qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Those poor whites.

Can’t we just let them oppress minorities for centuries in peace?

---

And that's the attitude that's going to create the unity and successful diversity we all dream about. 

Keep pushing hard and you'll get exactly what you despise.

---

“Calling people racist will make them racist.”

Everyone drink.

---

Well, FB is suggesting any white organization is automatically "racist" in nature. I don't believe that's a very good policy and will only create more animosity and resentment with the white community.

The issue isn't racist white organizations, it's the singling out of all white organizations and automatically deeming them racist because of their race.

I know of a black group on FB and it's extremely hateful of white people, obviously that's not an issue for Zuckerberg and his gang.

---

MagicMush123 said:

Or we could just work through education to create a more equal society that is free of identity politics. N. America and Europe are fundamentally white countries no matter how you look it at... we can work to create more opportunities for people to advance, but i feel mantras, even as "innocent" as "end white power" will help to fuel racism and wont end in equality, unless you want whites removed from all positions of power.  And that would never naturally happen because our continents are white majority, so naturally most positions would be held by the largest race...
Especially when considering that the average white holds no power or authority. Its a small group of elites that have generally built their wealth/power through time. The average white does marginally better than people of color and thats mainly for economic reasons. ( except criminally, but thats another discussion) Like our families have been here longer creating wealth. So our enemies should go beyond the color of skin. The ones in power aren't in power because they're white, but because of their wealth. Saying "end white power" is just lazy, and is using skin color as a motivator. Which is exactly what helps to perpetuate racism.  I dont feel all the races would ever be totally equal, especially when our numbers are so varied.  So instead of relying on color and creating enemies based on arbitrary reasons, why dont we go deeper and end corruption or end debt or something that actually keeps us down. We shouldn't be fighting each other anyway, we should all be uniting and going after what keeps us down, and thats the elite. And that won't happen if we keep playing identity politics, no matter how small the group, we should identify ourselves with class and not race. And thats why i feel that even innocent slogans like " end white___" aren't good for anyone, no matter how you slice it, it turns into identity politics and inevitably perpetuates racism. Education is key.

Although i did agree with your post i did object to how you think that race based pride is acceptable when used against a hierarchical race. You might disagree, but I feel that helps to instill racism and identity politics. Especially in a mix raced society, there will be always be a stuggle for hierarchy, with the largest race always winning. Which is why i said that 99% of us have the same interest at heart, which is ending the 1% or something a long those lines

If we're all proud of blank, then it definitely leads to racism.

If everyone is a proud non white it also definitely lead to racism, first towards whites and then towards the mobs next flavor.
If no one is proud of anything, then there won't be competition and it wouldn't lead to anything except for removing the idea of racism

I understand and read what you posted... i just don't think you can have your cake and eat it too

---

qman said:

shivas.wisdom said:

qman said:

shivas.wisdom said:

"unless it's in self-defense."


Does your concept of self-defence only exist for the individual? Both the legal definition and my own understanding include a recognition that self-defence can involve protecting both yourself and others from harm.

---

Take that issue aside, why have a different standard for females? That's a form of sexism. 

Or should we operate from the premise that women get equal treatment when it suits their needs and special treatment when equal doesn't suit their needs?  A double standard that always favors females.

---

I don't think we should take it aside, because this quote displays a fundamental misunderstanding:

qman said:

Really, so if a woman is beating up my friends or family members, I can't do anything about it?

---

What double standard are you seeing?

This was the original statement: "No man has a right to lay a hand on a woman, no matter what's she's wearing, she does, unless it's in self-defense. Never."

Are you suggesting that women have the right to lay hands on men outside of a self-defence context?

---

The double standard if obvious, he's singling out men and excluding women.

---

Enlil said:

In fairness, most "white organizations" are racist in nature.  There may be some that aren't, but I can't think of any at this time.

Also, you seem to always miss an important fact:  When white people are racist against people of color, people of color get hurt.  When people of color are racist against white people, people of color get hurt.

