top 100 commentsshow all 394

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 17 insightful - 3 fun17 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 3 fun -  (73 children)

I posit that bigotry has an overall negative impact on society

Which society has less bigotry a homogenus one or a multicultural one?

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (72 children)

There is no homogenous society. White bigots still discriminate against other white people based on things other than skin color.

[–]sineavec 20 insightful - 4 fun20 insightful - 3 fun21 insightful - 4 fun -  (18 children)

White bigots

It's no longer a debate.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

What? Are you saying that you refuse to debate anybody who acknowledges the existence of bigotted white people?

[–]sineavec 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

If you want to talk about bigotry in the West, don't pick and choose, focusing on just one group of bigots (if they can be called bigots, it's mostly just to shore up one's ideology). Compare and contrast these two examples: About a month ago, a White woman in Central Park called the police on a Black man. This made national news and made her a target of Two Minutes of Hate from the Left. Last year, an ABC news anchor was caught on a hot mic saying that she had an interview lined up with a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. She wasn't able to pursue the interview and Epstein's abuse continued for three more years. A lot of "bigotry" is a media distraction, while the guilty elites get away with their crimes.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)


[–]sineavec 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Exactly. What about a serious problem that demands our attention. I repeat: Our guilty elites get away with their crimes.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

What about it?

[–]sineavec 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

What about John Bolton. What about him? A war criminal, and an architect of the Iraq War which was based on nonexistent WMDs. Led to 400000 deaths of innocents. CNN is now celebrating him and he's on the NYT Bestseller List. It doesn't matter, though, we have a "Karen" in Central Park to humiliate and abuse.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You think I wouldn't lock up Bolton in a second if the choice was mine?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

This is just relativist tactical nihilism, textbook bad faith.

You broke 2 of your own rules

"4. Whataboutism 5. Any other form of disingenuous behavior"

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

No I didn't

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

And this is exactly why there's no debating with you people. You disgusting anti-whites never act in good faith, all you want to do is attack white people on behalf of capitalism.

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

What exactly did he do that was wrong?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The other poster pointed out that removing diversity would reduce ethnic conflict and he blatantly lied and did whataboutism. 'What about "WHITE BIGOTS" this term itself shows this is simply someone who wants all white people dead and should be treated as the genocidal piece of shit anti-white that he is. A total subhuman who deserves nothing from us.

[–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No thats projection. What he means is whites discriminated based on religion or culture or class. Thats uncalled for, hes here to debate don't get so aggravated by his words.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What he means is whites discriminated based on religion or culture or class.

So it's whataboutism and relativist tactical nihilism like I said then.

Whites aren't allowed self determination or to separate from other groups because whites at some point in the future may or may not have their own grievances between themselves? Really, you think that's an honest and serious argument?

[–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Its valid from the perspective that a monoracial society is not free from conflict. Thats the argument we need to refute.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have completely lost any connection to the discussion lol

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My point was that the very concept of a monogamous country isn't realistic. Say you're in a room with a black person, you're you make them leave and bring in a white person. You may have reduced the diversity of skin color in the room, but you've increased the diversity of gender or hair color or what have you. Racism is jist one of countless flavors of bigotry.

I know you don't really care and you're just being disingenuous, but that's beside the point.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Shut up Jew

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How old are you?

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, you actually said it

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You just dodged.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dodged what?

[–]Nombre27 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The question.

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You mean the one that I wrote a big reply to?

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I come from homogenous country, and while we do have some internal conflicts, we have them less compared to multicultural societies.

We don't have to fear losing our jobs for voicing a political opinion, we aren't blamed for country's problems and we can exactly pinpoint where the problem is, we don't have to sink down to white privilege conspiracy theories and other bullshit.

Less conflicts is better, wouldn't you agree?

[–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's like saying thievery should be legal because then people wouldn't discrimiinate against thieves. Sure you like it better, but your victims don't.

[–]flugegeheimen 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That's like saying

No, your analogy is so bad, it took a while to understand how your comment even related to the one you replied to. In his scenario net amount of conflicts is smaller. There is no "victims" of living in homogenous country. In your poor excuse of analogy you just replace one conflict (thieves - victims) with another (thieves - discrimination) to weasel out from answering his question.

[–]paranoid_android3 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is no homogenous society

You are a flat out liar or stupid, take your pick.

I grew up in a 100% White (European) city. America (the political entity) was ~90% White from 1620 to 1970. WTF are you talking about?

