Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[mishkin]

europeans and people of european descent.

You guys can give up euphemisms and talk freely about racism against whites in europe and north america. Come on.

[Sir Adrian]

It's not a euphemism. White Asians are not included.

[Aexodus]

You guys can give up euphemisms and talk freely about racism against whites in europe and north america. Come on.

Do you really want me to show you instance upon instance of racism against Europeans again?

[athanaric]

Do you really want me to show you instance upon instance of racism against Europeans again?

Honestly, anyone who lives in Europe and hasn't experienced racism against the local indigenous folk or against white people from other parts of the continent has either had a very sheltered upbringing or is living in the most remote mountain valleys with no internet connection.

[Sir Adrian]

What indigenous folk?

[athanaric]

What indigenous folk?

Local indigenous (more or less white) Europeans. E.g. Swedes in Sweden or Maniots in Greece.

[mishkin]

You see? The problems when you use euphemisms for "white people".

You would have liked to have been born black. I get it.

[athanaric]

You see? The problems when you use euphemisms for "white people".

I's not a euphemism (I don't think of "white people" as something negative. Maybe you're projecting?), it's a different meaning. "White" can mean any pale-skinned person from anywhere, not necessarily Europe. White people from Afghanistan aren't indigenous to Britain and vice versa.

You would have liked to have been born black. I get it.

You don't know what I like and how I look like, it's an irrelevant ad hominem.

[Genghis Skahn]

You see? The problems when you use euphemisms for "white people"

Actually, the funny thing is, Athanaric was being more politically correct than you were. Let's not forget that Italian immigrants to America were called "Guinea" as a racial slur, indicating that they came from the guinea coast of Africa, or in other words, they were discriminated against by lily-white anglo-saxons because of their darker skin tone:

Ginney/Guinea Italians pronounced "gi-nee." Came from "Guinea Negro" and originally referred to any Black or any person of mixed ancestry. This dates back to the 1740's. By the 1890s it was being applied to Southern Italians and Sicilians, because they tend to have a slightly darker skin than Northern Italians, Anglo-Saxons, Germans etc.
A racist slur against Italians. It means that Southern Italians aren’t lilly-white Europeans. Southern Italy was invaded by the Moors who mainly originated from North Africa (Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco and Subsaharean Africa. That part of Italy has been colonised by many other Mediterranean peoples. Around 1900 the term began being applied to Hispanics, although the reference to Italians is the most common one.

In fact, since the Mediterranean region receives so much sunlight, those living near it have often been much darker than Temperate and Northern Europeans for centuries. Being pasty-white is actually not a good evolutionary trait to possess in areas with lots of sunlight(easier to get a sunburn; it's believed white skin evolved in extremely cold climates without much sunlight. Thus the whitest people in the world live in places like Finland and Norway)--hence why so many Mediterranean peoples can be described as having "olive" colored skin. Thus, "white people" is much more misleading and inaccurate than "indigenous Europeans", since quite a few ethnic groups inhabiting the European side of the Mediterranean have often had darker, non-white, skin tones for millennia(and have even been ethnically discriminated against for it; not that you particularly care). For example, I'm not sure it would be correct to term the Ancient Iberians or Greeks as "white"...

Besides that, he's also correct that "white person" could be applied, and actually has been applied, to: lighter skinned Arabs, Iranians and Afghanis. Let's also not forget that albino-skinned Indians look like freaking Germans.

Bourdain is also not arguing that we should force people to marry mixed races. He's merely stating that as people get more and more mixed, it'll be harder to be racist against each other.

I also believe that that's foolishly optimistic. Humans are far too tribalistic in nature for that to be true...Athanaric is correct in believing that people will simply find something else to be racist or discriminatory over--the sky is the limit, really. Besides that, is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that increased race-mixing will reduce racism and improve social cohesion? It just seems like some idealistic anti-racist dream to me. How about we just let people mate with whoever they choose?

[mishkin]

Europe now:

Italy's far-right League plans census of Roma community

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has announced plans for a census of the Roma community. While those deemed to be foreign could be deported, he said, Italian Roma would "unfortunately" be allowed to stay.

[Love Mountain]

If you define failing as winning, sure. Also, I like democracy and republicanism, not an authoritarian state with an apathetic population and a chancellor who preaches about morals.

Consistently winning elections is losing? New terminology. I also find it comical that you're complaining about an authoritarian state. Tell me, have they been rounding up right-wingers? You feel like they're about to start? Come on now. Especially considering that you would like nothing more than to close down immigration and obsess over whether or not they may possible be rapists... It's a little ironic.

