No.6953[Last 50 Posts]
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.
The definition of fascism is easy enough to follow. I think that captures much of it.
I think it's above my head to think too much about the role of fascism in America, if any. MAGA is...a something.
Do you think there's comparison between these neo-fascist groups and classical-fascist groups, particularly in any capacity to influence state authorities? I keep thinking of them as fringes, just echoes of a past. And that the Nazi past required a trigger at least as powerful as a World War. You might say the moment was not so special as I think.
>>6955>Do you think there's comparison between these neo-fascist groups and classical-fascist groups
Absolutely. They are using the same playbook.>particularly in any capacity to influence state authorities?
I made this thread because the Proud Boys came up at a Presidential debate when Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy and refused to do so.
Trump's comments were later made into t-shirts for Proud Boys websites, so yes, I'd say it's fair to say this group and ones like it can influence parts of the government.>And that the Nazi past required a trigger at least as powerful as a World War.
The Nazis were the instigators of that world war, not the result of it.
I mean, if we're talking play book, so is Antifa.
Are they fascists?
To be quite blunt, the term at this point has been so heavily misused I really don't care. Especially not when we get in to guilt by association junk.
I'd need some pretty thorough hardline evidence to believe they, contrary to what they claim, profess, and actively seem to act, are "fascist", or for that matter "white supremacists".
There certainly seems to be enough minority members within the group. But, I guess "guilt by association" only cuts one way, and of course only towards people you don't like.
As to Trump and white supremacists, he had in fact denounced such numerous times now, including in that debate.
His problem in that debate was Chris Wallace whining about supposed white supremacists violence in Portland and Kenosha, when it doesn't seem there were any.
In Portland, a guy calling himself "100% antifa" brutally murdered a trump supporter in a cold blooded ambush, and in Kenosha a young man was forced to defend himself against three criminals who chased him, one of whom had a gun, and another whom beaned him over the head with a skateboard
Frankly, Wallace's question was complete nonesense, especially given Biden's complete refusal to condemn the excessive and extreme violence coming from the left.
>>6953>The group's founder Gavin McInnes has openly expressed white supremacist views
Can you please give a citation for that?>The Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist organization. The group is openly misogynistic, transphobic, Islamophobic
Sounds probably true.>promotes, glorifies and engages in political violence
I agree, based on my knowledge.>we should resist the urge to dismiss the group as harmless
I agree. Many of them seem to be violent thugs, if nothing else.>>6961>Frankly, Wallace's question was complete nonesense,
Eh, I disagree. Given all the speculation from the left about Trump's views on white supremacy, and given that some white supremacists have
committed violence, I think it was a reasonable enough question. Only fault I can find is not asking Biden to similarly condemn Antifa violence. (And I must say, Trump fumbled his answer with "stand by" and only saying that he is "willing" to condemn white supremacists instead of saying something like "Of course I condemn white supremacists".)
Antifa is not a group, it's an idea. As such, it's impossible for it to even HAVE a "play book".
The video I provided gives an outline of what it considers facism and how the Proud Boys meet that definition. I don't know how much more evidence you could need. It also outlines the ways it is connected to white supremacy.
Trump absolutely did not denounce white supremacy, and I'm not sure how you could take his saying essentially "await my further orders" to a group with ties to white supremacy as doing such.
Again, antifa is an idea, not a group. And I would like some sources on these.
>>6971>Trump absolutely did not denounce white supremacy
Eh, Trump said that he is "willing" to condemn white supremacists. But I agree he should have clearer.>>6977
Yes, I did. There seems a good amount of evidence that he is at least somewhat racist, but I didn't find any good evidence of him being a racial supremacist.
By that logic, ISIS is just an "idea".
Though it matters little, you can condemn an idea. White supremacy is just an idea, after all. I think it is fair to ask somebody to condemn an ideology, if we accept that definition, which is actively resulted in significant violence and outright murders at this point.>Trump absolutely did not denounce white supremacy
During the Charlottesville lot, he said "And I'm not talking about white supremacists, they should be condemned to totally", And in this event, when the question was yet incomplete as just white supremacy he said "sure" a number of times. Again, the issue was that Wallace decided to expand it, with Kenosha and Portland, where as far as I can tell no white supremacy violence exists whatsoever.
As to the video, unless we're going to start chucking out random political influencers back and forth, I don't put too much stock into such.
It's ultimately somebody's opinion. There's plenty of videos saying and arguing that they are not white supremacists, or fascists, after all.
>>6976>Anti-fa literally means "anti-fascist".
The term "antifa" has developed its own meaning, as attested to by dictionaries and encyclopedias. It doesn't just mean "anti-fascist".>It's no more a collective group than, say, vegans are.
I agree that there isn't an organized national group. But there are
local antifa groups.
Can you provide examples of the supposed white supremacist of violence that occurred in Portland or Kenosha?
I have not heard of a single report of such, at all.
Unless we are counting things like people labeling Kyle written house without any evidence a white supremacist, anyway.
There has been violence by white supremacists before, yes, and like I already said, Trump has denounced them in the past as well.
Again, during the Charlottesville lot, he explicitly said that white supremacist should be condemned totally.
I don't disagree with you about the floundering, but frankly, I think he shouldn't have condemned The proud boys at all. If he didn't know about them, he should have said he didn't know. He shouldn't just immediately give such blanket statements. As it is, it's too much half and half, I'll agree. Poorly done. Not really uncommon for Trump.
Donald Trump is anti-fascist, but I don't think it would be exactly fair to say he's a part of antifa.
As I understand it, the shorthand use there in has an explicit connection. It's why many flags you see antifa use bear similar symbols to that world war II organization.
Likewise, given antifa tenancy to assault regular people with wanton abandon, I wouldn't call what they do anti fascist.
Frankly, their tactics seem to echo The behavior of groups like the brown shirts more than anything else.
No... it's not. ISIS is a specific group of people. Antifa isn't.
ANd you can argue whether or not he's denounced in the past. He was asked to do so at the presidential debates and refused to.
If you aren't going to discuss the video I posted, which is the topic of this thread, then I suggest you start your own thread.
>>6971> his saying essentially "await my further orders" to a group with ties to white supremacy
Eh, let's take another look at the transcript:>Wallace: ... But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.>>...>>Trump: What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn.>>Biden: Proud Boys.>>Trump: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
So, Trump seems to be directly responding to Wallace's request to say that they need to stand down. Admittedly, Trump fumbled his response with "stand by". So, your interpretation isn't entirely unreasonable, but it's not the only interpretation.
If ISIS can be declared to be a "specific group of people", so can Antifa.>He was asked to do so at the presidential debates and refused to.
Literally the first word out of his mouth when the question was being asked was "sure".
Did you watch the debates?
It was only after Wallace's question became about Kenosha and Portland he expressed doubt. This appears to be because in both cases, it was violent left wing extremists causing the problem.