[–][deleted]  (17 children)


    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

    First, thanks for posting, and for having the courage and conviction to come here. "Leftist" is a general term though. Kaczsynki had the best description:

    7 But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types

    So it's easier of you tell us what you want to debate. Maybe race and intelligence? That's a good place to start

    I posit that bigotry has an overall negative impact on society

    This is a loaded statement. What is "biggotry"? How does this manifest in negative ways in society?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

    I did tell you what I want to debate, it's what you addressed at the bottom. Bigotry is treating people differently based on some aspect of their identity rather than their actions. Centuries of racial discrimination lead to racial tension lead to societal unrest like what we see today with the BLM protests and accompanying riots and reactions.

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

    Ok - but how much validity do we grant to people's feelings? What does BLM want for blacks that we haven't already given them? For instance - they have all the same rights, they have affirmative action, diversity qoutas in public and private institutions, etc

    And what was the impetus for all of these ""protests"" anyways? The death of George Floyd?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

    They want the police to stop murdering black people.

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

    The CDC says that around 27% of people killed by police are black. A sociologist used data from to argue that number should be 30%. The FBI puts it at 32%

    By contrast, Black Americans account for 13% of the total population, 38% violent criminals, and 53% of murders. (FBI, 2017)

    Black people also account for 40% of those who murder police officers, and so probably instigate around 40% of potentially lethal confrontations with the police (FBI, 2014)

    So blacks are actually underrepresented amongst those killed by police relative to the rate at which they commit violent crimes. That isnt to say that blacks are never unlawfully or unnecessarily killed by police - but that blacks just don't really have anything to complain about when it comes to what the data shows about police killings. Especially when consider police only kill about ~1,000 people per year in the US this simply can't be a good excuse for the ""protests"" we are seeing

    By contrast, blacks kill about 2.5x as many whites as whites kill blacks each year (BJS, p.67)

    Why aren't whites rioting in the street about this?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

    None of this is relevant to the topic

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

    How is not relevant? You just said "They want the police to stop murdering black people" and I came in with multiple national datasets showing how blacks are not disproportionately "murdered" by police - and these deaths are extremely few in number regardless

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

    Whether or not the police discriminate against black people has no bearing on whether bigotry is harmful or helpful.

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

    Bro what even is the actual claim ?

    No one disagrees with the notion "biggotry = bad". Lacking context, this statement is meaningless. You were wholly debunked on your "police must stop murdering blacks" claim, now you need something else

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

    So you don't advocate racial segregation or an ethnostate?

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    What? That doesn't make any sense.

    [–]Richard_Parker 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    You idiots took Floyd George to submit something that does not exist. He is one case out of ten million. Ten million. Given blacks racial commitment to crime, and that we have been coddling them for far too long, it may be time for the police to take the kids gloves off.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)


    [–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Do you have any data showing that Floyd George, even stipulating that Chauvin is guilty, was not a statistical anomaly?

    [–]Richard_Parker 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

    You know what really has a negative impact on any civilization so foolhardy to indulge it? Balkanization and multiculturalism. Bigotry is a loaded term and can mean a whole lot of things. I myself do not hate someone who is Jewish or Black just because of that. I am capable of pattern recognition and see that, on the collective whole, blacks and whites are incompatible and that we need to separate. That we will not (before it is too late) is what is going to be real bad for society, and likely to get a lot of people hurt and killed, as we see for example in South Africa.

    [–]Nombre27 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

    Bigotry is a loaded term and can mean a whole lot of things.

    I was just about to say. First we have to define terms. What is bigotry and how are you using that term, give examples, etc.?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

    Bigotry is treating people differently based on some aspect of their identity rather than their actions. Centuries of racial discrimination lead to racial tension lead to societal unrest like what we see today with the BLM protests and accompanying riots and reactions.

    [–]Richard_Parker 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    You mean like disparaging "bad" whites who do not kneel to your abject lunacy with lines like "check your privilege?"

    It may still be possible to have dialogue with some reasonable lefties who do not (yet) see the light, but you are not one of them. Calling whites bigots, engaging in these conversation renders is not helpful.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You're not being ostracized for being white, you are being ostracized for engaging in bigotry.

    [–]Richard_Parker 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    You are engaging in circular logic, as well as using loaded, emotioanally charged words that generally end the conversation.

