O.k., I am recapping off of my last thread and the other new threads dealing with such subjects [in euphemism] as the 'stereotypical universal B.O. of Arab peoples' and '"What If" Slavery of Blacks was Reinstated as a Legal Institution' and there seems to be some reoccuring themes in the [il]logic of those who argue for the supremacy/pride/nationalism/genocide/subjugation/etc. of various races on all sides...
[...I've seen forums in which it has literally turned into a White vs. Black vs. Yellow debate in which the racist Whites accuse ALL Blacks of inferiority and universal problem-making, the racist Blacks accuse ALL Whites of universally instituted racism and holding them back and the racist Yellows accuse the Whites AND Blacks of genetically objective inferiority [see: Wikipedia article on 'Race and Intelligence'] and themselves of being the true superior peoples of humanity... Egh, at least to me, all of these people just seem likepeople needing a lesson in objectivity playing out old evolutionarily primate neuro-script under the guise of objectivity and 'intellectualism'...]
...of this conflict. One of these themes is the theory that because a person is of a certain skin color, they are instantly and undeniably universally responsible AND A PART OF the actions of other people of that same skin color, whether positive or negative. Some of the arguments I've seen from various people who spout this 'Racial Responsibility' as if it was as absolute and irrefutable as the loads of other ignorance they consider true are...
From Racist Whites = "We Anglo-Saxxons have practically carried the Western World, European AND American on our backs. Economic, Scientific, Philosophic, Literary... all us. We have the Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Quantum Physics, the Constitution... all of it. All these inferior races have... what? Nothing." Analysis: So, based upon this logic of ability based on race, you're able to recite all of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, explain the structure and significance of Iambic Pentameter, explain the full spectrum of mathematic, physical and theoretical principles surrounding quantum mechanics and apparently do anything that anyone who's white has ever done... AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE MAGNA CARTA, TOO? WOW!
From Racist Blacks = Usually there is a mentioning of how their musical traditions have been stolen by Whites. Everything from original tribal beats to original Rock&Roll to Raggae to Funk to House to Disco to Jazz has been co-opted... Unh-huh... Same analysis, write and perform a song of the genres mentioned here based upon your obvious ability to do so as a black person and THEN talk to me.
You get my point people.
Discuss... rationally, please.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-09 6:42
>>78 All I have to do is repeat myself over and over, especially when it's 100% clear that the opposition isn't actually trying to have a debate
That's the point. A normal person would throw up their hands, walk away, and get on with their life. You're a little different, you just keep going, and going, and going, and going, and...
That's abnormal. Borderline, or some other cluster B.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-09 14:23 (sage)
>>77
It's pretty obvious anti-chan's problems are pathological, this is a text book case of someone sufferring from both anti-social PD and narcissistic PD.
Or maybe it's just that- "The people on these forums just aren't even close to being at a college level when it comes to discussing issues. It doesn't take long to type or read any of the shit on these forums- including my own. Of course a success like myself is going to seem "weird" to a group of proven failures."
See what I mean? All I really have to do is find different ways of repeating myself. I'm dealing with pre-tarded thalidomide babies with some twisted form of ADD that causes them believe that their bahavior is normal.
Pretty contemptible reaction given >>81's and >>82's ability to fail during any debate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-09 22:09 (sage)
Congratulations on proving >>81,82. You just can't help it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-10 4:13
>>83 is right. all of this shite sounds like the words of sore losers
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-10 4:28 (sage)
Because on the Internet, your opinion Matters.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-10 6:37
Only the loser of the argument tries to trivialize the argument after numerous failures of controlling said arguement.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-10 23:00 (sage)
Because, with a loon at the other end, you can't "win".
Don't worry, you'll figure it out yourself eventually.
i guess if you can't beat your opponent with superior logic, you always claim he's insane.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-11 4:40
But what if he is insane? Flawless logic won't help you there.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-12 7:09
>>91
like the man said, if superior logic doesn't win...then you can always (A) trivialize the argument or (B) resort to a character attack (he's crazy!)
there's nothing "crazy" about tanacity. don't throw a bitch fit because you lack intellectual stamina
Where did the white supremacist lose? I still believe that anti-chan believes whites are evil, despite being the only race to develop democracy and ban slavery (even fighting a bloody war over it).
I don't think any races can be said to be inherantly good or evil, just that when the smart ones do good the world progresses and there is less evil.
Cite where I said "whites are evil". Why is it so hard for you to differenciate between racial privelege, in this case- 'white privelege' and the entire white race?
"Despite being the only race to develop democracy"
That's a laugh. Greeks aren't white, no matter how much you wish them to be. And they weren't the only race to ban slavery or consider democracy, either. Plus: The civil war wasn't over slavery, it was a fight for the union. So, pretty much you fail across the board.
Read more history and less white nationalist rantings, plz.