The thread has its own text and claims made beyond the video. Accepting whatever the video says as the word of God, perfectly true without question, is not required
It still does not refer to any specific group of people. Anyone who claims otherwise is scare-mongering. >>6982>Donald Trump is anti-fascist
..no he isn't. He's openly shown admiration for dictators like Putin and Kim-Jong Un.>Likewise, given antifa tenancy to assault regular people with wanton abandon,
Not possible because "antifa" isn't a group. Some people have fought neo-fascists, but you cannot say it is the actions of "antifa". Because it's not a group.
I watched the debate, and it's transcribed here >>6984
. Telling a white supremacist group to "stand by" is not denouncing them.
I don't think I'd call either Kim or Putin fascist. Authoritarian? Sure. Definitely by american standard. Fascist by the standards of Hitler and Mussolini? No.
If we are to assume every authoritarian regime is fascist, I'd say the term is meaningless.
This aside; I do not believe Trump wants such authoritarian practices in the west anyway. As it pertains to Kim, I'd say that's about peace in the east, and Putin, similar.
I'd say if anything Trump wants to end American belligerence to foreign nations kept up by guys like Bush and Obama.>Not possible because "antifa" isn't a group.
Then ISIS isn't a group.
>>6985>If ISIS can be declared to be a "specific group of people", so can Antifa.
How? ISIS is a specific group with specific beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Antifa isn't. It's a belief shared by lots of separate, unrelated groups. You can't just keep making spurious comparisons about a fictional boogie-man the right has created out of nothing.
You can quite clearly here it here.
He says he's willing to do it, doesn't actually do it. He's asked to denounce a specific racist group, he tells them to stand back and wait for his instructions. Which is not denouncing them.
This thread, however, is not for discussing Trump's refusal to denounce white supremacy. If you want to discuss that, feel free to make a thread on it. This thread is for discussing the Proud Boys group and the danger they pose.
File: 1602371395572.png (1.29 MB, 836x1200, 209:300, a084bc2612e022993ddda5e896….png) ImgOps Google
>>6981>Can you provide examples of the supposed white supremacist of violence that occurred in Portland or Kenosha?
I don't think any occurred in Kenosha. I wouldn't be surprised if white supremacists committed violence in Portland, but I'm not aware of any particular incidents. >>6986>It still does not refer to any specific group of people.
There's not a single Antifa organization. But there is an Antifa flag and groups of people who refer to themselves as "Antifa".
E.g., see: https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-violence-portland-bernie-sanders-video-1082072
Antifa supporters criminally assaulted and battered a supporter of Bernie Sanders who was carrying a American flag.
Not a specific people, no.
As to beliefs, as much as Antifa yes.
I'm glad we've finally reached the point where we can say those of similar ideology are a group.
Do you think now we can say those of violent ideologies who've attacked and killed people unprovoked should be condemned totally?
ISIS goes well beyond merely the boarders of their captured territory. They've had attacks for years from people with no connection to that area beyond ideology. The territory is merely territory captured by them.>You can't just keep making spurious comparisons about a fictional boogie-man the right has created out of nothing.
Ironic accusation, considering the boogeyman of white supremacy
Thus my problem with the question.
It presumes something that did not occur.>>6991
He doesn't, because the question expands to include something that does not exist.
as far as I am aware, there is no story about supposed white supremacist violence in Kenosha, or Portland.
Why should Trump condemn something that never happened? That I believe was his main contention with what Wallace said.
As to the proud boys, like I said, I do not believe they are white supremacists.
If you don't want to discuss something, I would recommend not bringing it up. It's especially a bad idea to claim it was the reason for making the thread.>>6957>I made this thread because the Proud Boys came up at a Presidential debate when Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy and refused to do so.
>>6994>It presumes something that did not occur.
Hmm, his question talks about violence in Portland and Kenosha, but I guess it's a bit ambiguous whether he is claiming that white supremacists and militia groups contributed to that violence or whether he is only concerned about potential future violence by them.>WALLACE: Okay, you have repeatedly criticized the Vice President for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups? And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha, as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared specifically to do that?>>6994>as far as I am aware, there is no story about supposed white supremacist violence in Kenosha, or Portland.>Why should Trump condemn something that never happened?
Part of problem is that many people are careless in their language and fail to distinguish between the concept of "racist" and "racial supremacist". I'm pretty sure that racists have committed violence in Portland this year, but I'm less certain whether any of them are racial supremacists.
In that case I would say the fear is simply completely unfounded. I do not believe there are many white supremacist militia with significant power or support.
I am confident that, unlike antifa, they would also beat dealt with harshly by law enforcement.
Unless we're treating militia's and white supremacists as separate but similar groups, in which case I very much disagree with that notion. Militias can be from nearly any ideology, and are definitely not inherently wrong.
In fact, they are something explicitly mentioned in our nation's founding, as necessary for a free state>I'm pretty sure that racists have committed violence in Portland this year, but I'm less certain whether any of them are racial supremacists.
Even if we assume that is the case, they do not seem to be a major threat compared again to antifa.
I am sure across the country individual racists do bad things. But they do not seem to be organized, at the very least.
And of course, there are plenty of racists of all races
>>6957>Proud Boys came up at a Presidential debate
That's the first I'd heard of it.>asked to denounce white supremacy and refused to do so
People will tell me Trump is not at all racist, but he did seem sheepish about denouncing white supremacy, and he rejects theories of systematic racism (but I suppose that goes along with respect authorities in general).>Nazis were the instigators of that world war
The first one, not the second. Loss and defeat allowed the backwards-looking fascist ideas to take hold significantly. In normal times, fringe groups stay fringe groups.>>6961
I know Antifa is bad, according to the state. Are they bad because they are fighting for fascism?
I would say that they are bad because they attack innocent people, personally.
Anyone who doesn't respect the rights of others is pretty bad in my book.
You're being fed a line here, I'm afraid. Antifa isn't a group, it's an idea. And the majority of antifa protests have been peaceful. People on the right (and far right) have been painting "antifa" as not only a collective group, but as violent by blowing instances of violence out of proportion. It's an attempt to discredit any of their dissenters. As >>7005
pointed out, Antifa isn't actually a collective group. It's being used as a scare tactic.
How can "antifa" attack Bernie supporters, when I've heard Bernie's supporters be called "antifa" themselves? It just shows the label is meaningless and being lobbed at anyone the right disagrees with in order to terrify their base.>>6994
Which events in "Kenosha" and "Portland" are you refering to here. Because there has been protests and violence in both of those places. >As to the proud boys, like I said, I do not believe they are white supremacists.
You are basically saying "there is no white supremacist violence because only the people I say are count as white supremacists." That's completely intellectually dishonest.>If you don't want to discuss something, I would recommend not bringing it up.
I only brought up the fact that Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy and refused to do so for context over why the Proud Boys are being discussed. Not to discuss that fact. Please stop trying to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand. Discussion of how the Proud Boys are dangerous.
Doesn't exist? No.
Major problem? Also no.
Pretty much everyone agrees racism is bad. And that's already further than just white supremacy being bad.
