Hey, just because the minority of hicks in the South are extremely vocal about their stupidity, doesn't mean we all are. I live in the South, and I can count the number of them I've met on one hand.Gecko clown said:Using the words "final solution" to describe diversity, classy, very classy.
Its unfortunate that all the people in this video are from the southern states because I've been waiting for an excuse to not think that they're all hicks.
Just a minute too soon. I got your back.BloatedGuppy said:Why aren't more of you talking about the OP's misuse of the word "dejected" in the thread title?
Seriously guys it's really bugging me. I can't even pay attention to these racists.
I think my mind automatically read it as rejected. I honestly hadn't noticed.BloatedGuppy said:Why aren't more of you talking about the OP's misuse of the word "dejected" in the thread title?
Seriously guys it's really bugging me. I can't even pay attention to these racists.
But... that's not strictly true.canadamus_prime said:White people have never been discriminated against so there's no need to actively discourage the behaviour.
What might be meant there is how white people invading somewhere is shown as a bad thing. There might be a point there if it wasn't much more common for white people to be the invaders than the invaded (the only reversals of this that come to mind are the Moorish conquering of Iberian peninsula and the Mongol invasion of eastern Europe).Andy of Comix Inc said:Watching it, I got sad, and then amused, and then sad again, and concerned, and after five minutes of it all I could feel was worried. These people have, in all sincerity, taken up the mantle of believing that anti-racism is actually anti-white. Like, they have convinced THEMSELVES of that. Also note that they've convinced themselves that apparently keeping whites out of black and Asian churches, communities, and countries is a thing. (I'm sure they can go wherever in the world they want to. They just don't want to. What with all the starvation and violent dictatorships 'n all.)
"They tell us, 'Africa is for the Africans! Asia is for the Asians! But white countries are for everyone!'"
Yeah, if they're idiots.Andy of Comix Inc said:So how... how do you talk to people like this? I'm convinced it's a kind of insanity - they have made up (or just poorly interpreted or inferred meaning from) arguments, argue against those arguments, and in doing so completely and utterly cement mistruths in themselves. How do you fight such things? You could ignore it, but others won't.
You don't. Their minds are made up. Whether that's "made up" in the sense that they're concluded or in the sense that they're fictional, I'll let you decide.Andy of Comix Inc said:How do you get through to someone who has built up such impeccable defense regarding people changing their minds?
While that is true, there's a big difference between Men's Rights and men's rights. You have any number of people working to support the rights of men, and that is of course a noble endeavor, but the Men's Rights movement is simply a backlash against women having more rights than they used to. Similar to the way groups with things like "Family" "Values" or "Traditional" in their name are usually only interested in spreading homophobia, or countries with "People's" or "Democratic" in the title tend to be accused of human rights abuses and tyranny.SeanSeanston said:Oh come on, that's perfectly legitimate when you see how fathers' rights are often treated etc. Let's not pretend this is some kind of zero sum game where if you're in favour of X then you're against Y. If people can have feminist movements and women's rights movements (as opposed to simply "gender equality" which one would think would cover all possibilities) then it seems rather childish to not allow others those same equal rights without glaring at them with suspicion. Kind of seems to undermine one's position as being rather disingenuous when one is so defensive about other people having a voice regarding their own rights, as though it's something so amazingly threatening.Bhaalspawn said:Seriously? Men's Rights movement
Assuming that the group that has been in power all that time has suddenly stopped being in power and all problems caused during that time have been resolved, yes.SeanSeanston said:But what difference does that make? We don't live in a long, long time: we live right now. It's not justifiable to point to things in the past (i.e. that don't exist) about people who lived in the past (i.e. who don't exist) and use it to make judgements on the present (i.e. things that do exist).Andy of Comix Inc said:When you get to things like Men's Rights, White Rights... you're taking a group that has, by society, been very much "in control" for a long, long time;
You can't make the world treat people more equally by treating people unequally. That just looks childish and bitter.
I never really thought about it before but I guess they would have that opinion... interesting.RhombusHatesYou said:Oh yeah, to most White Supremacists being a 'race traitor' is the worst crime there is, and the worst form of 'race traitor' is a white person who has kids with someone who isn't white.aba1 said:Based on this video I am committing genocide to my "race" for having "Asian" kids.