How is it false equivalence? First of all, we have had periods of war and infighting, and periods without. The difference between the two hasn't been ethnic purity. Secondly, the equivalence between the videos and the white ethnic 'ethic' (if you can call it that) is clear but you're avoiding it.
What happens if the blacks in video #1 are successful in pushing out the Koreans? Are they going to be better off for it? Would a white neighborhood be better off for pushing out Koreans?
sage
OK let's have it: What was the dichotomy I was presenting. If there was one it should be easy to point out directly. Point at the fire, not the smoke.
No-U
To settle whether the race of the service provider is more important than his merits at providing the service, and why one would advocate for such a discernment. That's not a dichotomy BTW.
I'm posing questions to determine the truth, not to state it brazenly. I'm not closed minded.
I'm not trying to impose or frame a narrative. I don't give a shit about narratives, only objective reality. I would prefer to refer to reality and not bullshit narratives or opinions. My opinion or yours shouldn't matter; only reality does. If you have a point to make, point to reality not your paranoia about what my opinions are.
Not only have I lurked for more than two years, I've read books on history and watched 10+ hour white ethno centric documentaries on the holodomor/hitler/blah blah that's not the point. How does white ethnocentrism help anything beyond "no more jewz controlling banks and staring warz n'sheeeiiit" (which isn't a bad objective, but that won't be the only result)
Die.
We don’t give a fuck.
Yes.
Does chocolate taste good or does my car run well?
Yes.
Yes, since the jew is expressly told to kill the non-jew.
If you want to suck your own cock, go back to reddit.
It wasn’t, in fact.
Oh, when the dune coons were invading? You know, from outside? Gee.
You asked:
user said:
You replied:
In any case, perhaps false equivalence was not the correct terminology here, but here's what you're doing: You're going right back to that "it doesn't create utopia therefore fuck borders and homogenous populations and shit", and that's ridiculous.
Let's get this straight right off the bat:
There will always be conflicts.
Population can be totally homogenous, there will still be conflict, and crime, etc. Its a matter of EXACERBATION.
You're basically saying "Well, there's always been conflict and strife and crime goy, even when you were totally pure!", and that's true… But its a matter of degrees, and you're being disingenuous in suggesting otherwise.
As had everyone.
Not strictly, but in many cases? Oh yes it has! For example, when were the most-prevelant conflicts in the context of periods of war? The more technology advances and allows other clades to enter our area of operation.
You're basically trying to say "homogenous populations have no effect upon the degree of war/infighting within a society" and that's obviously and objectively false, specifically as regards Europe.
I would outright say there is a degree of equivalence, but not direct equivalence, and your entire bullshit approach here relies upon it.
Why does a nigger want koreans out, eh? Does he actually think it will reduce conflicts within his area that would be remedied under a more homogenous paradigm?
Of course not, niggers can rarely even think that far ahead - these niggers are, I wager (because I can't be assed to watch the videos if you can't be assed to webm them), because he doesn't like the koreans.
Why? Because they don't like niggers. Why? Because niggers are niggers.
So, really, what you've got here is blatant demonstration of why multiculturalism doesn't work - the koreans don't like the niggers, the niggers dont like the koreans, for entirely justified reasons no doubt in at least one case (arguably in the other), and it creates conflict.
Would there be less conflict between these two groups if they were not in direct contact with each other? Obviously, yes.
Better question: Will the Koreans be better off for it? The answer is yes.
Will the blacks be better off? Probably not - but its because the koreans actively improve their situation, the koreans are a more functional people at the biological level, in terms of maintaining a functioning 'civilized' society. So the niggers, bereft of the koreans, will likely just remain as niggers - which, they might prefer, in fact… But in terms of objective improvement, being better off? No, because they're niggers, and the koreans improve their state… While the koreans are koreans, and the niggers degrade their state… Seperate them, and the koreans are better off, while the niggers are still niggers, and so may be comfortable in their niggerdom but are still living in niggerdom (now bereft of whatever value the koreans, as a superior clade of hominid in the contexts that matter here, offered them).
Yes. Again, minimization of conflict.
And again, this isn't theory, this has been studied in practice - see Putnam.
I did. I laid it out directly after the accusation.
You're being a faggot and acting like a jew.
And that's being incredibly disingenuous, because you're attempting to address an issue with far-ranging consequences in a vaccuum.
You basically want to ask "In a pure meritocratic sense, do you care about race relative to ability?", and that's not the truly important issue, because I can't have that without the rest, you understand?
You can't have JUST the meritocratic argument and ignore the rest of the picture and pretend you aren't being a faggot.
Do I want a service provider of merit? Yes.
Do I want them to be of my own kind? Yes, if able, and as I am able, that is fine.
Do I want a service provider who is of merit, but not of my own kind, specifically and especially given the paradigm that, along with that individual - who in most cases is exception amongst their kind - there will be many others who are NOT exceptional in that way and cause strife, cause an exacerbation of conflict?
Basically, you're trying to ask whether we care MORE about a service provider being of merit or of our own kind, and there's no need for us to make that choice - its a false dichotomy, suggesting we must choose one or other other, and thats simply not so.
I can have a service prodiver of merit, AND have him be of my own kind, without any of the risks associated with employing an exceptional member of another clade.
You're being a disingenuous faggot.
Yes, you most certainly are, barely able to contain it at this point no less.
Okay, well, objective reality: Multiculturalism causes an exacerbation of already extant state of conflict within and between groups. Done.
Proof or it didn't happen nigger, because you write like a lellypol faggot who got lost on his way to shitpost on faceberg about how white genocide is just a meme.
I've laid out how explicitly to you already.
Here's a bit from the wikiJew about the Putnam study, BTW:
?Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
Putnam published his data set from this study in 2001 and subsequently published the full paper in 2007.
Nice dubs, but there is no point trying to call out logical fallacies on 8ch Holla Forums.
Just report OP and hope that the mods smile on you.
Eh, fair enough.
Examples please.
I'm not saying war is inherently bad, either. I'm saying where is the evidence that ethnocentrism has prevented it.
I concede that culturally homogenous societies are less internally conflicted. Multiculturalism is the death of a nation. However I don't see evidence that white people have created homogeneity in the past. Europe is a history of infighting which has been saved off mostly by geography than anything else (something Africa lacks and is probably explains nigger behavior to a large extent)
I haven't suggested an approach. I just have severe doubts that white ethnocentrism is going to make things significantly better or get us to a better place in short order. I think it would quickly devolve into the Visigoths and the Vandals if it isn't a movement based on western values and meritocracy. However, those are just MY opinions and I'd rather stick to the historical and material facts.
I agree 100% as that's undeniable.
They are envious of anyone able to start a business. It's a bit more complicated than color X doesn't like color Y
I doubt that's justified. The fact (?) that the blacks will be worse off without the Koreans makes it unjustified. Do you disagree?
Seems we do agree? Then it's unjustified.
I doubt the Korean shop owners see it that way. They're making money selling booze and smokes to welfare queens and if they could make more money otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't say no.
The only question I'm raising here is if it's unjustified for blacks to universally want all Koreans out of their neighborhood then why is white ethnocentrism justified. I think that's a fair question to ask!