[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6953[View All]

So a while ago, I was told by someone on this board that the group known as the "Proud Boys" are "not a white supremacy group". But since the group has come up in the public discourse after being mentioned at the presidential debates on September 29th, I thought it would be important to share a video I found outlining the group and their beliefs.

The Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist organization. The group is openly misogynistic, transphobic, Islamophobic and promotes, glorifies and engages in political violence. While the group officially claims to reject racism and white supremacy, several members are or have been been affiliated with white supremacists groups, including the KKK and they have been described by US intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group". The group's founder Gavin McInnes has openly expressed white supremacist views and former member of the group Jason Kessler was one of the organizers of the white supremacist and Neo-Nazi "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, VA. More about their beliefs versus their claims, and the people associated with the group are outlined in the video.

While the video covers some of the group's more laughable and ridiculous beliefs (like their idea that one should not ejaculate unless within one yard of a woman), we should resist the urge to dismiss the group as harmless or farcical. There is historical precedent for groups like this growing into something far more dangerous, like the Brownshirts of  1920s and 30s Germany. It is a mistake to not recognize the very real danger that groups like this pose.
104 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7106

>>6953
This guy doesn't understand the difference between individuals and groups.
The reason that the "bell curve" thing opens with that statement isn't some kind of "damage control" nonsense to cover for the stereotype it creates.
It's there because INDIVIDUALS are different from GROUPS.
If I say "people on the coast usually like seafood", that doesn't mean I have to like seafood as someone who lives by the coast.
This is why it's a bell curve, not simply a straight bar.
It's similar to the way women IQs show up. There are fewer women at the extreme ends, either side.
And it's very likely, again, this is primarily cultural. While there is a biological element as I understand it to IQ in relation to your parents, it is not a sole factor. Environmental and cultural factors seem to be just as important from everything I've seen.
Likewise, IQ is not the sole determiner for intelligence, and assuming IQ will dictate how smart you are is nonsense. There's a wide range to intellect beyond mere cognitive speed, with one of the easiest examples being simple experience. Knowledge how to approach a problem is going to serve you better than simply thinking quickly. Likewise, memory and creativity can help immensely.

It's a super common fuss I see where, dare I say, people with low moral character fear examination because they could be convinced by an inferiority argument, being collectivists. Meanwhile individualists have no issue here, as you judge people as individuals, not statistics.
It's the ends versus the means.
People who care about the ends over the means can be convinced to do bad things for an end goal.
People who care about the means cannot. The means is what determines good and bad.

 No.7109

>>7096
Aladdin wasn't stated to be Muslim directly, but we know Agrabah is a Muslim country because the Sultan says "Praise Allah" a few times. So it's not unreasonable to assume Aladdin is as well.

 No.7110

>>7099
>And you're citing this as since divinitive proof of the Proud Boys fascism?

No, I never did that. I said this video was an overview of their beliefs and methods.

>>7101
What are you considering "western culture", then? I've heard the term used to describe white people stuff, and I've heard the term used to exclude things from other cultures.

>>7104
What makes that an exclusively Western thing?

>>7106
And here we have someone defending the IQ myth. I can't say I'm surprised.

 No.7112

File: 1602557839686.jpg (138.58 KB, 1204x1115, 1204:1115, 1598660814733.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7110
>What makes that an exclusively Western thing?
The quote from >>7101 didn't say "exclusively Western", it just said "Western".

 No.7113

>>7112
And to expound further on that: Individual liberty and the rule of law are definitely widely recognized Western values.

 No.7114

File: 1602558304040.jpg (94.87 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1516510176463.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7110
>And here we have someone defending the IQ myth.
What alleged myth was Huggable Iguana defending?

 No.7127

>>7109
Living in a muslim nation does not necessitate that you are muslim.
Again, this is just a presumption.
Aladin was a street urchin and a thief as far as his background goes. Not really the type I'd expect to be religious.

>>7110
>What are you considering "western culture", then?
It's not even culture, it's values.

Western values as I'd understand it would be concepts like individualism, freedom, and independence.

