So, When Exactly Do We Take Supremacists Seriously?

I'm shocked, but mostly because I don't know who is a Nazi lover other than Packard.

What do you get out of lying?
Does someone pay you?
Steve Bannon cut you a check?
A check for dick extensions?
No?
Then what?

I'm a free speech extremist, my posting history, and blog content from start to present back this up, so that shit won't fly with me.
I just think you armchair lawyers reveal you disingenuousness through your blatant and shameless selectiveness.

You're a liar Diacanu.

Nobody takes white supremacists seriously except other white supremacists, and those using their existence to scare people into blindly accepting a leftist political ideology.

Find someone whom I've silenced with my mighty commie oppression powers.

Indeed.

The liberal trash on this site all act like they're auditioning to be Obama's press secretary. They offer nothing but worthless spin doctoring and deliberate fact distortion. I mean, what's the point? Are they interested in honest, genuine conversation or not?

I side with the ACLU and say civil rights are for everyone. I am sorry you are such and ignorant little dumb ass not to understand something so basic. The rule of law in a democratic country is an important thing.

Diacanu is not a liar. He genuinely believes his interpretation of reality reflects the real thing; and he believes it with such utter conviction that he can never possibly entertain the idea he might be wrong. No doubt a sign of psychosis.

Speaking of liars, you intend to pull receipts on @gul and the money he offered you?

Yeah, take that, Eightball, ya bastid!

Maybe I am confused about what you are trying to say. Let's start from the beginning. Would you say that this is correct?:

If a non-white creates or achieves X, that creation or achievement belongs exclusively to the non-white and his descendants. However, if a white creates or achieves X, X belongs to the set of all humans?

I know that's what you were saying. I just wanted confirmation. Bye.

I think white supremacy is a fiction because there is no way trump or @Dayton3 are superior to any brown people.

Is "black" an invented fiction? Can you have black without black supremacy?

After there is only one race, the human race. I take that back, there's also The Amazing Race.

Aristotle lived when people had an extraordinarily strong racial-consciousness. He was a private tutor to the infamous xenophobe, Alexander the Great. I'll repeat it again for emphasis - Aristotle was Alexander the Great's private educator. He encouraged him toward eastern conquest and famously counseled Alexander to be "a leader to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians, to look after the former as after friends and relatives, and to deal with the latter as with beasts or plants"

Aristotle's body of work has long been considered the bedrock of Western canon. However, I wonder if we're actually arguing semantics. I don't think that Aristotle was a genetic relative to all "white" modern people.

Non-white is the inverse of white. Non-black is the inverse of black. Think in terms of Venn Diagrams when evaluating group segments (sets, subsets, etc.).

If you'd like me to agree that there's only one human-race, that makes no difference to me. It's arguing semantics. There's meaningful distinctions among mankind regardless of what new terminology we decide to establish.

Ok, you can stop saying stupid shit. I apologize for forgetting to include you with Dayton and trump in white skinned people who are not superior to any brown people. Are you happy now or are you going to keep on saying stupid things?

I thought you were white as well? Because IIRC you are "transgendered" and LGBTs are generally considered "white people perversions"

How would you describe this person?

True magicians use the ancient art of reading what they wrote to find out what they thought. An intricate method of divination.

Or, for some issues --

-- pretty much any topical history book will suffice to dispel completely false ideas about the past, such as that one.

No, there isn't. That false belief is the heart of racism.

Genetic relation has nothing to do with it.

Not in our sense of race. For Aristotle, race and culture weren't divisible. He believed, for instance, that Persians were by nature suited to be slaves; but his reasons refer both to breeding and to upbringing, and if a person from one part of the world was raised in another, that was an unpredictable anomaly, not a test case of biology. And that makes sense, because Aristotle was a biologist above all else, so he knew that humanity is not divided into races or some other kind of biologically grounded "meaningful distinctions".

No, but I will say I was surprised by the extent of song and dance they went through before they got there. @Zombie literally went from "We should shoot them all." to "Describing how you might have to punch them in self-defence is capital-E Evil." within a few days. It's almost as if a little voice in their heads said, Ok, so these are actual real swastikas, that's going to need some dressing up before we can redraw our lines to include these people.

Yeah no......

They should still be shot but I recognize the law isn't on my side in this.

Self defense is not evil.

However you are not describing self defense in this thread. You are advocating attacking them simply because they are standing in front of you with their silly clothing, flag, and slogan.

You say the Swastika is evil. You are right. It is evil.

But you blanch at the though of the Hammer and Sickle also being evil. It is evil.

If it's acceptable to attack Nazi scum on the street and claim self defense it should be acceptable to attack communist scum on the street and also claim self defense.

That you refuse to see that the Hammer and Sickle is as evil as the Swastika makes you evil.