I just cannot see it ever taking major root in this day and age anywhere
, let alone the US with its strong traditions of liberty.>>7009
You do realize you could say the exact same thing about a wide range of other groups, including ISIS itself for that matter, right?
What's the percentage that makes us say a group has too much violence?
If you want to call it an ideology, you can still condemn it, anyway.
It's an ideology that has murdered people, and seems to have no problem with it.
We shouldn't have difficulty condemning at least that.
>>7001>That's the first I'd heard of it.
Did you watch the debate? I can provide you a link if you want to see it.>People will tell me Trump is not at all racist
They are lying. Trump is on record as saying and doing many racist things over the past few decades. (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/
Many people deny the racism of Donald Trump because they know that racism does not have wide appeal. It's all an attempt to alter optics. > Loss and defeat allowed the backwards-looking fascist ideas to take hold significantly. In normal times, fringe groups stay fringe groups.
These aren't normal times. The economy is crashing and there's a deadly virus that has been made into a political issue instead of a scientific one. All you have to do is convince certain people that the people they already hate are responsible, and the same things that brought the Nazis to power can be used that way again. Why do you think there is so much defending of the Proud Boys and the right going on here?
>>7009>it's an idea
OK. Fascism is bad when it goes against the state. So anti-fascism would be a good idea for subjects of non-fascist states.
But nobody identifies as anti-fascist in a way that is to be attributed to working as a group.
>>7011>Major problem? Also no.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it non-existent. Racists are literally marching in the streets and killing people right now. It's not a major problem for YOU because you aren't who they are targeting... for now. >It's an ideology that has murdered people
Being against fascism hasn't murdered anyone. An idea can't kill things.
I've told you this before but people can and do go against "the state", if the state is oppressing people. I take it you mean governments here when you say "the state" and not the states that make up the US.
Anti-fascism isn't bad. Fascism is an oppressive and harmful ideology, that only serves to exploit it's people. People do not enjoy being oppressed. This is why fascists have to make an enemy out of anyone who stands against it, and convince people that they are somehow bad.
This is exactly what is happening here. People have been convinced that being against oppressors makes you the bad guys. It's laughable when you really break it down like that, but it's how this stuff operates.
The ones which Wallace seems to suggest have taken place adding to violence in Kenosha and Portland as >>6984
I do not refer to any events in Kenosha or Portland, as I do not believe there are
any instances of "white supremacist militias" committing violence there.>You are basically saying "there is no white supremacist violence because only the people I say are count as white supremacists."
As opposed to you, o' mighty one, who evidently speaks with the voice of God himself, and can say with certainty they are in fact white supremacists, even though they seem to happily let in non-white members.
What makes your judgement so much better than my own?
If you are calling me dishonest, surely by your own standard, you yourself are also just as "dishonest".>I only brought up the fact that Trump was asked to denounce white supremacy and refused
As I've already pointed out, this is not true. The first thing he said was "sure", until Wallace's question expanded.
Since you're calling me "dishonest", this complete mischaracterization of both Trump's response, and of Wallace's question to place Trump in the most awful light possible contrary to the facts is itself exceptionally dishonest.>. Please stop trying to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand.
I'm not. The conversation at hand concerns it. Especially since you yourself were the one who brought it up, and even said it was the reason you created this thread.
If you do not wish to discuss it, you are free to stop replying to such things concerning it.
I'd suggest to you it's your desire to get in the last word that keeps it discussed at this point.
>>7010>How can "antifa" attack Bernie supporters, when I've heard Bernie's supporters be called "antifa" themselves?
I don't see what so difficult to understand. People attack (usually verbally) others in their own political 'tribe' all the time!>It just shows the label is meaningless and being lobbed at anyone the right disagrees with in order to terrify their base.
No, mere disagreement is insufficient. It's only the violent thugs in black masks and such that routinely get called "antifa". What would you call the violent thugs in the video? Just "violent left-wing thugs"?
Did I say the problem didn't exist?
There's a problem of a lot of things.
There's a problem with scientologists, for example.
They do not pose a significant threat, however.> Racists are literally marching in the streets and killing people right now.
This is true. BLM is a major problem.
We really need to do something about that.>It's not a major problem for YOU because you aren't who they are targeting... for now.
I don't think white nationalists would like me.
Fortunately, they aren't a threat. They do not have much of anyone on their side, after all. Police will have no trouble dealing harshly with them, meanwhile if I dare defend myself from groups like BLM I will likely end up in prison thanks to the state's desire for appeasement regardless of justice.
>>7018>This is true. BLM is a major problem.
It is not racist to protest police violence and systemic racism. That's the opposite of racism. And by "do something about it" I really hope you aren't suggesting that people harm protestors. Because we have a right to protest and the majority of protests have been non-violent. >I don't think white nationalists would like me.
You actually seem right up their ally. Because you are excusing their actions and trying to shift blame to their enemies. If you aren't on their side, you are certainly making their job easier. Not to mention, it's part of their GOAL to convince you they aren't a real threat, which is what this video is about. Remember I said we should resist the urge to dismiss groups like this as harmless or farcical. That is exactly what you are doing, and playing into their rhetoric. You should be aware of that.
Unlawful violent actions is what groups like the Proud Boys are all about.
Whereas the overwhelming majority of so called "antifa" protests have been peaceful. You are simply ignoring that because it does not play into your rhetoric.>>7016
There are protests in Kenosha and Portland. There is violence there, from far right groups attacking peaceful protestors. So I'm not sure what you are trying to deny here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest
)>who evidently speaks with the voice of God himself,
No... I'm speaking about what the group itself has done and the people associated with the group. It's not my fault if you ignore evidence you don't like because it tears down your narrative. >The first thing he said was "sure",
This is a half-truth. His full response was "Sure, I'd be willing to do that." Saying you'd be willing to do something is not the same as doing it. When asked to do it directly, he did not.
It's not racist to protest police violence, no. And were it just that, I'd have no problem.
The trouble is, there's bigots and violent thugs within that movement who do not seem to have issues engaging in similarly hateful acts.
And more importantly, they do not seem to be getting kicked out, the actions condemned, and these agitators chucked to the police.
Given the judgements on the Proud Boys for a supposed few members, despite them condemning such things, it certainly strikes me as fair to judge BLM for the same, especially since the condemnation does not seem to occur. >And by "do something about it" I really hope you aren't suggesting that people harm protestors.
I'm suggesting that law enforcement ought to do their duty, and arrest those who harm innocent people.
Whether that be corrupt cops, or BLM terrorists.>Because we have a right to protest and the majority of protests have been non-violent.
The right to protest does not equate to the right to violently attack people, destroy their livelihoods, and burn down their property.
And again I ask; How much is too much?
I do not believe the rates would be acceptable from the right.
In fact, I know they wouldn't be, given the response to the Proud Boys.>You actually seem right up their ally. Because you are excusing their actions and trying to shift blame to their enemies
Are they the ones burning people's businesses, destroying people's livelihoods, and creating autonomous zones where crimes can happen without concern?