>And here we have someone defending the IQ myth. I can't say I'm surprised.
I was literally arguing that race wasn't the determining factor to IQ, but, okay, I guess we're still going the route of assume the absolute worst of your enemy,

 No.7135

>>7114
The idea that race has any bearing on a person's IQ or capability is a myth. Any study claiming to show a connection between race and IQ is actually only showing a connection between IQ and some other societal factor like wealth or class. The argument is really only used by so-called "race realists" trying to defend racism by attempting to "prove" people of certain races are inferior.

>>7127
>Living in a muslim nation does not necessitate that you are Muslim.

I'm not sure why this matters. It's grasping at straws when his point was that the Proud Boys, despite hating Muslims, took their name from a stage play featuring mostly Muslim characters. Are you bothered by the idea that Aladdin might be Muslim? Personally I believe Aladdin was raised Muslim before his mother passed away, and that doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it.

>>7127
>I was literally arguing that race wasn't the determining factor to IQ

Ok then. So the Bell Curve study is flawed. Why are you using him saying that as a point against the video.

The majority of your "complaints" about the video were you making ad-hominen attacks against ThoughtSlime. The video is just an outline of what the ProudBoys say and do versus their claims.

They are openly a hate group against numerous groups, and are affiliated with a number of racist groups as well. I see no reason to defend a group that is openly misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and islamophobic and has connections to racist and white supremacist groups. What do you gain from defending them?

 No.7138

>>7135
>The idea that race has any bearing on a person's IQ or capability is a myth
And I certainly never said anything suggesting it was some fact.
In fact, what I said specifically was that there's a wide range of elements effecting IQ, including environment and cultural factors.
I do not think Asians typically performing better than White people is because White people are genetically inferior, for example.
Rather, I suspect it's primarily a cultural difference.

>I'm not sure why this matters. It's grasping at straws when his point was that the Proud Boys, despite hating Muslims, took their name from a stage play featuring mostly Muslim characters.
Because you presume they're Muslim because of their race.

I assume you wouldn't think all white people are Christian, right?

>Are you bothered by the idea that Aladdin might be Muslim?
Not particularly.
I am bothered by the assumption he is, however.
If you want to say "maybe he's Muslim", I don't really mind. But when you inject identity onto something without evidence and insist it's fact, it does annoy me.
This goes beyond real world concepts, of course. Any presumption that your headcannon is fact irritates me similarly. But, then, I try to be precise with my language. Most people don't think that far in to such things.

>Personally I believe Aladdin was raised Muslim before his mother passed away, and that doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it.
Ok.
That's your headcannon.
Personally, I think that Perturabo never really fell to Chaos, despite becoming a demon.

>Why are you using him saying that as a point against the video.
For the reasons I said in my post.
If you read my post, you will find those reasons.

>The majority of your "complaints" about the video were you making ad-hominen attacks against ThoughtSlime
This is because that was the majority of his complaints against the Proud Boys.
He didn't have much substance to his video. A lot of assertions, contradictions, and generally poor arguments.
Especially in regards to his definition of fascism.

>The video is just an outline of what the ProudBoys say and do versus their claims.
It does poorly, then.
Rather, all it shows is this guys opinion.
He proves absolutely nothing, and gives terrible definitions with contradictory arguments in favor of it.

>They are openly a hate group against numerous groups, and are affiliated with a number of racist groups as well.
I disagree, and this video fails to prove that

>I see no reason to defend a group that is openly misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and islamophobic and has connections to racist and white supremacist groups.
I disagree, and the video fails to prove that.

>What do you gain from defending them?
Because I do not believe your assertations, and your video fails to prove the claims.

 No.7156

I realize that this will sound like a completely trolling question, but I mean it not only sincerely yet also without any emotional animus behind it:

Where exactly is the evidence for the conservative assertion that, in the first place, white males have higher IQs than women of all races as well as all the non-white races?

I see it debated forever as to why X supposedly is more intelligent than Y, but I've really yet to come across any actual ironclad evidence to demonstrate said gap in the first place.

 No.7157

>>7156
I want to harp that this isn't calling anyone anywhere racist or sexist. I'm willing to accept that white males genuinely are brighter in some statically-based analysis than women and non-whites. After all, we all accept that men are taller, statistically, than women. I just want evidence.

