Racial Tension in the U.S.

[OptimusPrime]

Then we need to call them something else, because white nationalism seems pretty clear about what the motive is.

Also, I don't think it's a huge leap to suggest that the freedom of speech for those wishing to cause physical harm or exterminate non-whites should be restricted as opposed to peoplewho want social justice with a few people who have become violent.


There have always been limits to this "right."

Yes, the limit is where your speech violates the property rights of someone else, like yelling "fire" in a theater. No one has the right to be free from hearing the despicable things people say.

Any further "limits" only changes free speech from a right to a privilege, which I know is fine with most people anyway. They don't have a fucking clue what it means to have rights, so they go along with what the government tells them they can and can't do.

 

[MediumBaller]

Then we need to call them something else, because white nationalism seems pretty clear about what the motive is.

Also, I don't think it's a huge leap to suggest that the freedom of speech for those wishing to cause physical harm or exterminate non-whites should be restricted as opposed to peoplewho want social justice with a few people who have become violent.


There have always been limits to this "right."

I'm sorry, but this is frankly absurd. Where have any of the white nationalists said that they want to cause physical harm, let alone exterminate non-whites. They want white countries. They don't want to kill all non-white people, they just want them to be in different countries. Shitty, yeah, but it's a far cry from the beliefs you're trying to pin on them.

 

[AZ_]

Yes, the limit is where your speech violates the property rights of someone else, like yelling "fire" in a theater. No one has the right to be free from hearing the despicable things people say.

Any further "limits" only changes free speech from a right to a privilege, which I know is fine with most people anyway. They don't have a fucking clue what it means to have rights, so they go along with what the government tells them they can and can't do.

The threat of extermination isn't said with the intention to violate of someone's "property?"

 

[OptimusPrime]

The threat of extermination isn't said with the intention to violate of someone's "property?"

I didn't see the threat, and I'm certainly not going to look for it. How credible was it? Was he locked and loaded in his mother's basement ready to go out and kill some dark people?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't see how white nationalism could possibly be nonviolent. That just seems like a pure oxymoron. What am I missing?

Well, I suppose it all depends on your definition. But let's take a white person who opposes immigration except from countries with white people, opposes racial intermarriage, and thinks white people should band together and look out for their own economic interests rather than seeking integration. I think they would be described by most as a "white nationalist." Would you agree?

If so, none of that requires violence.

Here's an article that explains how Black Nationalism isn't necessarily violent:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-coming-war-on-black-nationalists/

The core of "racial nationism" seems to be advocating that people of race band together and stick up for "their people", avoiding integration with people of a different race, etc..

It does not necessarily include the extermination or forcible eviction of other races.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well this is disheartening.. It makes me wonder how "fringe" Antifa's views on free speech really are.

http://www.breitbart.com/california...poll-california-democrats-oppose-free-speech/

That doesn't surprise me in the least - I don't think they really are "fringe" at all, and think a great many people would prefer to see us adopt a more European approach to free speech.

 

[MediumBaller]

If you write on Breitbart that you plan to kill minorities to preserve and defend the white ethno-state, you do not have the freedom to escape prosecution given that you're making threats to a group of people.


I really don't see what is so hard about this.

And when has this hypothetical of yours happened? Did the marchers pen their plans to kill minorities before or after buying their tiki torches?

 

[AZ_]

I didn't see the threat, and I'm certainly not going to look for it. How credible was it? Was he locked and loaded in his mother's basement ready to go out and kill some dark people?

Beyond the white people that actually fired shots at protestors, or burned them with tiki torches, or ran down an innocent woman among dozens of others in a car, the nature of their beliefs are founded in the removal of other races that are not white.

Their nature and end goal is violence and intimidation, a direct threat to the property of anyone who is not white.

This (IMO) is different from a group like BLM who values to progression of social injustice, while still having to deal with issues related to violence.