They hardly seem to do anything worth excusing. Again, their power seems to be on par with lunatic cultists. Not significant.
Sure, we shouldn't like them, we should discourage that stuff, and we should arrest anyone who steps out of line. But I'd hardly say they ought to be the primary focus while we ignore other major issues.>Not to mention, it's part of their GOAL to convince you they aren't a real threat, which is what this video is about.
Even if that's their goal, the fact is, they aren't
a real threat.
I could not possibly care less if someone wants to prove a fact is true.
This is true. There was violence in Kenosha and Portland.
In Portland, a trump supporter was brutally murdered in an ambush.
In Kenosha, a kid was forced to defend himself as three thugs chased after him, one with a gun, and another who beaned him over the head with a skateboard.
There doesn't seem to be any "white nationalist" attacks or murders that I've heard of, however. If you've got specific cases to cite, by all means, let's see them.>No... I'm speaking about what the group itself has done and the people associated with the group.
And I likewise speak about what the group has done and the people associated with the group.
What they have done and who they associate with suggest they are not in fact white supremacists.
White supremacists don't realy like minorities joining in, after all.
It's not my fault you ignore evidence you don't like because it tears down your narrative.>When asked to do it directly, he did not.
Because the question expanded.
Unlike your dishonest mischaracterization of the question, it was not merely to condemn white supremacists.
As outlaid here >>6984
the question expands to some strange presumption that white supremacist militias are the cause of violence in Portland and Kenosha, when the simple fact is, the majority has been the direct action of the far left.
Though going by what >>6996
quoted, it seems Wallace separates "white supremacist" and "milita" as two different groups, and I do not agree that militias should be condemned or put on the same frame as white nationalists.
Militias are fine. It's explicitly something added to our constitution as necessary for a free state. They come in a wide range of ideologies, beliefs, and principles.
Saying blanket militias are bad is a terribly stupid thing to do.
>>7022>Unlawful violent actions is what groups like the Proud Boys are all about.
I oppose the Proud Boys' unlawful violence too.>Whereas the overwhelming majority of so called "antifa" protests have been peaceful.
Is your argument something like "For any X
, if the overwhelming majority of X
are peaceful, then we shouldn't pay much attention to X
"? If so, let me note that the overwhelming majority of AR-15s and other guns are never used in crimes, so, by your argument, we shouldn't have any more gun control.
>>7024>There doesn't seem to be any "white nationalist" attacks or murders that I've heard of,
Only because you are ignoring anything that doesn't suit your narrative. Kyle Rittenhouse had ties to violent militia groups and specifically went to the protests to kill people. Your attitude on that is frankly disgusting. >What they have done and who they associate with suggest they are not in fact white supremacists.
The founder is on record saying numerous racist things. A former member helped create the neo-Nazi "Unite the Right" rally, and numberous members have connections to far-right and white supremacy groups. How you can say their actions suggest they aren't atleast aligned with white supremacy is beyond me.> Again;Because the question expanded.
No. Your initial premise is flawed. Because no matter what followed the inital question "Sure, I'm willing to do that." is still not a condemnation of white supremacy. Expressing a willingness to do something is not the same as doing it, and when given the chance to do so he refused. >>7023
Is your dislike and fear of BLM motivated by a dislike and/or fear of black people? I'd like an honest answer before I go on with with this circular argument. Because honestly, the way you talk about them is so full of hateful rhetoric and misinformation I dare say you don't even know what the movement is or what it's about.
>>7012>Did you watch the debate?
Yes, sped it up a bit, but yes.>racism does not have wide appeal
Nobody mainstream seems to like overt racism. There's another kind of racism which is either systemic or dog-whistle -- people debate about whether such exist. I think they do, if it's respectful, but I understand the system in systemic racism is seen to involve the government, and that's problematic for justice.>These aren't normal times.
The virus will go away. I don't mean that in the way Trump means it, but it alone will not live long enough to change the form of government. But it can be a factor. If I believe various books, since the 1970's opportunities for middle-class Americans have remained stagnant or shrunk, as least relative to the wealthier, potentially a positive feedback, perhaps helped by the virus. I don't know how this compares to Germany's disgrace following WWI, in terms of psychological impact.
And I suppose it would be right for me to make overt the idea that fascism is a typical or possible response to growing distress -- with its search for scapegoats, desire to return to the past, and assertion of some inalienable quality on which to hang a deserved better future. It seems at least reasonable on the surface.
>>7026>Guns aren't people
It is entirely irrelevant to my argument that guns aren't people. You can universally instantiate X
with guns just as well as you can with people.>Also, this thread is not about gun control.
I wasn't making an independent point about gun control. I was attacking your argument about Antifa by showing that it is inconsistent with your support for gun control.
File: 1602431293018.jpg (280.85 KB, 1973x3143, 1973:3143, raphtalia-d9de80c72b5a8f30….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7027>Kyle Rittenhouse ... specifically went to the protests to kill people.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? It seems exceeding unlikely to me, given that he fired only in self-defense after retreating.>Expressing a willingness to do something is not the same as doing it
Eh, in this particular case, it kinda is. Trump wasn't asked to make a formal condemnation with actual legal consequences. He was basically asked to indicate that he believes that white supremacy is bad. Saying that he is willing (to indicate that white supremacy is bad) does in a sense indicate that he believes that white supremacy is bad. Still, you're right that Trump should have condemned white supremacy more clearly.>>7027>Is your dislike and fear of BLM motivated by a dislike and/or fear of black people?
He already said why he dislikes BLM, and it has nothing to do with any racial factors. Go ahead and reread >>7023
The militias were not white nationalist, and much more importantly, all evidence indicates Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
Every single person he shot was chasing him.
The narrative that he went there specifically to kill people is flatly a delusion. There is no evidence of that, and there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
If you want to talk "disgusting", I consider ignoring evidence and labeling your enemy murderers purely because they do not politically align with you 'disgusting'.> How you can say their actions suggest they aren't atleast aligned with white supremacy is beyond me.
Because you look at a few actions, while ignoring many actions.
You presume guilt because one former
member happened to help organize an event after he left. This is an unreasonable standard.
As to racist statements, frankly I find little ability to trust such claims, as most clips I see are horrifically out of context.>No. Your initial premise is flawed.
You are not the arbiter of truth.
We have the full question.
Whether it suits your personal narrative or not, the fact
is that the question expanded far beyond "white nationalists" to the condemnation of "white nationalists" and
militias for supposed violence that took place in Kenosha and Portland, that doesn't seem to actually exist.
Trump's already condemned white nationalists plenty of times before. The trouble was that the question was expanded well beyond merely the condemnation of white nationalists. >Is your dislike and fear of BLM motivated by a dislike and/or fear of black people? I'd like an honest answer before I go on with with this circular argument.
No, and your presumption of that is frankly your own bigotry speaking.