 No.7159

>>7156
I've never come across that claim.
As I understand it, and I may well be wrong, women are simply lacking either extreme. High or low.
This would suggest, at least as I understood it, that the 'average' for women would still be effectively the same as the 'average' for men.
It's just that there are also slightly more really stupid men, and really brilliant ones, on the extremes.

I've never come across the claim that white men are smarter than women of all races.
It seems like an odd one.

 No.7161

>>7159
If you want to see such talk 'in the wild', so to speak, just go to 4Chan, Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Stormfront, et cetera and other right-wing related websites. It won't take long. Seriously.

 No.7164

>>7161
So you say. But, in that case, I would suggest to you it'd be easier to get the evidence you seek if you ask for it from people who make those claims, where they make them.

 No.7168

>>7164
Would you agree with the preposition that declaring that white males are the most intelligent ethno-gender group is inherently something that ought to raise eyebrows? And so there's something wrong when Proud Boys type right-wing activists do it? Since there's no evidence?

 No.7170

>>7168
>Would you agree with the preposition that declaring that white males are the most intelligent ethno-gender group is inherently something that ought to raise eyebrows?
I'd be uninclined to assume it's true without evidence, sure.

>And so there's something wrong when Proud Boys type right-wing activists do it?
Do they claim it? Or do you assume they claim it, due to your own personal biases automatically linking the group with characterizations of people you dislike?

>Since there's no evidence?
Would by that logic there be something wrong with you?

 No.7185

>>7170
Why is there something wrong with me for my tendency not to believe extreme claims without evidence?

 No.7188

>>7185
I was suggesting that there was, by your logic, something wrong with you for making an extreme claim without evidence.

 No.7244

>>7188
What "extreme claim without evidence"?

 No.7245

>>7244
That the Proud Boys believe or otherwise have claimed that white males were the most intelligent of all ethnic gender groups.

 No.7258

>>7245
I said "Proud Boys type right-wing activists". And it's true. Again, spend five Goddamn seconds at 4chan or another right-wing website. Go there yourself. I'm not fetching screen-grabs for you.

 No.7259

>>7258
Ah, okay, fair enough then.
In that case, I'd say you conflate the proud boys dishonestly with others in order to make them look bad for actions that they have themselves not committed, and while that might not be wrong by your standard, it's definitely wrong by my own.

Though this said, given the refusal to provide evidence... It's still leaving you in the same "wrong" of your own standards, regardless of your feelings about "fetching screencaps" for me.

 No.7262

>>7259
Have you ever been to 4chan?

 No.7264

>>7262
Sure. Often enough to know it's not what people assume. There's quite a wide range of different views there.

 No.7266

>>7264
Oh, yes, but have you ventured in /b/ and /pol/?

 No.7268

>>7266
Sure.
Same thing.
You'd be surprised the debates often held on /pol/. Seems to house people of most any walk of life.

As to /b/, I wouldn't take it seriously. /b/ is not a serious board.

 No.7270

>>7268
We'll have to agree to disagree, honestly.

 No.7284

>>7268
>>7270
/pol/ is almost nothing but far-right white guys.

 No.7285

>>7284
How do you know the race of anonymous posters on /pol/?

 No.7286

>>7284
I am not so convinced. Even 8/pol/, a place basically full of the more extreme guys booted off of 4chan, was hilariously chock full of jews.
Ethnic, self hating Jews, granted, but still it was funny seeing them realized their last names were Jewish.
One of my biggest regrets is not saving that thread.

As to 4chan, though, like I said, it has a quite major variety. People from all walks of life post there, it seems like

 No.7287

File: 1602699574934.png (180.8 KB, 1047x3000, 349:1000, 2UpxiFwD5BSsA5WYfXXsWf86Ld….png) ImgOps Google

>>7285
>>7286
The site itself establishes a 70% male userbase with an age demo of 18-34. In 2010 a user created survey found the site to be 78.4% white.

Give how common the use of racial slurs on the site is, and the tendency for racist/white supremacist groups to gather on /pol/, I see no reason to doubt a mostly white male userbase.