    First, you know jack and shit about me. I already stated I do not hate each and every person of a group because they are of that group. I do male genrlaizations based on repeated observations and trends on a macro scale.

    Do you deny that groups of people need to make general, collective assessments of other groups in order to make sense of the world? Eg, in wwii vast majority of Japanese soldiers holding an island did not surrender, went on bonsai attacks, played dead then detonated grenades to take out US soldiers in their vicinity. In response, the American armed forces acted on the general collective assessment that the Japanese do not surrender. They still accepted prisoners when they could, three percent, but that was not their default modus operandi and took prisoners in the Pacific theater in a much differnt manner than North Africa or Europe.

    My bias, not bigotry, against blacks operates under a similar collective assessment. So are you going to engage me, or just call me a bigot yet once more.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    "Do you deny that groups of people need to make general, collective assessments of other groups in order to make sense of the world?"

    I do. It's helpful if the group acts with coordinated agency like a nation or political group, but there's no reason to make up generalizations about groups that anybody can be inherently born into. The "Japan" you're referring to in this context is a structured beurocracy that can meaningfully direct its constituents. One can reasonably assume a soldier fighting on behalf of the Japanese government will not surrender because that person joined the Japanese military and accepted their principles, but you'll notice basically the entire Japanese population of the USA in fact did surrender, en masse.

    That said, when I say bigotry I'm not referring to people's opinions.

    "My bias, not bigotry, against blacks operates under a similar collective assessment. So are you going to engage me, or just call me a bigot yet once more."

    Whether or not you personally are a bigot is irrelevant.

    [–]Richard_Parker 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The "Japan" you're referring to in this context is a structured beurocracy that can meaningfully direct its constituents.

    What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think hundreds of thousands of young men are going to die in that matter because of "structured bureacracy." No these are deeply embedded through mores ingrained in Japanese society for centuries.

    Also, Japanese in America are not Japanese. In any case, to redirect, blacks collectively commit wildly disproportionate levels of crime, and they vote for their interests monolithically. About five percent of blacks ever vote Republican. This justifies not just me but any racially conscious person to make generalizations about them.

    You decry this is as "discrimination" and "bigotry," but when you pressed why this is bad given collective differences, you engage in the circular of logic of "well its bad because its discrimination and bigotry.

    [–]CarlDungCrypto-fascist and eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Bigotry is treating people differently based on some aspect of their identity rather than their actions. Centuries of racial discrimination lead to racial tension lead to societal unrest like what we see today with the BLM protests and accompanying riots and reactions.

    There are racial tensions in all Western nations by muslim immigrants. Slavery is just a scapegoat to explain away why blacks are not collectively doing as good as whites.

    [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)


    So kind of synonymous with discrimination or discriminating?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

    I guess.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)


    So are you against all forms of discrimination?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

    No, just discrimination based on identity rather than actions

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)


    What variables do you include when you mean someones identity? Please be as comprehensive as you can.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

    Things like race, sexuality, religion, appearance, etc. Things that you are as opposed to things that you do.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

    Okay. That's pretty good. So things that you can't change, that you're born with.

    What do you think about affirmative action policies? I think it goes without saying that giving preference to one group necessitates discriminating against everyone else outside of that group, does it not?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Seems to me like real discrimination is a much greater threat than the vague possibility of some future discrimination, but the point is honestly moot anyway because racial segregation wouldn't prevent people from discriminating against one another. Racism is just one of countless forms of bigotry.

    [–]Richard_Parker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Germany has technically always been multicultural, in a sense because of regional al differences (Bavarians, Schwabians, Hessians, Prussians, Saxons, Silesians, etc), while still being homogeneous in an absolute sense. Dittto with the UK. And yeah Scots and English have had their disagreements, but have still been able to coalesce into a coherent nation state because they have more in common. Not so with the multi cultivar bag of party favors you lefties are pushing. So yeah there is some inter group adversarial dynamics in these examples, but it still works. This will not.

    [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    There is no debating leftists.

    They aren't there to debate, first off.

    They could care less about facts, just as little as you care about feelings.

    They don't actually care about the things they say, they just want the points for pretending to care, minus being Anti-White.

    You will have a far more interesting conversation with your dog than a leftist, because atleast a dog understands borders and property.

    [–]Salos10000 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    No piss off with that shit. This place shouldn't be a circlejerk.

    [–]Bill_Shevik_Jager 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good video on why teaching the Left is not possible...