There is plenty of reasons to dislike the movement that seems to have no issue ransacking innocent people's livelihoods.
It's spurious to take an argument made for people and apply it to non-people. Especially when the non-person in question cannot act on it's own.
And, as I've said many times, I do not support the abolishing of guns. Never have. >>7034>Saying that he is willing (to indicate that white supremacy is bad) does in a sense indicate that he believes that white supremacy is bad
Not necessarily. It just means you are willing to condemn it. You can very much be willing to condemn a thing publicly that you yourself do not actually disagree with, but are just trying to appease the people who dislike it. For example, I'd be willing to publicly denounce putting pineapple on pizza, if doing so would gain me favor with a large group of people. I, however, do not think putting pineapple on pizza is "bad" and would probably eat some if offered. >Still, you're right that Trump should have condemned white supremacy more clearly.
He didn't denounce it. That's the point. Anyone saying he did is only conjecturing what they think he might have meant, rather than his actual words. When asked if he would be willing to denounce it, he said yes, but did not actually do so. When asked to do so directly, he did not and in fact told a group with connections to white supremacy and racism to await his further instructions.>He already said why he dislikes BLM, and it has nothing to do with any racial factors.
I want him to directly answer this question anyway. It's possible to dislike something for more than one reason, and his constant use of (almost entirely false) claims about the group and it's goals are the same ones used by hate groups.
>>7035>As to racist statements, frankly I find little ability to trust such claims
"He's not racist if we ignore all the evidence that he is racist."
Also, Jason Kessler was still a member when he helped organize the Unite the Right rally, and many current members of the Proud Boys attended it. >The trouble was that the question was expanded well beyond merely the condemnation of white nationalists.
No, it wasn't. When asked if he would be willing to denounce it, he said yes, but did not actually do so. When asked to do so directly, he did not and in fact told a group with connections to white supremacy and racism to await his further instructions. That is what happened, and I refuse to keep arguing over something we literally have video of.>There is plenty of reasons to dislike the movement that seems to have no issue ransacking innocent people's livelihoods.
Only if you value white property over black lives. Do you?
>>7037>"He's not racist if we ignore all the evidence that he is racist."
When you remove context of a given statement, you're actively removing evidence.>No, it wasn't.
Yes it was.
As you say, "I refuse to keep arguing over something we literally have video of".>Only if you value white property over black lives. Do you?
It's not just white property.
Your presumption of that, though, is exceptionally telling of your own personal bigotry.
Why do you presume it is acceptable to hurt a group of people purely because of their skin color, because of something someone else
who happened to be of that skin color did?
This seems to be the staple of racism, to me.
File: 1602439758795.jpg (74.94 KB, 687x960, 229:320, shinobu-halloween.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7036>It's spurious to take an argument made for people and apply it to non-people.
That is not generally true. Many arguments apply equally to humans, animals, and machines. In >>7025
, I asked you:>Is your argument something like "For any X, if the overwhelming majority of X are peaceful, then we shouldn't pay much attention to X"?
If that is your argument, then it applies equally to humans and to machines. If it is not your argument, then please explain what exactly your argument is and why it wouldn't apply to AR-15s.>>7036>he ... told a group with connections to white supremacy and racism to await his further instructions.
He didn't explicitly do that. He told them to "stand by". Whether he meant for them to wait specifically for his instructions is just an inference on your part.
Ok yes. I can agree to that. Because "antifa" is not a thing you can be a "part" of. It's a label applied to a number of disparate, unaffiliated groups. As far as I am aware, Biden is not part of any of those groups in which the label of "antifa" is being applied.>>7039
Ok well, no. That's NOT my argument. My argument is that For any group of people (X), if the overwhelming majority of X are peaceful, then it is unfair to claim X is violent on the whole. This doesn't apply to non-living things, at least not in this context. A gun cannot be violent or non-violent on it's own. It can't do anything on it's own, unless you count accidental firings when dropped. Guns are tools, and my issue with guns is how they are used by people. And again, I've never argued to abolish guns or gun ownership. Just that there should be regulations on how and when guns can be sold and purchased.>He didn't explicitly do that. He told them to "stand by".
How else can "stand by" be interpreted? It literally means "be ready to deal or assist with something."
You did not answer the question. Do you believe white property has more value than black lives? It's a simple yes or no question.
Also, hurting Target cannot be racism because Target has no race. It's a collection of objects, all of which are insured. You need to prove stores and property like Target have a race or racial identity to claim harming them is racism. I will await your explanation on why you think Target is white.
I believe that all people, regardless of race, have rights. That you have the right, black or white, to shoot someone who breaks in to your house, for instance. Everyone, regardless of race, should have the right to defend their livelihoods.
And of course, it should never be a choice of an injustice committed by someone else, or an injustice committed by someone else.
These businesses did not kill George Floyd.
They are innocent of that crime. They should not be the ones who are attacked.
It wasn't just Target. There's plenty of regular people who own businesses. Just scoffing at their pain, saying it can just be replaced, is callous and frankly cruel.>You need to prove stores and property like Target have a race or racial identity to claim harming them is racism.You
labeled them "white property".
I agree, they do not have a racial identity.
Which is why I called you a racist bigot for acting as though there was.>>7037
"Only if you value white property over black lives. Do you?"
>>7042>["Antifa" is] a label applied to a number of disparate, unaffiliated groups.
I agree.>Because "antifa" is not a thing you can be a "part" of.
I'd say that "X
is part of the Antifa movement" means that X
is part of one of the disparate, unaffiliated groups widely labelled "Antifa" or that X
is acting separately in line with the ideology and methods commonly associated with Antifa.>My argument is that For any group of people (X), if the overwhelming majority of X are peaceful, then it is unfair to claim X is violent on the whole. This doesn't apply to non-living things, at least not in this context. A gun cannot be violent or non-violent on it's own.
OK, then I agree that your argument doesn't apply to non-sentient objects. And I'll agree that it is unfair to claim that BLM protesters as a whole are violent, when only a small percentage of them of violent. But I'll also say that small percentage who are
violent are still a significant problem.>How else can "stand by" be interpreted?
To await for some event other than his instructions.
What I am saying is, just because George Floyd was murdered by police doesn't mean you should go and burn down someone else
They didn't do anything to you. They didn't kill anyone.
They're completely innocent.
>>7045>These businesses did not kill George Floyd.
They just supported the corrupt systems that allowed it to happen. This was not the first choice, it came after years of injustice and violence against a community that people like you have and are continuing to ignore. You yourself claimed in this very thread that the issues being protested are not actually problems. >You labeled them "white property".
You misunderstand. "White property" as in "property owned by white people", not "property that identifies with a white racial identity." Strange you would make this mistake as you seem to understand "black lives" meant the lives of black people and not the concept of life itself. But in any case, property cannot have race or claim a racial identity, so you cannot be racist for harming property. >>7046>I'll agree that it is unfair to claim that BLM protesters as a whole are violent, when only a small percentage of them of violent. But I'll also say that small percentage who are violent are still a significant problem.