Because WHITE is a blanket term for all people of european decent; you really cant specify anymore what with the intermixing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-14 14:30
Greeks are gray. They also have the haircolor of Satan, black, I think.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-14 14:44
ENVY OF BLACK PEOPLE ( THE GODS OF THE EARTH, THE 'NET-GER' WILL LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIOUS (LUCIFITES, THOSE WHO FEEL INFERIOR AND MUST PUT OTHERS DOWN TO FEEL SUPERIOR ) http://www.stewartsynopsis.com http://www.suzar.com
SATEN IS WHITE, HE IS CALLED 'LUCIFER' THE TERM 'LUCID' MEANS 'WHITE/PALE/' HENCE LUCIFER MEANS 'THE WHITE ONE'
GOD THE 'DIVINE THOUGHT' IS BLACK, THE TERM FOR GOD IS 'NET-GER' (NATURE) AND NATURE WAS CREATED BY THE DIVINE BLACK THOUGHT.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-14 17:41
White represents purity
Black represents flith
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-14 18:08
Europeans are 'pink' like worms. MILK IS WHITE.
Blacks are AS BLACK AS GOD. BLACK STANDS FOR POWER, FOR HOLYNESS FOR GODLINESS...WHITE STANDS FOR EVIL, DEATH, DISEASE, PLAGUE, FILTH.
BLACKNESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-14 20:00
>>106
Watch it or I'll conjure a rather nasty beast from the darkest depths of Usenet and lock you in a room with it. I will not open the door until you both have died.
Poor sods don't understand that they are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-15 13:14
What a bunch of noobs. Everone knows that niggers are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-16 21:53
THEY DON'T THINK SO...THEY THINK WORMS ARE THE INFERIORS. TEN MINUTES IN THE HOT SUN PROVES IT.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-17 7:35
There's such a mindnumbing confusion going on that you idiots are comparing my statement with obvious racist shit like stuart synopsis or sudanforum (mind, I didn't actually click on the links just going by what been said) when what they think isn't even close to what I've implictly said.
I keep saying: "I don't hate the white race. I just don't think there's should be priveleges to being a certain race. (such as white) Race is a concept that only used to benefit a certain portion of mankind and is therefore an inferior way of thought because it is insular and doesn't address the existental problems mankind (black or white) are going to be coming to terms with in the 22nd century."
And you idiots keep coming back with: "He hates whites, he think blacks are superior."
Given what I've witnessed of history and of everyday human interaction...for me...there's no such thing as a people being "generally superior". It's basically groups of truly inferior human specimens trying to take credit for things they've had no part in. Truly superior human beings can be counted by the handful and to dice them up into race is complete subjective and does nothing but to furthe the cause of race and racial privalege.
When Greece began there was no Europe and furthering that Europeans are an indiginous people in their own right. The way you people think, act and react is dictated by this flimsy notion of race, so you're unable to see that the Greeks for all their apparent "whiteness" were a collection of peoples that mirgrated out of Africa and the far east.
The fact that one would continue to asscioate the greeks with a *very* recent racial term like "white" is greatly downplaying what the greeks learned from other cultures and used in their own. And these orgins are "non-white" because in those days...THERE WERE NO "WHITE PEOPLE".
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-17 9:21
>>112
"Greeks for all their apparent "whiteness" were a collection of peoples that mirgrated out of Africa and the far east."
Our belief that the humanity has branched out into different races has little to do with proving that the ancient greeks were negro. Unless of course you think that the migration out of africa makes everyone negro, which is absurd since evolution is occurring. However you would be right in saying that negros share many of the same characteristics of humans 70000 years ago before they left africa and evolved into the different races. No one is saying Greece created all it's technology and culture on it's own either, they are saying it did things the fertile crescent civilisations had never done before and that's what makes it special.
What are you saying and before you go on I am not saying I don't understand your argument, I am saying I have no idea where your facts are coming from. Claiming that because whites are succesful and the winners write history and that some elements of history may not be true is fair enough, but you have to prove something before it is true, not say "something else may not be true, therefore what I say is true".
On a personal note, back up your argumetns with facts or do yourself a favour and fuck off before you humiliate yourself further.
First of all, I'm not saying the greeks were negro. Why do you automatically assume I'm trying afrocentrize the debate? Ask yourself that. Is it at all possible for you get past race as an argumentitive device? Non-white, is just that. Non-white. Greeks are non-white. As in, NOT indigenous to Europe.
Secondly, "evolution is occuring" is a pretty bold statement given that the scientific community has failed at producing evidence that mankind has *recently* evolved in the last 3,000 years. Evolution takes a long time and as such we can't really recognise an evolutionary pattern until after the fact. If you have concrete, absolute proof stating otherwise...then by all means.
Don't know where you're getting the idea that race is a form of evolution, but I would like to see evidence that explictly says this. According to your logic, eye color is evolution, rock n' roll is a form of evolution, gender is evolution. And that...just doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying I don't understand your argument, but you have to prove something before it is true.
Huh? What is so hard to understand? I'm saying that superiority doesn't work on general levels. It works on individual levels. People are generally (truly) inferior to a small, tiny percentile of superior individuals. Period. One in a billion people come up with innovative ideas, the rest simply follow. Mankind is mediocre. The likihood that any of you are "superior" in that sense to someone else depsite race, culture or whatever is without merit and entirely subjective.