 

[AZ_]

And when has this hypothetical of yours happened? Did the marchers pen their plans to kill minorities before or after buying their tiki torches?

Do you not understand what white supremacist and Nazi organizations want?


Like, I'm honestly not sure if you know.

 

[MediumBaller]

Do you not understand what white supremacist and Nazi organizations want?


Like, I'm honestly not sure if you know.

Well there's a difference between literal Nazi organizations and the present day use of "Nazis", so we can start with that distinction.

 

[Nathan S]

They don't have have the same beliefs. It's like saying " this is what Republicans believe."

For instance, Jared Taylor (and I'd say he's the leader of the movement which is why I keep referencing.. There isn't a single other rep that can articulate any sort of reasonable argument) thinks people should be free to discriminate as a right(shouldn't be forced to hire people you don't want to regardless of the reason, or forced to live with people you don't want to) but he doesn't want any violence or anything. He wants America to return to how it was before they started mass immigration and so fast that people weren't assimilating.

Like he legitimately condemns violence. You can tell when people are saying what they need to and what they believe. He thinks it's uncivilized.

A lot of Whyte nationalists advocate national protectionist policies, a lot don't. A lot hate jews, a lot don't. I haven't heard from any that want to take away rights of people based on their skin color. They just want a majority white country. That, I think, is the meat of their beliefs and is consistent across the board regardless of specific sects other beliefs

I don't agree that this doesn't "take away rights of people based on their skin color." What you described does exactly that. And doing that would very obviously lead to a race war, thus, violence.

Well, is suppose it all depends on your definition. But let's take a white person who opposes immigration except from countries with white people, opposes racial intermarriage, and thinks white people should band together and look out for their own economic interests rather than seeking integration, they could be described as a "white nationalist." Would you agree?

If so, none of that requires violence.

Here's an article that explains how Black Nationalism isn't necessarily violent:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-coming-war-on-black-nationalists/

The core of "racial nationism" seems to be advocating that people of race band together and stick up for "their people", avoiding integration with people of a different race, etc..

It does not necessarily include the extermination or forcible eviction of other races.

I get where you're coming from, but there's a difference between privately being a racist, and being a white nationalist, the latter implying that you think whites should be the legally privileged race.

Of course you *could* pass laws discriminatory laws that aren't violent, and it's hypothetically possible that all people of color would just shrug and peacefully accept it. But that's not realistic by any stretch; bringing back legal racial discrimination to any extent would certainly lead to a bloodbath.

 

[AZ_]

Well there's a difference between literal Nazi organizations and the present day use of "Nazis", so we can start with that distinction.

Go ahead and start there.

What do they want, as an organization? What is their end goal?

 

[MediumBaller]

That doesn't surprise me in the least - I don't think they really are "fringe" at all, and think a great many people would prefer to see us adopt a more European approach to free speech.

I don't think they are either, and it seems like more and more people are heading toward that view every day.

 

[Cavatt]

Beyond the white people that actually fired shots at protestors, or burned them with tiki torches, or ran down an innocent woman among dozens of others in a car, the nature of their beliefs are founded in the removal of other races that are not white.

Their nature and end goal is violence and intimidation, a direct threat to the property of anyone who is not white.

This (IMO) is different from a group like BLM who values to progression of social injustice, while still having to deal with issues related to violence.

They have totally flipped the script again so that people are focusing on the violent left when really the body count is on the side of the white nationalists. You have multiple people arguing that the left are the violent ones and the white supremacists aren't when antifa hasn't killed a single person. Dunno how to combat that sort of perspective.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is going to end in a purely semantic debate. If someone is going to limit the definition of "white nationalist" to those who advocate using violence to ethnically cleanse the country, then white nationalist and violence are inseparable.

However, if someone is going to use that definition, then they should apply that label only to those who have actually advocated that violence.

Again, the left-wing Nation article explained why Black Nationalism is not inherently violent. It isn't right to redefine words so as to retroactively apply that definition to people who were assuming a different meaning.