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    A bigot is someone that has strong values on a topic they won't compromise on. Depending on the context and what is at stake it is often good to be a bigot. If you are arguing against a pedophile advocate, there is no reason to entertain their deconstructions of "age of consent" because you don't want adults to have sex with children. You can use studies about the negative psychological effects of children that have had sex with pedophiles, cite it as an abuse of power of a custodial relationship of an adult and child, etc. In the end, you don't need a rational reason to be against pedophilia because it disgusts most Europeans.

    In the academic arena, the people that often discover new phenomena are often bigots. Their stubborn obsession with proving their theories is what motivates them to continue to come up with experiments. This obsession is a double edged sword because the bigot inside of the scientist is what leads to them discovering phenomena that often has predictive and practical applications in the real world. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the bigot can lead the scientist to be completely irrational, dogmatic and depending how much influence they have over academic institutions, hold back scientific progress as a whole.

    Lastly, I reject the halo you have given he word "bigot". The word bigot is used as a control mechanism by the left to prevent Whites from asserting their core moral values, culture, group identity and their interests as a group. This word is never used equally on different ethnic groups and on leftists as a whole. Leftists force these values on their enemies but never have to follow it themselves. We have no reason to follow values that are designed to destroy our race because our strongest value is the preservation and proliferation of our ethnic group and European race. You never are going to have us justify white genocide in attempt to appear consistent in your leftist moral frame.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It's not about the word, it's about discrimination.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    What is wrong with discrimination? You can't have a peaceful and moral society without discriminating groups of people that are violent and immoral. Almost convenient that discrimination only applies when whites want to exclude groups of people that retard their way of life and destroy their communities. It is perfectly okay in the leftist moral framework for non-whites to have their own communities but not whites. Almost like there is a reason behind leftist buzz words. It is to weaken white power, culture, values, and community ultimately to lead to the destruction of white people.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You say you just want to discriminate against criminals, but you advocate for discrimination based on skin color whether they are criminals or not.

    "It is perfectly okay in the leftist moral framework for non-whites to have their own communities but not whites."

    If you were prohibitted from living in a certain community because you were white, that's racism and you would be able to hold them accountable.

    [–]AFutureConcern 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    big•ot•ry (ˈbɪg ə tri)


    1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    2. the actions, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

    Bigotry as typically defined can clearly be seen to apply to the modern left far more than the alt-right. I think that censorship went way too far long ago, and it's the extreme intolerance of differing opinions from leftists that caused this censorship. So if using this definition, I actually agree! Censorship has an overall negative impact on society.

    But I suspect that's not what you mean. The definition colloquially used by leftists is something like:

    big•ot•ry (ˈbɪg ə tri)


    1. Anti-egalitarian beliefs; the belief that some groups are better than others according to some metric, especially if those groups are white - racism, sexism, other -isms

    2. Anti-degeneracy moral beliefs; the belief that traditional morality should be upheld over "anything goes" sexual liberalism - homophopia, transphobia, other -phobias

    If this is what you mean, then I don't much care whether or not bigotry has an overall negative impact on society. Anti-egalitarianism is true - people are not the same. Some groups really can run faster, do math easier, and build civilization stronger, than other groups. If knowledge of this has a negative impact on society, it's still better than to simply suppress knowledge. I don't think it is, though - thinking men can synthesize knowledge to make society stronger, but I haven't heard of anyone doing this through ignorance. Ignorance merely leads society to ruin through pathological behaviors that come about through refusing to acknowledge the truth; like a doctor treating a limb with referred pain, ignorance about the source of the problem could prove fatal.

    As for anti-degeneracy, we're talking about the very moral foundations that make a society. These have already been totally transformed over the past century. The current social order is not stable and is disintegrating - the number of married men and women is significantly lower than it once was. How is the legalization of gay marriage a positive when the total number of married couples has gone down? How is the "liberation" of sexuality a positive when young people are having less sex and young men are not even allowed to defend themselves properly against sexual assault allegations?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Bigotry as I mean it is treating people differently based on their identity rather than their actions.

    As for your correlations, there's at least 2 reasons why they are not an excuse to persecute gay people.

    First, two things happening at the same time does not mean one thing is causing the other. How do you know less monogamy isn't causing higher rates of homosexuality, or that they aren't both a result of global warming or something?