It would be a problem if it wasn't such a small percentage, and if their outrage was not the result of years of oppression and of ignoring these problems. Other methods were tried and ignored. Destruction of property is literally the last resort, and like it or not, it HAS forced people into some action about this issue. Although clearly not enough, as
Breonna Taylor's case shows.
File: 1602458130340.png (363.04 KB, 600x589, 600:589, akari-blood-for-blood-god.png) ImgOps Google
>>7049>But in any case, property cannot have race or claim a racial identity, so you cannot be racist for harming property.
Huh? If white supremacists burn down a church of a primarily black congregation, I would certainly consider such an act to be racist.>>7049>Destruction of property ... HAS forced people into some action about this issue.
On the contrary, I'd say that the media coverage of George Floyd's murder and the peaceful protests were largely responsible for action to the reform the system, and that this action happened despite, not because of,
the looting and arson. If anything, the looting and arson decreased
people's willingness to make the necessary reforms.
Do you pay taxes? Then so do you. Should we burn down your house?>This was not the first choice, it came after years of injustice and violence against a community that people like you have and are continuing to ignore
People who are unaffiliated with you do not have an obligation to care.
There is, however, a moral obligation not
to attack innocent people.
Especially when you pretend to want justice.>You yourself claimed in this very thread that the issues being protested are not actually problems.
I disagree that they are protesting white supremacy.
It seems to me they're protesting the very real problem of police unaccountability and corruption, just with a racial reason for it.
I think that aspect is misguided, sure, but I don't think that police corruption and unaccountability isn't a problem.
If BLM was just shooting at police, burning down courthouses, and stealing from tax offices, I'd have no issue.>You misunderstand. "White property" as in "property owned by white people", not "property that identifies with a white racial identity."
I never said they had identity.
Rather, my issue was that to my statements in >>7035>"There is plenty of reasons to dislike the movement that seems to have no issue ransacking innocent people's livelihoods."
You responded with >>7037>"Only if you value white property over black lives. Do you?"
Suggesting both that it was only white people's property being destroyed, which is inccorect, and that you must either accept innocent people of one race being harmed, or innocent people of another race being harmed, when the proper choice should be no
violence committed to groups of any particular race purely because of their race.
Basically, I'm, unlike you, against
a race war.>But in any case, property cannot have race or claim a racial identity, so you cannot be racist for harming property.
A KKK member going out and burning down black churches or schools is absolutely committing a racist act.
It's absurd that you'd think otherwise.
File: 1602458752270.png (563.48 KB, 700x526, 350:263, 1 CGcVFNqU4iG-wai2O7iA0w.png) ImgOps Google
The media coverage made pretty much everyone, from everywhere, condemn what had happened.
You quite literally had everyone on the side of justice, willing to change things.
The riots blew all of that.
Looting, arson, assaults, murders, all these things do not result in police accountability. They result in regular people panicking, and demanding that the government stop it.
It's one of the fastest ways to give police more
power, not less.
People would understand if you attacked the police, and more importantly, you wouldn't have people begging for the boot to trod on their rights, as it'd be only the government who's getting attacked. They wouldn't have cause to be afraid.
Nobody said it shouldn't be considered evil.
I consider plenty of things 'evil'.
Violations of people's rights and consequently the ideologies that advocate for it are evil.
That doesn't mean they're a major problem.
For what it's worth, I do not consider islamic terror a major problem, either. At least for here in the US
I'm not against doing something about it, so long as it's not some major restriction on people's rights, but at the same time, I do recognize there's bigger problems out there.
As to deaths, I do not consider it to be the determining factor, but rather, whether rights were violated.
If someone decides to kill themselves, that is their right to choose to do so. It's their life.
Likewise, if someone dies by drowning because they started swiming in the rapids without a lifejacket, that was their choice, and thus while certainly tragic, no 'wrong'.
Murders are a problem, of course. And in regards to those, I will always say murderers should be punished. As should anyone who attacks innocent people. The solution, though, to murders for ideology, is something we will likely disagree on.
File: 1602470692360.jpg (53.94 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, kon-kon.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of conservatives accept that white supremacy is evil. The more debatable question is whether white supremacists have enough power to pose a significant threat. I'm not sure it's something big enough that ordinary citizens need to spend any effort worrying about it. But it's probably enough of a threat that it merits some attention from law enforcement. And in fact, law-enforcement professionals already do investigate racially motivated extremist groups, e.g.:https://www.npr.org/2020/02/10/804616715/fbi-announces-that-racist-violence-is-now-equal-priority-to-foreign-terrorismhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/extremists-pose-a-violent-threat-fbi-and-dhs-officials-say-11600998139
No, I'm saying people not caring isn't justification to attack them.
It would really serve you better if you could learn to reply to what people've said
rather than what you assume
Then, again, why did you feel the need to refer specifically to white businesses?>>7037>"Only if you value white property over black lives. Do you?"
It's weird that you would say that as though it's only white people effected, when it's pretty well known at this point that BLM are perfectly happy to attack black folk as well. >>7066
Let me reiterate:
Being ignored is no excuse to attack innocent people.
I do not care if you think it's acceptable because they're "desperate" or "ignored".
Anyone who attacks innocent people is 100% a scumbag, who should be punished accordingly for their behavior.
Because white people are the only ones trying to make villains out of protesters for it. They are making it personal when it's the system that's being targeted. Which is why "white property" is the correct term. They are saying their property has more value than the black lives being taken that these protests are about.>Anyone who attacks innocent people is 100% a scumbag,
Good thing Target's not a person. I feel like I've pointed this out before, but just to reiterate. Target is not, and has never been, a person. The items inside Target are insured and can be replaced. Black lives cannot. If you value the Target more than the black lives, you explicitly stating that the stuff, the property inside the Target has more value than Black Lives. Which is why I asked you that question. You keep valuing the Target over what is being protested, the unjust killing of black people by police officers. So I will ask again, in broader terms.
Does the Target, and the merchandise within the Target, matter more to you than black people being unjustly killed? If it does not, then we have no reason to argue. If it does, your priorities are out of line and you need to practice more empathy and less hatred. And that's all I'm going to say on this matter, because protests and destruction of property are not the topics we are discussing here. And you always find excuses to bring it up and distract from the real conversation because you know it's an issue important to me. It's starting to get on my nerves.
That's an excellent point. One of the many reasons why I'm no longer a conservative. Alas.
It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives are white supremacist friendly, but they're bafflingly anti-anti-white-supremacism
or at least have been for the past half a decade or so.
An odd way of putting it, but I can't really disagree. They seem very "anti-anti-white-supremacist".
I think this is because they have a very different definition of white supremacy than most, and they have a tendency to move the goalpost so that "real" white supremacy is always just outside of whatever their own behavior is. It comes from a refusal to practice self-reflection and humility, which they see as weakness. I think toxic masculinity plays a big factor into that.
