Controversial General Political Discussion

[NAMELESS]

This you?

Go ahead and post proof Trump is racist. It shouldn't be too hard. I will change my opinion of him if people here can prove he employs racism in his rhetoric.

 

[Okamakama]

1. You ran from the questions
2. A lot of strawmen
3. Prove that racism as a systematic power didnt existed somewhere in the history (this sound literally like rousseau's noble savage lol)

Bro, he never understood your clauses in the first place, this is part of the issue. He will cite a million things and expect you to read it all (and I do a lot of the time), but he will never give anyone else the time of day or assume they could ever know more than him, despite the fact that he is the most ignorant of us all. It'd be funny if it wasn't so said.

RE: 3. It's absolutely Rousseau's Noble Savage, lol.

 

[Jiihad]

Both worked for my point. Thank you. This is what most people see racism as. By this explanation, it's very possible for any race to be racist. I'm not saying one is more racist than another, but the idea that only whites can be racist excuses many bad behaviours.

If we’re gonna use words and shit they have to mean sum. Kant jus say whatever and change words kause we don’t like them or what they mean

 

[Jiihad]

Go ahead and post proof Trump is racist. It shouldn't be too hard. I will change my opinion of him if people here can prove he employs racism in his rhetoric.

He is very racist and has plenty of racist comments and actions, one of them telling congress members to go back to their countries and fix it(they were black and born in America so he assumed they were from Africa from skin color). Trump is hated by half of the U.S. for a reason. For you to get a better understanding, he is the equivalent of half of Brazil hating Luis Silva. Both are convicted criminals with blatant corruption as well.

Again this you?

 

[Etzel Andergast]

For starters, not leeching off other people and living in peace. Morality is but one aspect.

So you are against imperialism

 

[NAMELESS]

So you are against imperialism

Of course, I don't recall saying it's cool to steal shit from other nations.

 

[NAMELESS]

Again this you?

Btw, Uncle's opinion isn't proof.

 

[Okamakama]

shouldn't this explain everything Van??

We all know I get along with Nameless, so I respect you won't particularly think I'm being genuine when I say the following but:

I believe some cultures are inferior and others superior

This is not racism. Cultures and race/ethnicity are not the same thing. He could hate cultures, but not mind the ethnicity. For example, say somebody hated British culture (only saying this because I am English), this does not mean you hate all whites, and you might not even hate me if I, an ethnically English person, had been born in Germany and adhered to German cultural standards.

He's demonstrating cultural discrimination... but I am unsure there is a proper term for that. Let's at least identify the problem.

 

[Okamakama]

If we’re gonna use words and shit they have to mean sum. Kant jus say whatever and change words kause we don’t like them or what they mean

100%. I dislike when the wrong terms are used to identify a problem. For example, when people are called fascists but they aren't actually fascist based on historical principle. It doesn't mean they're not doing something wrong, but identifying the problem is one of the first steps towards combating it. Using inflammatory terms to be bombastic does not help.

 

[AL sama]

We all know I get along with Nameless, so I respect you won't particularly think I'm being genuine when I say the following but:

I believe some cultures are inferior and others superior

This is not racism. Cultures and race/ethnicity are not the same thing. He could hate cultures, but not mind the ethnicity. For example, say somebody hated British culture (only saying this because I am English), this does not mean you hate all whites, and you might not even hate me if I, an ethnically English person, had been born in Germany and adhered to German cultural standards.

He's demonstrating cultural discrimination... but I am unsure there is a proper term for that. Let's at least identify the problem.

 

[Okamakama]

Sometimes I scare even myself with my own genius...

 

[NAMELESS]

shouldn't this explain everything Van??

the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture

So hating lifestyles now makes one into a bigot? Pretty sure you yourself don't fancy certain BELIEF SYSTEMS.

 

[AL sama]

 

[Uncle Van]

@Jiihad didn't Trump post a video earlier this year depicting the Obamas as apes in the jungle? He was also one of the people claiming Obama wasn't American because of his name, and said that there is no country led by a black person that isn't a shithole.

 

[NAMELESS]

@Jiihad didn't Trump post a video earlier this year depicting the Obamas as apes in the jungle? He was also one of the people claiming Obama wasn't American because of his name, and said that there is no country led by a black person that isn't a shithole.