    Second, you don't need to approve of other people's life choices. If you think that monogamy is necessary, go ahead and lead a mongamous lifestyle. That doesn't mean you need to force the rest of the world to emulate your specific preferences.

    [–]Richard_Parker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Yeah actually we do need to force these moral assessment son others, because these social experiments with single moms, unbridled free for all libertinism are hurting everyone.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    How does gay equality hurt anybody?

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It's not equality, it's equivalence. It confuses what everything's about. Reproductive relationships aren't homosexual relationships except with the opposite sex instead, there they're own very special thing and the most important thing in society because they're how we choose newcomers, the people who will inherit the future.

    [–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that 2% of people get gay married, and, as a result of the desanctification of marriage, 3% of straight people no longer get married. Even if you think both marriages are of equal worth, surely you can agree that the net impact here is negative?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No. They chose not to get married on their own. Gay marriage isn't actually preventing them from getting married, they still could if they wanted to.

    [–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Bigotry as I mean it is treating people differently based on their identity rather than their actions.

    We all have preconceptions about people and groups of people, some of these based on stereotypes, some on data, and they tend to be largely accurate. I'm not about to treat somebody horribly based on his visible characteristics, but I'm absolutely going to use them to form my initial impression of him. You probably do this all the time when it comes to e.g. age - you treat kids differently than adults, sex - you treat men and women differently when it comes to choosing a partner, and so on. These would be bigotry according to your definition, but I don't think you'd say these things are wrong.

    First, two things happening at the same time does not mean one thing is causing the other. How do you know less monogamy isn't causing higher rates of homosexuality, or that they aren't both a result of global warming or something?

    The slippery slope of degeneracy is what was predicted at the time that sexual liberation came to the forefront in society. That's why a causal link is far more likely; there are reasons why it was predicted, and then it came to pass, so we have to give some credit to the hypotheses of those old conservatives and reactionaries that opposed it. There's nobody who predicted that global warming would cause less monogamy, so that hypothesis is far less credible.

    Second, you don't need to approve of other people's life choices. If you think that monogamy is necessary, go ahead and lead a monogamous lifestyle. That doesn't mean you need to force the rest of the world to emulate your specific preferences.

    This is liberalism writ large - a focus on the individual and his choices but without concern for the effects on wider society. I'm not talking about my preferences; I'm talking about the effect the sexual revolution had on the whole of society. Even granting liberal premises, it can still be true that sexual liberation was bad for society even if we have a liberal moral obligation not to oppose gay marriage or extramarital sex.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (52 children)

    I can't believe you guys are actually wasting time on this piece of shit. People like him support the genocide of white people and he supports policies that minimize white power. He's evil to the core.

    He wants to discuss bigotry lmao, while he unironically supports genocide. Seriously, it's so fucking pointless discussing with leftists. Imagine going into a discussion where you support genocide against whites and you want to discuss how whites are bigotted LMAO. This shit is unreal.

    I read all 80 comments and he hasn't even engaged with a single one. They don't care about logos. Emotions, that's all they've got.

    He thinks "bigotry has an overall negative impact on society" while we've just been kicked off reddit for not agreeing with the ongoing white genocide. He's not here to debate, he's here to gloat and to feel superior while he supports the jewish elite genociding us. How not-bigotted of him. He wont even name them. He's worried about the "racial climate" LOL as if. He just wants to kick white people while we're lying down with blood all over the streets.

    I want to fedpost right now.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

    I am white hahaha

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (49 children)

    "I have a black friend"

    You're a genocidal antiwhite piece of shit that deserve [fedposting].

    You're not here to engage with anyone. All your policies and opinions have been fed to you by jews and they all, every single one of them, result in the removal of white power and support the white genocide either directly or indirectly. You're at best an NPC that repeats the newest Buzzfeed headline or at worst an actual leftist. If the latter, you're evil and you know it.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (48 children)

    Did the alt right tell you that?

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

    You're all the same. Do you have any strong opinions that benefit white people more than non-whites?

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

    I don't know, fucking, net neutrality? I don't measure shit like that

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

    All your opinions are antiwhite and non of them benefit white people. Just imagine how tone deaf you have to be to come here while there is an ongoing white genocide and you want to discuss white bigotry. For real man. It's fucked up, honestly. It's like going to a rape victim right after the fact and telling her to not wear so slutty clothes.

    [–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    How old are you?

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    How old are you?

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

    Do you think this is an ethical use of this space?