Law enforcement groups investigate white nationalist type organizations... against the will of what conservatives want, with conservatives constantly making a big deal about how the organizations aren't threats and that law enforcement has wasted its time.
It's rather frustrating.
As far as "if ordinary citizens have to worry about it", answer me this: why is it that if I want to visit a local synagogue for a public-ish that there has to be a police presence in front of it? To where the officer will stop to eyeball me just to make sure since I'm not a regular attendee. When there wasn't such a security need earlier in my lifetime, even back in the 2000s? Why?
>>7072>Because white people are the only ones trying to make villains out of protesters for it
I do not believe this is true.
Besides that, it's certainly not fair even if we assume some are to conflate that to an entire race.
But I'm pretty certain there'll be plenty of black and other minorities taking issue with the rampant destruction of their livelihoods, regardless.
I'm sure David Dorn didn't support the rioting. Likewise, I'm confident the family of young Secoriea Turner consider the shooting of their daughter to be a heroic act.> They are making it personal when it's the system that's being targeted.
"White people" or the individuals who's livelihoods are being destroyed?
If I came to your house and burned it to the ground, would you really be telling me you wouldn't consider it a personal damage?>Which is why "white property" is the correct term.
Given the fact
that it isn't just white people's property, as well as the fact
it isn't just white people who have an issue with the rampant violence, I do not believe it is a correct term.> They are saying their property has more value than the black lives being taken that these protests are about.
Someone was killed by a black man. Guess it's okay for the KKK to start burning down black homes and churches, because "You're saying black property has more value than white lives!", right?
Of course not. This standard is insane. >Good thing Target's not a person
It's not just Target as has been pointed out to you numerous times by plenty of different people at this point.
Do you just block out things you do not want to hear?
Did you not see the video I posted earlier? Here it is again.> I feel like I've pointed this out before, but just to reiterate. Target is not, and has never been, a person.
You feel that way because you repeatedly bring up a point that has numerous times now been countered.
It never had any merit. That is why you keep having to repeat yourself. Because it constantly gets stomped on with basic facts of the matter, and you constantly just plug your ears and hum.>. The items inside Target are insured and can be replaced. Black lives cannot.
Not everyone is Target.
Not everyone is covered by insurance.
Insurance often doesn't cover the full value of a given cite, and moreover, most insurance plans don't cover things like massive scale rioting.
Again; This fact has been addressed numerous times at this point.
Why do you insist on ignoring it?>If you value the Target more than the black lives, you explicitly stating that the stuff, the property inside the Target has more value than Black Lives. Which is why I asked you that question. You keep valuing the Target over what is being protested, the unjust killing of black people by police officers.
So next time a black man murders some white girl, white folk should go out and start burning down their places of business, their livelihoods, and loot their property.
should not be harmed for the crimes of
This is an jncredibly
simple thing. It's very, very basic morality. It's why we have a legal system prioritizing the proof of guilt, rather than the presumption thereof. >Does the Target, and the merchandise within the Target, matter more to you than black people being unjustly killed?
I will reiterate once again;
If someone breaks into my house, tries to destroy or steal my livelihood, I would kill them.
I do not care what race they are.
What they are doing is flatly evil.
Violating innocent people's rights because of the crimes of someone else makes you just as bad as they are.
Take your problem to the police. shoot them. Burn their stuff. Stop attacking innocent people like a total scumbag.
That is terrorism. We should never excuse such disgusting behavior.> If it does, your priorities are out of line and you need to practice more empathy and less hatred
Says the man who has no problem with violent thugs attacking innocent people, as long as they're saying it's because of someone else's crimes.
You realize this is the same narrative of the white nationalists, yes?
It's okay to lynch black folk, because some black folk do bad things.
It's disgusting.>And that's all I'm going to say on this matter, because protests and destruction of property are not the topics we are discussing here.
It came up as relevant to the conversation.
Again; If you do not wish to talk about something there is a simple solution:
Don't.> And you always find excuses to bring it up and distract from the real conversation because you know it's an issue important to me. It's starting to get on my nerves.
And I, likewise, find the violence committed against INNOCENT PEOPLE because of SOMEONE ELSE's guillt a major issue. It's something very important to me.
Your refusal to even engage honestly with it is getting on my nerves.
Out of curiosity, do you support the "war on terror", and the numerous human rights violations made in the name of fighting that?
There are a lot of anti-anti-terrorists out there, who seem to not care about the actions of ISIS until it affects them directly.
Anyone with empathy already cares, of course.
>>7080>Law enforcement groups investigate white nationalist type organizations... against the will of what conservatives want,
I do not agree.
I do not think anyone conservative says violent extremist groups should not be investigated.
They aren't a major threat, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a "waste of time".
Frankly, the assertion that supposedly "conservatives" don't want investigations seems to be a bit of propaganda without any truth pushed by people who have no idea what conservatives actually want, but are more than happy to assume the worst of them.
>>7082>INNOCENT PEOPLE>should not be harmed for the >crimes of>GUILTY PEOPLE.
I agree, which is why Target isn't a person. Also, all these terms you keep using. "Guilty people" "take them
to the police". I think I get it now. You are willingly keeping this issue limited to individuals.
One bad police officer did a bad thing to a black guy once, and then black people decided to destroy things. If that's the way you are looking at it, no wonder you see it as unreasonable. Problem is, I can't pry your eyes open to see things as they are. That this isn't an issue of just one bad police officer or even a few bad acts. That it is a problem with the entire system being corrupt and stacked against people of color. You will never see that unless I could wave a magic wand and make you black for a day. Which I cannot. So it is pointless for us to have this discussion. I will never see the world as you do, because i'm not willing to intentionally blind myself to the true issue, and you will never see the world as I do, because you look upon this problem from an ivory tower with disdain for those being oppressed. My only advice to you is to search your humanity and empathy and come down from that tower.
Target isn't the only place effected.
This had been stated to you multiple times, with evidence.
If you cannot rationalize this basic fact, there's not a high chance of a productive conversation here.https://www.foxnews.com/media/minnesota-newspaper-lists-over-360-local-businesses-destroyed-by-riots-with-maps-specific-details-of-damage>That this isn't an issue of just one bad police officer or even a few bad acts. That it is a problem with the entire system being corrupt and stacked against people of color.
Then take it up with that system.
Attack the police. Destroy government stuff.
Attacking innocent people and destroying their livelihoods is the disgusting act of depraved scumbags too cowardly to act with basic humanity. It is unacceptable, and demonstrates without a single doubt that this matter has absolutely nothing to do with justice.>and you will never see the world as I do, because you look upon this problem from an ivory tower with disdain for those being oppressed
You presume much of me without any idea of who I am or where I've come from.
None the less, no oppression or circumstances justify the attacking of, once again, INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Attacking INNOCENT PEOPLE for the actions of some other guilty party is WRONG.
That's all there is to it.>My only advice to you is to search your humanity and empathy and come down from that tower.
I would request the same of you.