 No.7291

>>7287
Neither of these things are shockers to me. The site is an English speaking site, with a primarily American user base as I understand it.
Frankly, that percentages much, much higher than I expected.

But, if you're going off of your image, I'm guessing this is self reported?
In that case I might be a bit skeptical. They don't exactly have a high track record of accurately engaging with such things.

>Give how common the use of racial slurs on the site is,., I see no reason to doubt a mostly white male userbase.
these two things don't relate to one another. Unless you're going to tell me that rap is predominantly made by white people.
again, this seems depictive of your own personal biases and the bigotries, rather than anything else

As to a supposed organization of white supremacists on 4chan, I don't really see it. Yes, there's probably more of them than a lot of other social sites, as a consequence of their usually getting banned on other sites, but I haven't seen much organization or any events, groups, protests, or other such things on 4chan.
It seems like they use their own outlets for that. Likely, if for nothing else, opsec, given their fear of infiltrators and the like.
Though, that's going off my 8/pol/ experience, more than anything else. Those guys were seriously paranoid. It was rather silly at times. Most The guys you met outside of 8/pol/ we're outside of there because they got banned due to some minor suspicion

 No.7292

>>7287
Oh, and just so you know, 78.4% is not "almost nothing but" white.
That is a quite large margin of non-white.

And of course, presuming the political stances of somebody based solely on their race is racist

 No.7296

>>7292
>presuming the political stances of somebody based solely on their race is racist

Not really. The Republican party is 89% white while the Democratic party is only 60% white. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx)

While it's not 100%, there is clearly a trend.

>>7291
>The site is an English speaking site, with a primarily American user base as I understand it.

So? That says nothing of something racial demographics.

> Unless you're going to tell me that rap is predominantly made by white people.

There is a clear difference between how rap music uses the N-Word and how 4chan uses it. 4chan uses it in a derogatory way to discriminate. Also, your analogy only makes sense if you limit it to the N-word. There are other slurs being freely thrown around on the site.

 No.7297

>>7296
You're literally telling me that the majority of Democrats are white, yet it's completely reasonable to assume just because someone's white, they're right wing.
No.

I do not understand how you can twice now cite data that disproves you, and yet act as though it demonstrated you're correct. It's downright uncanny.

>While it's not 100%, there is clearly a trend
So what? There's all kinds of tends for racial groups, and yet still, STEREOTYPING IS RACIST .
I shouldn't even have to say this. If it isn't 100%, and what you cite doesn't even seem to be 75%, it's morally wrong to assume just because of their race
This is the text book definition of prejudice.

>So? That says nothing of something racial demographics.
Uh, yeah it does?
I am pretty sure at the very least, a website that uses predominantly English, and has a user base primarily consisting of Americans, is going to have similar makeup to America's.

Why on earth wouldn't it?

>There is a clear difference between how rap music uses the N-Word and how 4chan uses it. 4chan uses it in a derogatory way to discriminate.
That is how you classify it, and yet I would disagree.
To quote a /k/ poster from years ago "not all n****** are black and not all black people are n******.".
My experience with such slurs, And I did not specify the n word, is that they are typically used to depict us particular characteristic, rather than category of people. It's why frankly there is such a high percentage, as you cite, of non-white.
Contrary to what you said, your data does not prove that it is basically only white people. Rather, your data that you yourself cited as evidence for your claim seems to demonstrate what you said objectively false.

>There are other slurs being freely thrown around on the site.
And there are other slurs thrown around in rap.

 No.7298

>>7297
No, I'm saying that if someone is non-white, there is a much higher chance they are Democrat than Republican.

>I am pretty sure at the very least, a website that uses predominantly English, and has a user base primarily consisting of Americans, is going to have similar makeup to America's.

Americans can be any race.

>To quote a /k/ poster from years ago "not all n****** are black and not all black people are n******.".

That very notion is racist. It's saying that unless a black person conforms to some ideal, then they are a "nigger". Or that, a white person who does something associated with blacks can also be a "nigger". That is not how rap music uses the term. They do not apply it to white or black people who do not meet some kind of standard. It is used to reclaim the word from racists.

