Racial Diversity: Strength or Weakness?

submitted by Fourth_stage from self.debatealtright

New article by Sean last where he provides empirical evidence that racial diversity can have negative effects https://seanlast.substack.com/p/racial-diversity-strength-or-weakness

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]bug-in-recovery 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Even the NYT used to admit this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html

I think though, the actual argument doesn't need to be so big brained.

Proponents of diversity will pursue it despite the facts, so it doesn't matter if you prove it's worse.

IMO, there is no clear benefit of introducing diversity to your society, but there are many potential downsides of doing so.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is true. Once you realize that the left simply hate White people, then the argumentation becomes much simpler. Once you simply take the pro-White stance, everything becomes much simpler.

They have zero argument as long as you phrase it as them attacking Whites or them doing harm to White people or them being the aggressors against Whites.
"How does this help White people?"
"Why do you want to inflict damage upon White people?"
"That is systemically racist against White people"
"You want to kill White babies?"
"You want to remove Whites from positions of power. How does this help Whites?"
And every question should be accompanied with the accusation or implied accusation that they are hostile or evil towards White people.

This is GOOD optics, because any onlooker will instantly know what this is about and everyone will see the leftist go mask off and they will be the evil person in the eyes of the audience. Suddenly you are morally justified in wanting to protect Whites from leftist hatred against Whites and any attempt by the leftist at trying to attack you for defending Whites or for being "racist" or for not "caring about others" will be entirely moot and even paints them as hypocrites and makes them look even worse.

Every argument the left does can be denied by simply being pro White, not anti anyone. We don't have to prove race differences, to prove crime rates, to prove anything. Everything becomes much simpler, when they have to justify how it will help White people (which is a position they don't want to hold and a position they do not hold)

[–]curious2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Since it’s hard to find debaters, I’ll be the devils advocate here:

Why do you have to be pro-white? Cant you just be pro-human? We all bleed red. You sound like a racist.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Whites are humans too. Why do you want to hurt white people?

"We all bleed red" is a phrase used to target and discriminate against Whites, by first grouping everyone together and then singling out Whites, trying to justify the discrimination that Whites face in society.

"White" is a social construct that society puts on us in order to discriminate against us and hold us down. Whites have to defend ourselves under this social construct, because we are being collectively attacked by people like you who wants to harm white people.
It would be nice to live in a world, where we wouldn't have to be "white" and where we didn't face discrimination but this is not the world that we live in.

"We all bleed red" is a slogan that only comes out as a reaction to statements such as "It is okay to be white". It is an anti white slogan, meant to harm white people.

I am racist? You are the one who is anti white and who wants to harm people with my skin color. "Racist" is yet another label used to justify discrimination against white people and to suppress white people who does not agree to the systemic and decades long dismantling of the White communities in this world.

[–]curious2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I asked only two questions. You managed to not answer either directly. We’re all equal.

Why do you conflate helping disadvantaged POC with “hurting” and “attacking” white people? Privileged White people have been at the top of the pyramid for so long. It’s time the POC got their piece of the pie. The colonizers/slave holders are finally getting a small taste of their own medicine. The playing field hasn’t even begun to become level.

a phrase used to target and discriminate against Whites

Oh you poor white person. We are so oppressed!

white communities

White supremacist communities

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You've went mask off and displayed your intent to harm white people. The debate is basically over at this point since people watching it now would be aware of what you are trying to do. Framing "helping whites" as "we are all equal" while framing "hurting white people" (I thought we all bleed red? but apparently not) as "We just want to help nonwhites" which can be translated into taking more stuff from white people and giving it to nonwhites, who you want to favor, because you don't like white people, despite your false claim that "we all bleed red".
We all bleed red only applies when someone wants to help white people. The moment you've dismantled the defence, you go on to attack whites as a collective wanting to deprive whites of their lands, their money, their positions of power, their countries etc.

People watching the debate from your last comment and forward will see exactly what is it that you want to do and how you want to frame things in a subversive manner to hurt the interest of white people. This is very good optics for pro white people, because fencesitters or people unaware can then apply this exact same mindset in other situations by simply asking the question "Does this harm or help white people?".

Now this type of debate tactic wouldn't convince people who already also hate white people, but it would sway people who are naturally pro white or even neutral on white people. "Why do people hate white people so much? They deserve to be treated equal to everyone else" This crowd can be convinced into being pro white through this type of rhetoric.
And those who are pro-white can arm themselves with this type of rhetoric in future conversations.

The important thing is to just keep being on the attack, never defend against accusations and never accept any deconstructionist argument such as "We all bleed red" (which is the same type of argument as "all lives matter" which is only used in reponse to BLM)

Statements such as its okay to be white, whites deserve the same rights as everyone else, etc. are massively more powerful than spamming n-words or (()), because it frames any opposition as bigots or haters, and this framing MUST be kept at all times during the debate.

[–]curious2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don’t know man. I was feeling pretty morally superior to you after my last comment. Haha. I think white libs have no problem holding both the belief that “we all bleed red” AND the belief that whites are due some comeuppance. I think that feeling of self-sacrifice actually makes them feel noble and selfless.

It’s not that I disagree with you logically. But Internet race debates aren’t real debates. They are solely about moral superiority.

If I’ve been taught that whites “cheated” to get to where they are, then any “but you’re hurting my white feelings” stuff is going to sound like you’re selfish and avoiding the issue. “Good people help the underdog.”

Lauren Southern had some good one-liners about this...

Facts don’t care about your feelings, but to liberals, their feelings don’t care about your facts.

Also, liberals don’t care what you know until they know that you care.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, you did feel morally superior, but look at it from someone reading it. The perspective of the audience.

The target audience of this type of rhetoric is right wing people who are either neutral or pro white. White libs cannot be reached and it is meant to expose them and their hatred in front of everyone to see.

I have actually employed this with great success in chat servers in the past few months. The best part about framing it this way is that THEY will be risking warnings when they attack whites and you can claim that you are the victim constantly. It's not the best strategy, obviously, mockery and truth works the best, but its good because we live in an environment of censorship.

You can speak the truth, or at least a lot of truths, without getting ban hammered by lefties who you are debating.

I appreaciate your feedback.

Maybe we should make weekly threads in this sub where people do debate tactics with eachother.

[–]curious2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well I guess I can’t argue if you’ve had good luck. I agree a thread like that would be good. But there’s such little engagement here. Not sure how well that would work out. Good luck 👍🏻

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

The biggest downside of introducing """"diversity""""" (cough cough, which for some reason always means subsaharan africans, cough cough) is the invention of racism. Its straight up impossible to be "racist" if there's no one to be racist towards. Mono-ethnic societies can just not care about this issue and not dedicate any resources or time for it. Frees up resources for other stuff.

[–]bug-in-recovery 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting point.

[–]sylla94 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://files.catbox.moe/su1vjr.pdf