In the former case, an injustice occurs.  In the latter, not so much.

---

qman said:

The white groups today are mainly focused on self-defense from the left, it has nothing to do with pride or separatism.

It's people like yourself that have pushed regular white people to seek unity and some form of representation when it comes to constantly being accused of "bias, racism and bigotry" for just existing.

When people constantly push for identity politics, there's a counter reaction to that push. White people didn't want to go in that direction, the left has forced them.

---

Pinkerton said:

Debate me. You have dodged me before, not this time. K thx bai.

---

qman said:

Enlil said:

In fairness, most "white organizations" are racist in nature.  There may be some that aren't, but I can't think of any at this time.

Also, you seem to always miss an important fact:  When white people are racist against people of color, people of color get hurt.  When people of color are racist against white people, people of color get hurt.

In the former case, an injustice occurs.  In the latter, not so much.

---

In my opinion, many of these so called "white organizations" are nothing more than self-defense satire against the constant allegations of "racism" from the left.  Do you find that problematic?  I don't.

---

Quote:

White supremacism and Islamophobia are among "the gravest threats" facing the world, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told the United Nations Thursday.

A white supremacist's March 15 terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, which claimed the lives of 50 worshippers, was a painful reminder to Canadians of the deaths of six people in another terrorist attack on a Quebec City mosque two years ago, Freeland said before a UN Security Council debate on terrorism.

"Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 'incels,' nativists and radical anti-globalists who resort to violent acts are a threat to the stability of my country and countries around the world," Freeland said.

---

Quote:

No time for euphemisms

These attacks need to be at the top of the global agenda during discussions on confronting global terrorism, Freeland added.

And when such attacks do occur, the international community must not be afraid to condemn them specifically as racist acts of terrorism, Freeland said.

"We cannot hide behind euphemisms that distract from the truth," she said. "In fact, doing so puts our citizens, especially those from religious minorities and racialized communities, in greater danger."

In the wake of acts of terrorism carried out by Muslims, Western countries often call upon Muslim countries and Muslim leaders to condemn those attacks in the name of their people and their faith, she said.

"It should follow that, as the foreign minister of a majority-white and majority-Christian country, I feel a specific and personal responsibility to denounce white supremacist attacks in the same way," Freeland said.

---

Quote:

Collective effort

While hate is eternal, the way it spreads changes over time, she added.

The international community must keep a close watch on how hateful messages spread through online forums and social media, Freeland said.

This work cannot be undertaken in isolation, she added.

"Each of our countries will, of course, address this issue in different ways, but we need to recognize that this is ultimately an international problem, and we need to act collectively to address it," Freeland said.

"The Internet and social media know no borders and so we must work together to find ways to address online radicalization."

---

Quote:

'We are family'

Freeland also took the opportunity to offer Canada's support and compassion to the people of New Zealand.

"As fellow members of the Commonwealth, Canada and New Zealand have a close relationship. We are more than friends, we are family, and Canadians felt great compassion and real pain following the terrible attacks in Christchurch," Freeland said.

"In particular, I'd like to salute the moral leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has distinguished herself not only to the people of New Zealand, but to the whole world."

---

Quote:

Canada contributes $15M to boost number of female peacekeepers

Later in the day, Freeland announced that Canada will contribute $15 million to the launch of the Elsie Initiative Fund for Uniformed Women in Peace Operations.

The initiative was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in November of 2017 during the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial hosted in Vancouver, British Columbia.

The goal of the pilot project is overcome barriers to the increased participation of women in peace operations.

The Elsie Initiative Fund will offer countries that contribute troops and police to the UN, as well as UN organizations, funding to support the deployment of trained and qualified uniformed women, Freeland said.

"One central challenge for peacekeeping in the 21st century is the absence of women, whether as police officers, soldiers or leaders," Freeland said in a statement.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

qman said:

shivas.wisdom said:

"unless it's in self-defense."