 No.7300

>>7298
And from that, you've already established that you are presuming their political beliefs.
once again, this prejudice is racist. That's literally with the whole point of the term is.
Prejudice based on race is the bearest bones definition of racism you can get, and you seem to have no issue whatsoever using it. All the while complaining about racism of others, too.
It's a significant lack of self-awareness.

>Americans can be any race.
They can, but what race is the majority?

>That very notion is racist
I disagree
>It's saying that unless a black person conforms to some ideal, then they are a "nigger"
Not conform to an ideal. Rather, not behave in a specific manner.
Any race can be any number of slurs buying their standard, provided they meet the characteristics of that given idea.
You can claim the root is racist, if you like, in so far as how the term was developed, but the application thereof isn't. It's exceptionally inclusive, in fact.

>That is not how rap music uses the term
Didn't say it was. Though they do use other derogatory terms for races, often enough, and in the derogatory manner.

which was something I already stated, but, you conveniently ignored I guess. You have a habit of doing that. Only half of my posts ever seem to get a reply, and often enough, with something major missing but I have to point out. usually a presumption of something I never once said.

 No.7301

File: 1602721625847.png (234.48 KB, 747x709, 747:709, 282635753.png) ImgOps Google

>>7284
>>7287
4chan /pol/ isn't as homogeneous as you seem to think it is.  Yes, there are white supremacists, but there are also Biden supporters.  In fact, I just visited the front page now and saw pic related.

 No.7303

>>7300
>They can, but what race is the majority?

Well, which is it? First you say you can't assume someone's political group based on race, even though the majority of non-white Americans aren't Republican. Then you say you can assume the user base of a website is mostly white because America is majority white. You can't have that both ways.

And for the record, 4chan's nearly 80% white population exceeds America's 63.4% white population by a considerable amount.

>Not conform to an ideal. Rather, not behave in a specific manner.

Same difference. It is saying that black people must act a certain why (defined by people who use the word, I assume) or else be branded a "nigger", as sub-human. And you did not address the other half of that ancedote. That white people can have their humanity taken away by acting as black people do. That ancedote does not actually mean the word is being used in a non-racist way.

 No.7304

>>7303
If we assume they're taking a general group of the population, yes, it makes sense that it would be similar to the place they're getting a general selection of the population.

No, this does not constitute judgement based on race, as ought be very obvious.

>First you say you can't assume someone's political group based on race, even though the majority of non-white Americans aren't Republican
Whether or not they're the majority of a given group or not is irrelevant.
The issue is that for a given individual you JUDGE BASED ON RACE.
This is literally the basic of racism.
I have a really hard time getting you're not trolling here.

>Then you say you can assume the user base of a website is mostly white because America is majority white
I assume nothing of the individual user. I never said anything suggesting I did.
That is again purely YOU injecting something NEVER ONCE SAID.

It's very frustrating that I keep having to say this. I wish you could simply respond to what I've actually written.

>And for the record, 4chan's nearly 80% white population exceeds America's 63.4% white population by a considerable amount.
Based off your small sample cited, yes.
One of which demonstrated your earlier claim of there being basically no one who isn't white and male objectively false.

>It is saying that black people must act a certain why (defined by people who use the word, I assume) or else be branded a "nigger",
I literally just explained why it wasn't that.
You didn't even bother countering it. You just repeated the same thing and ignored it

 No.7305

>>7304
>The issue is that for a given individual you JUDGE BASED ON RACE.

What individual? What judgement? It's not a judgement to say someone is a Republican, or at least it's not on the surface if you ignore Republican actions.

Someone non-white is very much less likely to be Republican. That is something you can say based on data.

>That is again purely YOU injecting something NEVER ONCE SAID.

You explicitly said that the anecdote ""not all n****** are black and not all black people are n******."." refers to "not behave in a specific manner" in >>7300. Which can ONLY mean that acting in a certain manner makes one a "nigger", according to the anecdote. That is a racist idea. There is no way someone can act that justifies branding them a slur to denote that they are sub-human, regardless of their race. But it's even more insulting to black people because it means "not behav(ing) in a specific manner" means there is an acceptable range of behavior that stepping outside of makes one a "nigger". Which is racist. White people do not get to dictate how black people get to act to retain their humanity.