Oh yeah. He did. Forgot about that one. Yeah, Trump might be racist. I conced on that. The Obama stuff was a conspiracy I heard years ago.

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Not really, it's a consequences of the structural domination of white supremacy, it's not a simple tautology. It's something researched and documented mate. I'm not just inventing meanings here.

There is a coherence in the reasonning that I'm trying to share with you. A scientific, systemic/structural and historical one



It requires a structural and social domination. The term "requires" power here is a little bit missleading.


And it is precisely because racism can dominate in countries were white are not in power or even in majority that racism is a STRUCTURAL problem, not a simple question of power balance. Racism imapcts countries of the south global too. especially these countries.

Again. Allow me to explain with open mind, and I might be able to share this knowledge with you.


No, it's just that you do not understand the framework of my definition. Not that I'm not coherent. There are specific reason why this conclusion is not true. I'm trying to share them. But you need to change your perspective.



Indeed it does. It exist everywhere.

But it has not always existed. White supremacy is a domination system that is quite recent. And it didn't appear by the mean people usually think it did. It's a big more complicated than that historically. This is why I asked a specific question above that no one respounded to.



Yes, but these are not white supremacy. They are different systems of dominations still full of problems, but less impactfull and threatening to the globality of the human species.. Racism has a lot of specificities that are not shared by other system, especially the one of being completely global. And structural (due to various colonialism and ingerences) in the structure of all societies on the planet.


I checked (because we never know, I have a bad memory), and yeah.. you are lying as usual. Next.






Thanks you for your contribution. You found something on the internet and you didn't understand the meaning.


I literally just talked about this one page ago. >>



But thanks, you are great lmaoooo





No. I presume they don't understand it.

You can read marx 10 times. If you are a billionnaire you will never take it seriousely.
Again. Perspective and Material conditions.



Exactly. The only thing is that racism will only be targeted to those who are not white.

It's like a programming inside the structures of each country and geopolitics. It's like a for of virus that will constantly favor white people and will inevitably oppress in one way or another the rest.

Have you ever heard the fact that people try to whitenen their skin in the south? Well, in certain countries, white supremacy has impacted society so deeply that people are often trying to appear less black than they are in order to fit society. Not because it's cultural, but because this whiteness seeking phenomenon is a behavior than goes back to the period of colonialism where black folks tried to again favors of the white by trying to appear more white than their peers in order to survive. I've talked about this a few month ago through the Work of Fanon, but you can find this same phenomenon within the domain of slavery in the america and today, within the people who try to fit as much azs possible within the carcan of whiteness, sometimes going as far as negating their own culture and needs in order to fit and prevent racist attacks.

This is white supremacy, a structural domination system that was developped a long time ago to subjugate populatioin. Population that would become de facto "racialized".

I wish it wasn't me saying all of this but an activist with more bagage and a deeper understanding of what it means to be living under this white supremacy but you only have me here I'm sorry.



I'll reply later

Look, I think we've reached the actual core of the disagreement, so let me put it plainly.
You're now treating white supremacy as something sui generis — a kind with no genus, a system that doesn't belong to any broader category alongside caste, Han policy over Uyghurs, or the Arab slave trade. As long as you can deny the common genus, my counterexamples don't touch you, because they're not counterexamples of anything. I get the move. But it costs you more than you think

First problem: you already compared them yourself. You said those other systems are "less impactful." But comparisons of degree presuppose a common dimension, you can only rank things that share a genus. If caste and white supremacy can be measured on the same scale of "impact of ethnic domination," then they belong to the same category, and you admitted it in the act of ranking them. If they don't belong to the same category, then "less impactful" is meaningless — like saying Wednesday is less yellow than justice. You can't have both.
Second: name the property. What exactly does white supremacy have that caste, Han policy and the Arab slave trade lack, which justifies reserving the word "racism" for it alone? Walk through the options. Structural power? They all have it. Pseudo-biological ideology? Nazi antisemitism had it and wasn't white-on-nonwhite; Xinjiang biopolitics has it right now; and Iberian limpieza de sangre predates racial science entirely. Global reach? That's an extrinsic property, a matter of degree — it tells you which instance of a genus is the largest, it never defines the genus. English is the most globalized language on earth; that doesn't make Guarani not a language. The Black Death was the most global epidemic of its era; local epidemics were still diseases. And if the property is simply "perpetrated by whites" — then the definition is circular, and you've been assuming your conclusion the whole time.

