@dave
It is an amazing post, but why am I afraid, that you're posting it unironically?
What 19th-century economic theory do you think psyop resister is referring to here?
@dave
I meant the original picture...
I don't even care about unnamed theories.
If I found the argument in the original picture persuasive, I would not have included the quote tweet that makes fun of said argument
@dave
Ok....
I guess I am too dumb for this post... It happens :D
Because words "it's much worse if.." simply implied to me an agreement.
I think it's that you made the mistake of believing NEETzsche when he claimed that I have some kind of anti-white bias that makes me more comfortable with people being murdered if those people are white, and on that basis you belief that there are are other radical left-wing that I probably secretly hold as well.
@dave
Nat sure how it applies to this meme, but you're reading way too much into a simple misunderstanding.
Also, the Neetche's claim could be disproven quite easily you know...
Not gonna tl;dr, but if you think this post is long imagine dealing with a 2-month long back and forth from neetzsche. This was about as short as I felt Icould make it while still clearly explaining why he falsely believes I have some anti-white bias.
It cannot, he straight up refuses to acknowledge that the morality of intentionally killing someone is totally dependent on *why* you're killing them (killing someone because they're trying to kill you is fine, while killing someone because they made fun of your receding hairline is clearly not, etc).
I am not misrepresenting his position, he refused to acknowledge that it is consistent to believe Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't belong in prison, while an actual murderer (say, an armed robber that shoots the person he was robbing) does.
FYI, this all stems back to the Buffalo Shooting, which he tried to justify because of "anti-white" policies like affirmative action, and I was harshly critical of that stance. At some point the topic of slavery came up, and I said slaves killing their masters was fine, and he asked if I supported the Haitian Revolution, and I said I did.
His "gotcha" was that as part of the Haitian Revolution, the Haitians who were now in power expelled or killed the white men remaining on the island, unless they had been explicitly sympathetic to the slaves plight and aided in the revolution or something. For the women, they forced them (not sure whether it was some or all) to marry black men. It was, in effect, a genocide.
I don't support those killings, but 18th-century slaves, that were enslaved based on race, killing/enslaving most of the members of the race that enslaved them, doesn't upset me *as much* as murdering innocent people in a mall, and it was on this basis that he claimed I had an anti-white bias, because he was focusing on the fact that the innocent people killed in the Haitian Revolution were white, while the ones victimized in the buffalo shopping mall were black.
The problem with this argument is that the Haitian slaves had a much stronger justification to violence than some zoomer that just found out about great replacement theory.
The degree of oppression isn't even remotely comparable, and NEETzsche keeps ignoring this to make his argument that this stance is proof of how I'm supposed to be secretly anti-white.
It cannot, he straight up refuses to acknowledge that the morality of intentionally killing someone is totally dependent on *why* you're killing them (killing someone because they're trying to kill you is fine, while killing someone because they made fun of your receding hairline is clearly not, etc).
I am not misrepresenting his position, he refused to acknowledge that it is consistent to believe Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't belong in prison, while an actual murderer (say, an armed robber that shoots the person he was robbing) does.
FYI, this all stems back to the Buffalo Shooting, which he tried to justify because of "anti-white" policies like affirmative action, and I was harshly critical of that stance. At some point the topic of slavery came up, and I said slaves killing their masters was fine, and he asked if I supported the Haitian Revolution, and I said I did.
His "gotcha" was that as part of the Haitian Revolution, the Haitians who were now in power expelled or killed the white men remaining on the island, unless they had been explicitly sympathetic to the slaves plight and aided in the revolution or something. For the women, they forced them (not sure whether it was some or all) to marry black men. It was, in effect, a genocide.
I don't support those killings, but 18th-century slaves, that were enslaved based on race, killing/enslaving most of the members of the race that enslaved them, doesn't upset me *as much* as murdering innocent people in a mall, and it was on this basis that he claimed I had an anti-white bias, because he was focusing on the fact that the innocent people killed in the Haitian Revolution were white, while the ones victimized in the buffalo shopping mall were black.
The problem with this argument is that the Haitian slaves had a much stronger justification to violence than some zoomer that just found out about great replacement theory.
The degree of oppression isn't even remotely comparable, and NEETzsche keeps ignoring this to make his argument that this stance is proof of how I'm supposed to be secretly anti-white.
> You claimed, that slavery was a good enough justification for genocide
No, I did not. What I said is that the Haitians had a *stronger* justification because they were fucking slaves.
"They killed most of the white people and forced the white women to marry black men, that's horrific"
"Well, they were enslaved, and that is also horrific"
You killing someone because they got in your face would be wrong, but it's also less wrong than the mass shooter that killed an innocent person because they were angry at the world. How is this so hard to understand?
No, I did not. What I said is that the Haitians had a *stronger* justification because they were fucking slaves.
"They killed most of the white people and forced the white women to marry black men, that's horrific"
"Well, they were enslaved, and that is also horrific"
You killing someone because they got in your face would be wrong, but it's also less wrong than the mass shooter that killed an innocent person because they were angry at the world. How is this so hard to understand?
As I said, I assumed that your basis for believing that I might believe what the chart said unironically, was because NEETZsche used some bad logic to argue that I had an anti-white bias, and that you believed him.
The reason *why* I assumed that was your basis, was because I'm not some kind of marxist, and the only reason I could think of that would cause you to assume that I am, was if you had recently "discovered" that I was anti-white, which is another far-left belief that is in vogue right now.
The reason *why* I assumed that was your basis, was because I'm not some kind of marxist, and the only reason I could think of that would cause you to assume that I am, was if you had recently "discovered" that I was anti-white, which is another far-left belief that is in vogue right now.
@dave @Flick
Although, Neet's arguments were far from the only clue, that you do have more character properties in common with a radical leftie, then with any other group I know of.
For instance, that flag in your PFP and phrase "too tolerant of hate, so from now on transphobes and racists will be blocked" in bio.
My whole profile is meant to be ironic. I frequently get falsely accused of being a radical, being a redditor, etc. by 105 IQ wignats, who can't conceive of someone being unapologetically on the left, without also fulfilling some of the worst stereotypes of people on the left.
Hence "atheist who moderates /r/Christianity", "behaving on social media the way my wife's boyfriend tells me to", etc.
Hence "atheist who moderates /r/Christianity", "behaving on social media the way my wife's boyfriend tells me to", etc.
I don't think so, I think you're just way more honest about it.
@Flick unfortunately you were right