    It doesn't sound like you're here for an exchange of ideas, it sounds like you're here to... defend a position? against people you have already decided are wrong and can't engage in good faith? Whose position you describe as "bigotry" (which I would consider an insult, not a neutral descriptor of a political position).

    Would you read your OP, let's see:

    somebody who deliberately refuses to listen

    #3 personal attack

    I'm here to prove him wrong.

    other disingenuous behavior, just here to defend a position, not to engage in intellectual exchange. (i.e. deliberately refusing to listen)

    I posit that bigotry

    #1 strawman #2 sweeping generalization #3 personal attack

    Would you engage with this, by your own standards?

    There are a lot of different positions within pro-white thinking right now. These sort of spaces are only one of them. The most basic position is just that white people need to look out for themselves and each other as white people, and work towards their own prosperity. It's good for whites to be pro-white and to take their wellbeing and future security and prosperity as a people and as peoples seriously.

    If you take nothing else from this conversation, I'd just encourage you to practice being pro-white in your daily life. Maybe pro- your specific ethnicity, whatever that means to you, whatever. Nobody else is ever going to understand whites as well as other whites, just like is the same for any other ethnic group. Nobody else can help whites in accordance with their own culture as well as other whites, just like is the same for any other ethnic group.

    Remember also that anti-whiteness may not affect you personally badly at this time if you are relatively secure (though it may anyway now, or eventually), but if you like to look out for more vulnerable people, those are going to be the people most affected. Like that disabled white boy who was tortured by those black kids. It's not gonna be you, it's gonna be some good, more vulnerable person who's gonna take the fall for it if you participate in the spread of anti-whiteness.

    I also think coming here to talk about this right now is probably not the best use of anyone's time here. Perhaps mine included. Please remember that your time and energy is precious, and try to help it go towards building the things that will help you.

    I probably won't reply if you respond because I've got other stuff to do too, but maybe you got something out of this exchange, or if not, oh well, at least you won't have to deal with more if it.

    [–]sineavec 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I posit that bigotry has an overall negative impact on society

    It does. Are you a leftist? If you are, your current definition of bigotry is probably not sufficient to explain the problems in the West (this is based on my experience debating with leftists). Be on guard, people wear masks. Learn from others, and don't be quick to judge. It leads to underestimating others. If you underestimate others, you will not identify bigotry that you are yet to be aware of.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I'm not saying every single problem in the world is a result of bigotry. Just lots of them.

    [–]sineavec 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Guilty elites not being brought to justice is the world's greatest problem right now.

    [–]DoubleReverse[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


    [–][deleted]  (48 children)


      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      250 comments and he hasn't engaged with anyone yet.

      He came here in bad faith and wanted to debate on "his terms". I don't see the point in engaging with people like him. I fell for his tricks too so I am no better than anyone else, but I think we should probably discuss how we deal with leftists like OP.

      The approach in this thread has been utterly futile for sure. We need better ideas.

      [–]sineavec 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      A child cannot impose terms onto a father. Set him straight, even if he doesn't respond in good faith, we do not know who is watching, who is on the fence. We don't even know if his response is nothing more than a defense mechanism. Being the adult in the room are our terms and our duty.

      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I don't know. I see what you're saying but I have trouble articulating my disagreement. It seems like the exact assymetric relationship that allowed us to get into this mess to begin with.

      We're too kind to them, while they want us dead and raped. His kind would never allow us on any subreddit or subsaidit that they control. Our kindness and tolerance allow them to infiltrate our institutions of power which they then turn against us.

      People like OP deserve to be homeless and every door closed.

      [–]sineavec 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Problems are getting serious and this is not lost on people. If stakes are high, all debate should be serious. If leftists want to play games, they discredit themselves. It's like the strong horse vs. weak horse analogy. Playing games is for weak horses.

      Leftists have peaked as far as confidence in their positions. They used to say, "Reality has a liberal bias". They don't say that anymore. Now, they say they are morally superior. That makes us morally inferior. That's a serious charge. If they come here playing games when the stakes are high, that is shameful behavior. We can't let that be lost on them. They need to feel the wages of their sins. We have a world to win, these people can't make us fail unless we let them.

      [–]paranoid_android3 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (57 children)

      White Americans circa 1965 had a right to maintain their 90% demographic. Change my mind.

      [–]IRONICALLY_A_NAZI 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      you just are gay, jews are controlling the world, idiot, what about the jews, i am disingenuous