Last thing. Consider what your position actually implies. If only Europeans and their descendants are capable of generating racial domination, if the rest of humanity, across five thousand years of civilizations, empires and hierarchies, never managed to produce anything of the same kind, then you've made Europe the sole true subject of history and everyone else a patient. That's European exceptionalism with the moral sign flipped. I'd find that anthropologically indefensible and, frankly, condescending toward the entire non-Western world.
To be clear about what I'm not saying: I'm not denying the historical specificity of Atlantic racial capitalism, its scale, or its documented ongoing effects. Largest instance of the genus, quite possibly. But "largest instance" is a claim of degree, and your original claim was categorical. Specificity doesn't grant a conceptual monopoly.

 

[NAMELESS]

Look, I think we've reached the actual core of the disagreement, so let me put it plainly.
You're now treating white supremacy as something sui generis — a kind with no genus, a system that doesn't belong to any broader category alongside caste, Han policy over Uyghurs, or the Arab slave trade. As long as you can deny the common genus, my counterexamples don't touch you, because they're not counterexamples of anything. I get the move. But it costs you more than you think

First problem: you already compared them yourself. You said those other systems are "less impactful." But comparisons of degree presuppose a common dimension, you can only rank things that share a genus. If caste and white supremacy can be measured on the same scale of "impact of ethnic domination," then they belong to the same category, and you admitted it in the act of ranking them. If they don't belong to the same category, then "less impactful" is meaningless — like saying Wednesday is less yellow than justice. You can't have both.
Second: name the property. What exactly does white supremacy have that caste, Han policy and the Arab slave trade lack, which justifies reserving the word "racism" for it alone? Walk through the options. Structural power? They all have it. Pseudo-biological ideology? Nazi antisemitism had it and wasn't white-on-nonwhite; Xinjiang biopolitics has it right now; and Iberian limpieza de sangre predates racial science entirely. Global reach? That's an extrinsic property, a matter of degree — it tells you which instance of a genus is the largest, it never defines the genus. English is the most globalized language on earth; that doesn't make Guarani not a language. The Black Death was the most global epidemic of its era; local epidemics were still diseases. And if the property is simply "perpetrated by whites" — then the definition is circular, and you've been assuming your conclusion the whole time.

Last thing. Consider what your position actually implies. If only Europeans and their descendants are capable of generating racial domination, if the rest of humanity, across five thousand years of civilizations, empires and hierarchies, never managed to produce anything of the same kind, then you've made Europe the sole true subject of history and everyone else a patient. That's European exceptionalism with the moral sign flipped. I'd find that anthropologically indefensible and, frankly, condescending toward the entire non-Western world.
To be clear about what I'm not saying: I'm not denying the historical specificity of Atlantic racial capitalism, its scale, or its documented ongoing effects. Largest instance of the genus, quite possibly. But "largest instance" is a claim of degree, and your original claim was categorical. Specificity doesn't grant a conceptual monopoly.

He is not reading or understanding all that lol

 

[Etzel Andergast]

Look, I think we've reached the actual core of the disagreement, so let me put it plainly.
You're now treating white supremacy as something sui generis — a kind with no genus, a system that doesn't belong to any broader category alongside caste, Han policy over Uyghurs, or the Arab slave trade. As long as you can deny the common genus, my counterexamples don't touch you, because they're not counterexamples of anything. I get the move. But it costs you more than you think

First problem: you already compared them yourself. You said those other systems are "less impactful." But comparisons of degree presuppose a common dimension, you can only rank things that share a genus. If caste and white supremacy can be measured on the same scale of "impact of ethnic domination," then they belong to the same category, and you admitted it in the act of ranking them. If they don't belong to the same category, then "less impactful" is meaningless — like saying Wednesday is less yellow than justice. You can't have both.
Second: name the property. What exactly does white supremacy have that caste, Han policy and the Arab slave trade lack, which justifies reserving the word "racism" for it alone? Walk through the options. Structural power? They all have it. Pseudo-biological ideology? Nazi antisemitism had it and wasn't white-on-nonwhite; Xinjiang biopolitics has it right now; and Iberian limpieza de sangre predates racial science entirely. Global reach? That's an extrinsic property, a matter of degree — it tells you which instance of a genus is the largest, it never defines the genus. English is the most globalized language on earth; that doesn't make Guarani not a language. The Black Death was the most global epidemic of its era; local epidemics were still diseases. And if the property is simply "perpetrated by whites" — then the definition is circular, and you've been assuming your conclusion the whole time.