>One of which demonstrated your earlier claim of there being basically no one who isn't white and male objectively false.

"basically no one" is not a quantifiable amount. In fact, my exact comments were "almost nothing but". "Almost" being the key word. You've only proven that /pol/ is not 100% white. I'd still say that inverse of nearly 80% would still be within the realm of "almost nothing", because "almost nothing" isn't a quantifiable, specific amount.

 No.7306

>>7305
>But it's even more insulting to black people because it means "not behav(ing) in a specific manner" means there is an acceptable range of behavior that stepping outside of makes one a "nigger". Which is racist.
I don't know, it sounds like it is a behavioral standard that applies equally to all individuals regardless of race.  I would say that the only thing that is racist is the name, because it is a racial slur.

 No.7307

>>7305
> It's not a judgement to say someone is a Republican, or at least it's not on the surface if you ignore Republican actions.
I disagree.
Especially the way you use it.

>Someone non-white is very much less likely to be Republican. That is something you can say based on data.
None the less, if you presume they are purely because of their race, you are a racist.

>You explicitly said that the anecdote ""not all n****** are black and not all black people are n******."." refers to "not behave in a specific manner" in
And that still has absolutely nothing to do with what you're quoting.

I was saying there that I do not assume anything of an individual user of 4chan, when I say that a website's makeup likely reflects similarily to the makeup of the nation that website is predominately used by.

>Which can ONLY mean that acting in a certain manner makes one a "nigger", according to the anecdote
Yes, contrary to what you prior claimed in >>7303
>" It is saying that black people must act a certain why (defined by people who use the word, I assume) or else be branded a "nigger","
This relates to a specific action, not a lack of specific action.
Likewise, it can be applied to anyone, of any race, if they behave in a specific manner.

>There is no way someone can act that justifies branding them a slur to denote that they are sub-human, regardless of their race.
You presume it denotes them as sub human.
I do not.
I do not think one who behaves in such a way is 'subhuman'.
A shitter? Sure.
But, shitters are still human.

>But it's even more insulting to black people because it means "not behav(ing) in a specific manner"
Again; It refers to a specific behavior, not to a lack of a specific behavior.
I keep having to repeat this.

>In fact, my exact comments were "almost nothing but". "Almost" being the key word.
Yes, ALMOST means CLOSE TO 100%

JUST LESS THAN 1/4TH IS NOT 'ALMOST' ALL WHITE

I shouldn't have to explain this. It's literally basic math. Hell, I'm pretty sure I learned this in preschool...

>. I'd still say that inverse of nearly 80% would still be within the realm of "almost nothing"
I would not.
That seems to be completely insane, by my metric.
Even at 80% exactly, that's a full fifth.
A full fifth being something does not mean "almost nothing" to me. Again, it's crazy to me to suggest otherwise. It's as though you do not believe in basic math.

99.9%? Sure. That's almost nothing. 99%? Yeah, I can see that? 95%? You're pushing it, I'd say exaggerating at that point, but I can get what you mean.
But greater than that, and no, I absolutely do not agree whatsoever. It's definitely not "almost nothing". That's mental.

 No.7308

>>7305
Let's put it like this:
If I hand you a glass containing 20% poison, would you drink it?
It's only 20% poison. That's almost nothing.

 No.7309

>>7306
This.

And in so far as the racial slur aspect, that's an argument of its origins, not its use.

You can call the origins racist, sure, but its use at that point would be neutral, given it includes a diverse range of races.

 No.7313

To be clear, we're now at the point that the conservatives are arguing that referring to black people with the n-word isn't racist?

This is where we are now?

 No.7314

>>7313
How it is used is key.
Hasn't that always been the case?
Context is what matters?

 No.7316

>>7313
Are rap songs that refer to black people with the "n"-word racist?

 No.7318

>>7314
>>7316
If somebody isn't being deliberately obtuse, then it would be easy for them to understand that Person A feeling hatred upon Person B and then venting out a slur in order to try and harm Person B is a negative context. A context in which it's blindly obvious that racism is taking place. Of course.

 No.7328

>>7318
Negative does not inherently mean racist.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]