You ought to look on things with empathy. You ought to have the basic level of decency to understand that hurting innocent people is an awful thing to do. You ought to be able to engage with empathy towards the people who've had their lives ruined because of something they had nothing to do with.
Maybe one day you'll come down from your ivory tower, and end up effected by these attacks. Maybe your home will be destroyed by them, maybe your livelihood will be ruined.
Perhaps then, you'll understand the issue. But as the old saying goes, "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".
>>6953>A fascist believe their national identity is superior to all others> At one point their national group was at the height of its power and are now in decline due to corrupting influences>To return to their power they must return to their old ways>Strength equals power, therefore strong power is needed to return to their former glory
This idiot just said that communists longing for the return of the USSR are "fascists".
What total nonsense.
This definition is literally applicable to anyone. Hell, you could apply it to Democrats.
It's just tribalistic fingerpointing to claim the opposition is evil and they're the good guys.
Why do all of these videos seem to fail to understand even the most basic startpoints for what fascism is?
Aladin wasn't Muslim, at least as far as the Disney movie showed, he was merely Arabic.
Presuming somebody of Arabic descent is Muslim is ironically enough rather racist, and consequently more telling of this guys beliefs, then the presumed beliefs of the Proud boys.
This guy makes a lot of claims without evidence. He provided no example for the supposed masturbation rule, And I find myself having a hard time believing the Klan structured its rank organization system as a "joke" without actual citation.
If anything I would suspect it's to disguise what each rank actually means, for legalities reasons.
Likewise the presumption that this is some nefarious plot doesn't seem to have any actual foundation.
And of course, I have to point out, if you're just going to claim that something is meaningless, done to disguise things, why bring it up in the first place?
It seems a bit disingenuous to mock something as crazy, and then say it's intentionally a plot to make themselves look nonthreatening.
either it is crazy, or it is thought out. You can't really have both.
File: 1602537993203.png (122.26 KB, 740x660, 37:33, def-fascism.png) ImgOps Google
>>7095>This idiot just said that communists longing for the return of the USSR are "fascists".>What total nonsense.
Eh, I'd say that the USSR was fascist (in sense 2 of pic related) but not Fascist (in sense 1).
Again he makes a claim without evidence; he says "they think women are lazy and should be subservient to women", without backing it up.
And you're citing this as since divinitive proof of the Proud Boys fascism?>They describe themselves as libertarian but paradoxically love Trump, the police, and the military
This is not a paradox, and simply claiming it is is not proof thereof.
Police are necessary for a free state.
The whole point of government is to defend the rights of its citizens.
Likewise, military is necessary. Foreign powers will absolutely abuse the unprotected.
As to Trump, there's plenty of reason to like him from a libertarian perspective. Most notability, his significant avoidance of additional wars, pulling us out where other presidents like Obama increased our military presence.
But he addresses nothing. He just claims it and moves on. Is there any substance at all in this video?
If "fascism" is just "authoritarian", the word has no meaning, as literally anything, from petty tyrants in Africa, to Chinese party leaders, to kings and queens of the ancient era, to even the democracies of ancient Greece are "fascist".
Why have two different words for "authoritarian" at that point? It makes it meaningless. Hell, I could rightly label Joe Biden a fascist, and call my self antifa by that logic.
>>6953>Western values is just a wishy washy way of saying "white people stuff"
Again, this guy demonstrates that he is the racist around here.
Plenty of minorities from all different ethnic backgrounds can come and be a part of western culture. Likewise, anyone of any race can hold western values. The idea of liberty, equality, and independence, are exclusive to only white people, is complete and total nonsense. The kind of thing only a blind bigot could believe. Some "race realist" type who believes that one's biological makeup determines what they think, what they believe, how likely they are to commit crimes, and so on.
Again he paints himself as the fascist here.
>>6953>It seems to me that the proud boys outward condemnation of white supremacy is a marketing tactic to repackage white supremacist talking points
And it seems to me like this guy is only saying that, because he doesn't like the group, because they're on the wrong side.
After all, it's perfectly acceptable to assume the absolute worst of your opponents, as long as they're the bad guys.
Anytime your enemy says anything that you might agree with, they're clearly lying to you, and should be opposed for it, because they are dirty and evil and monstrous.
This whole video is just tribal bullshit.>This former member did a bad after he was out!
There are former members of nearly every general organization out there, who have gone done some nasty shit.
This is just guilt by association, where the association isn't even actual association any more.
Especially when it is a guy they literally kicked out for this reason.
It's just so dishonest..
Something to also note, the whole Unite The Right rally thing wasn't really understood as a white supremacist neo Nazi movement when it first was talked about, until basically the event actually took place. They were quite a few guys who weren't neo Nazis in attendance, because frankly, the nature was intentionally obfuscated.
Ironically, he proves this himself by citing that the current leader attended it.
Enrique Tarrio is not white.
Of course this guy leaves that out, because inconvenient facts have to be ignored.
Anything to paint your enemy as evil
>>6953>They announced it on a place that once hosted Richard Spencer!
And so have numerous other left wing outlets, including CNN.
Is CNN a far right outlet?>Look at this evil quote by this racist! How dare he say America isn't a racist nation and that there are other factors that racism for why black folk are not excelling, as well as calling out the soft bigotry of low expectations!
I'm mostly fraying it in this way, because this guy has really run out my nerves, with how smarmy, cuntish, And generally how condescending he is.
Suffice to say, I do not agree with him let his quote is supposedly racist.
File: 1602540888461.png (6.93 KB, 64x64, 1:1, eek_4x.png) ImgOps Google
>>7101>>Western values is just a wishy washy way of saying "white people stuff"
Yikes! I wonder if that guy realizes that he's implying things like "Black people don't really believe in individual liberty or the rule of law".
>>6953>When they say there auntie Marxist, they're saying equality in the races is marxism!
No they are not. This is a brainless straw man.
What they are saying is very simple. Injecting marxists thinking into race generates racism. It's wrong. We should judge people on their individual characteristics, not their color of their skin.
It's really not that complicated.
Biological factors or bigotry are not the only thing that could ever possibly explain a disparity in the races within higher education.
Nobody says that colleges are prejudiced in favor of Asians, because of their higher level of academic performance.
this is because most people can safely recognize that the reason they perform better is cultural. Not racial.
Consequently this is why a lot of schools are in hot water for racist practices, as they are a refusing to accept Asians at the same standards of other races, because of their higher performance.
It's almost like affermitive action is racist or something.
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.
>>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.
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".
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?
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,
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?
>>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?
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.
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.
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.
>>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?
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.
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.
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
File: 1602699574934.png (180.8 KB, 1047x3000, 349:1000, 2UpxiFwD5BSsA5WYfXXsWf86Ld….png) ImgOps Google
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.
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
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
>>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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
File: 1602721625847.png (234.48 KB, 747x709, 747:709, 282635753.png) ImgOps Google
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.
>>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.
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
>>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.
>>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
How it is used is key.
Hasn't that always been the case?
Context is what matters?