Last thing. Consider what your position actually implies. If only Europeans and their descendants are capable of generating racial domination, if the rest of humanity, across five thousand years of civilizations, empires and hierarchies, never managed to produce anything of the same kind, then you've made Europe the sole true subject of history and everyone else a patient. That's European exceptionalism with the moral sign flipped. I'd find that anthropologically indefensible and, frankly, condescending toward the entire non-Western world.
To be clear about what I'm not saying: I'm not denying the historical specificity of Atlantic racial capitalism, its scale, or its documented ongoing effects. Largest instance of the genus, quite possibly. But "largest instance" is a claim of degree, and your original claim was categorical. Specificity doesn't grant a conceptual monopoly.

Summary: Logiko's stragegy is to say that the white domination system and the domination system of the other civilizations are not species from the same genus (domination system). He says that domination system is equal to white domination and it is the genus, while the other domination system are something completely alien

Then I show to him that position is very hard to sustain and that he needs to prove that. If he can't prove, then...

 

[Jiihad]

@Jiihad didn't Trump post a video earlier this year depicting the Obamas as apes in the jungle? He was also one of the people claiming Obama wasn't American because of his name, and said that there is no country led by a black person that isn't a shithole.

Damn, you said it lmao. I was gonna slow walk em into it lol

And yes, he posted it. Saw tha backlash and tha outrage and tha KLEAR racism with it and deadass said “why would I delete it”

 

[NAMELESS]

Look, I think we've reached the actual core of the disagreement, so let me put it plainly.
You're now treating white supremacy as something sui generis — a kind with no genus, a system that doesn't belong to any broader category alongside caste, Han policy over Uyghurs, or the Arab slave trade. As long as you can deny the common genus, my counterexamples don't touch you, because they're not counterexamples of anything. I get the move. But it costs you more than you think

First problem: you already compared them yourself. You said those other systems are "less impactful." But comparisons of degree presuppose a common dimension, you can only rank things that share a genus. If caste and white supremacy can be measured on the same scale of "impact of ethnic domination," then they belong to the same category, and you admitted it in the act of ranking them. If they don't belong to the same category, then "less impactful" is meaningless — like saying Wednesday is less yellow than justice. You can't have both.
Second: name the property. What exactly does white supremacy have that caste, Han policy and the Arab slave trade lack, which justifies reserving the word "racism" for it alone? Walk through the options. Structural power? They all have it. Pseudo-biological ideology? Nazi antisemitism had it and wasn't white-on-nonwhite; Xinjiang biopolitics has it right now; and Iberian limpieza de sangre predates racial science entirely. Global reach? That's an extrinsic property, a matter of degree — it tells you which instance of a genus is the largest, it never defines the genus. English is the most globalized language on earth; that doesn't make Guarani not a language. The Black Death was the most global epidemic of its era; local epidemics were still diseases. And if the property is simply "perpetrated by whites" — then the definition is circular, and you've been assuming your conclusion the whole time.

Last thing. Consider what your position actually implies. If only Europeans and their descendants are capable of generating racial domination, if the rest of humanity, across five thousand years of civilizations, empires and hierarchies, never managed to produce anything of the same kind, then you've made Europe the sole true subject of history and everyone else a patient. That's European exceptionalism with the moral sign flipped. I'd find that anthropologically indefensible and, frankly, condescending toward the entire non-Western world.
To be clear about what I'm not saying: I'm not denying the historical specificity of Atlantic racial capitalism, its scale, or its documented ongoing effects. Largest instance of the genus, quite possibly. But "largest instance" is a claim of degree, and your original claim was categorical. Specificity doesn't grant a conceptual monopoly.

Good post, btw.