to have a moral argument based on facts not in evidence.

And America needs to stop engaging in such "arguments"

We need to agree, for instance, that it isn't "race", gentics. It's "culture", shared behaviors developed over time.

This more accurately reflects the situation.

So would you like to restate by this definition or do we need to argue the above first?

I am quite prepared to do so.

It seems you are arguing race is a social construct.

Is that so?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You practice a 'whiteness-ideology', but I see you are arguing that you aren't "allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments."

How can that be?

The term 'white ideology' is yours, not mine.

What I say -- because it is obvious to all -- is that white identity and certainly a militant white identity is under assault.

I know where to access ideas that support the morality of having a 'white identity', and have made it a topic of study, but what I meant is that such a topic of conversation is shunned and made to seem reprehensible in today's climate.

 

[BitterPill]

The term 'white ideology' is yours, not mine.

What I say -- because it is obvious to all -- is that white identity and certainly a militant white identity is under assault.

I know where to access ideas that support the morality of having a 'white identity', and have made it a topic of study, but what I meant is that such a topic of conversation is shunned and made to seem reprehensible in today's climate.

All yours: Whiteness ideology as in anti-whiteness ideology. If there is an anti-whiteness ideology, it follows there is a whiteness ideology.

So, while propounding a whiteness ideology, you claim "that whites are clearly not allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments."

That doesn't make sense since it is clear you are allowed to have the idea and sentiment that whites are being oppressed by an anti-whiteness ideology and even express the idea and sentiment freely.

 

[What if...?]

It seems you are arguing race is a social construct.

Is that so?

I don't think so.

I think I'm having a problem with "whiteness" as a choice point.

What whiteness? There is no "whiteness" in the ccontext of the conversation. No definable set of things consistent across "white" populations to point to as "the" "whiteness" one could ascribe to.

It's a weak, insupportable position as a result.

Apologetics. Excuses for racist beliefs based on fallacious arguments.

Like the "whiteness" argument in the conversation we're talking about. Which tries to make race and culture the same thing when they are not.

Tries to make the claim that wanting to live with other white people is natural when in reality wanting to live with people that see the world the same way you do is the real motivation and their melanin content or other genetic traits are completely irrelevant.