Does your concept of self-defence only exist for the individual? Both the legal definition and my own understanding include a recognition that self-defence can involve protecting both yourself and others from harm.

---

Take that issue aside, why have a different standard for females? That's a form of sexism. 

Or should we operate from the premise that women get equal treatment when it suits their needs and special treatment when equal doesn't suit their needs?  A double standard that always favors females.

---

I don't think we should take it aside, because this quote displays a fundamental misunderstanding:

qman said:

Really, so if a woman is beating up my friends or family members, I can't do anything about it?

---

What double standard are you seeing?

This was the original statement: "No man has a right to lay a hand on a woman, no matter what's she's wearing, she does, unless it's in self-defense. Never."

Are you suggesting that women have the right to lay hands on men outside of a self-defence context?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

qman said:

The white groups today are mainly focused on self-defense from the left, it has nothing to do with pride or separatism.

It's people like yourself that have pushed regular white people to seek unity and some form of representation when it comes to constantly being accused of "bias, racism and bigotry" for just existing.

When people constantly push for identity politics, there's a counter reaction to that push. White people didn't want to go in that direction, the left has forced them.

---

As I have said several times, my experience with "white pride" groups has invariably revealed racial supremacy. I invite you to provide any examples of white pride groups without racist tendencies.

Beyond that, I have often heard you say that white supremacist (and other forms of right-wing or fascist) violence is purely a response to the actions of the left. While recognizing that right-wing violence is often reactionary in nature, a cursory purview of history for the last century reveals white supremacist organizing and violence to have been continually present. Because of this reason, I always have suspected this argument to be nothing more than a distracting talking point with no real basis in reality - but perhaps you could point me to the specific time-period when the left began to be responsible for the violence of the right?



Two questions:

• Provide an example of some white pride groups that do not display racist tendencies.
  
  
• Provide the specific time period when the left became responsible for white supremacist violence.
  

Anyone want to give me odds on qman actually answering these questions?

---

koods said:

Lol. Could you sound any more politically correct?

---

Yeah I get it, calling out the hypocrisy and double standards of the PC movement is now being politically correct.

shivas.wisdom said:

[Two questions:

• Provide an example of some white pride groups that do not display racist tendencies.
  
  
• Provide the specific time period when the left became responsible for white supremacist violence.
  

---

qman said:

How about individuals (Ben Shapiro) that question the assault on white culture that are labeled as Nazis?  It's the same thing that's being applied to many white nationalistic groups.

---

qman said:

Also, I never stated the left is responsible for "white supremacist violence", so nice strawman.  I said if you constantly falsely accused a demographic of automatically being "racist", there's going to be a predictable backlash.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

shivas.wisdom said:

[Two questions:

• Provide an example of some white pride groups that do not display racist tendencies.
  
  
• Provide the specific time period when the left became responsible for white supremacist violence.
  

---

qman said:

How about individuals (Ben Shapiro) that question the assault on white culture that are labeled as Nazis?  It's the same thing that's being applied to many white nationalistic groups.

---

The discussion initially hinged on white nationalist organizations being, according to you, unfairly labeled as racist. You specifically have claimed: "In my opinion, many of these so called "white organizations" are nothing more than self-defense satire against the constant allegations of "racism" from the left.".

So no, I will not be satisfied with "Ben Shapiro". Show me non-racist white nationalist organizations or your entire argument is baseless.

qman said:

Also, I never stated the left is responsible for "white supremacist violence", so nice strawman.  I said if you constantly falsely accused a demographic of automatically being "racist", there's going to be a predictable backlash.

---

Fair enough, you stated the left is responsible pushback or backlash, but not "white supremacist violence" specifically; that was me filling in the blanks. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly you mean by "predictable backlash"?

I'm sure you also understand that portraying the left as "falsely accusing a demographic of automatically being racist" is a straw man position as well?

---

Thundermuscle75 said:

Your articles that started this debate don't say anything about white pride being banned, only white nationalism and white seperatism.

They do say, “Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism,” Facebook said in its post

---