No, I'm advocating for freedom. What the government and other state organs should do is create equality of opportunity, not break the constitution in order to right wrongs, real or imagined.

That's indeed what it is about. Obsessing over whether something teeters on a liberal interpretation of Constitution is someone who is not concerned over equality of opportunity. Funny that, I did spend a month reading up on Plessy vs Ferguson. Exactly the same attitude on display here. And I know what an intelligent person would say. I'm not against Civil Rights but affirmative action is racist. What an incredibly naive notion and pretense that the world as it is, is equal for everyone. It isn't. The reason why we can't leave things alone, is because they are inherently broken. Laws that apply to everyone don't, because the men who enforce these laws are ultimately bound to their own prejudices. This is why we must actively interfere in order to ensure that all people regardless of their skin color or creed have equal access to all services and are able to pursue what they want on their terms.

No, that's not the point I'm making.

Then clarify yourself. If you can't be bothered, I understand. I understand that is, that you have no real point to make.

And I'm calling BS on that.

You can imagine how much I care about your speculations. Although if you do have a psychic access to Bourdain's mind, I'd be interested to know more. Do tell how meticulously he's been planning White Genocide.

That's a lot of false equivalences.

That's one statement that has zero substantiation behind it.

Telling people who to breed with is one of the most authoritarian things you can do.

Not really. We tell people what they should do all the time. You're just treating this as "authoritarian" because it's coming from someone you decided not to like with a message that you don't like.

No (as long as it is indeed voluntary), just dumb.

Don't forget, authoritarian.

That's an ad hominem, you don't even know what my skin colour or my preferred type of woman are. It's also irrelevant.

You're assuming I'm talking to you and it is relevant. It's part of a rather small paragraph that you disjointed into little pieces until it lost all meaning.

That's great, but doesn't excuse your authoritarian argument.

That's great, except you didn't explain what authoritarian argument I'm making and how it is authoritarian.

I don't know, you're the one in favour of authoritarian measures. I'd just like people to have the freedom to choose the partner they're attracted to, and not to be coerced or "encouraged" to marry someone specific for retarded political reasons.

You keep using that word.

"favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

So we should fight racism with racism?

That's not racism.

I can see the need for affirmative action immediately after a population is freed from discriminatory legal circumstances, but not decades with no end in sight. And if at all, it should go both ways.

It should go on as long as it is needed and ended when its objectives are achieved, not when you get tired of "decades with no end in sight". Such an infantile critique.

Can't I say the guy is just wrong and doesn't seem to have put a great deal of thought into his arguments?

What, I'm not allowed to disagree? You must be Stalin.

Another ridiculous comparison.

Nope.

Your ideas are straight out of Maoist China.

One of these days you'll explain your statements. Until then, something something zero analytical skills.

Honestly, anyone who lives in Europe and hasn't experienced racism against the local indigenous folk or against white people from other parts of the continent has either had a very sheltered upbringing or is living in the most remote mountain valleys with no internet connection.

Ah yes, as opposed to the racism White people show to everyone else. How terrible that a white snowflake was subject to racism from a minority in his own home country. Jesus, have some backbone.

I'm seeing something perverse because my family has lived through 3 identical episodes in the past century. Excluding groups of people for reasons was exactly what the Hungarians did before the forced magyarization began, exactly what the germans did before they started rounding up "undesirables" and exactly what the communists did before the "kulaks and chiaburs" were purged.

America is going though the exact same rise in racism and normalization of hate speech europe went though 100 years ago, only now it's directed at europeans and people of european descent.

Where is Bourdain arguing for exclusion? This is an alarmist logic directed at a completely unrelated argument.

[Sir Adrian]

He is not arguing anything, he is actively excluding. Or does banning people not mean exclusion in your weird worldview?

[saxdude]

The nature of this Anthony Bourdain argument shows the sheer pettyness and intellectual dishonesty of a lot of the typical arguments several posters here consistantly make. It never once occurred to you, Settra, that in an episode who's purpose was to educate his predominantly white american audience of the diversity that exists within texas, it'd be a waste of valuable minutes to showcase a segment that his vastly white american audience is very well familiar with.
But nah, let's immediatly jump to the conclusion that Bourdain is a racist exclusionist that hates people of european descent (because white people now include the koreans and the japanese, contrary to popular use everywhere by everyone), and that his show is a symptom of the normalization of hate speech towards europeans because we all know that that the Nazi's excluded the jews from their diversity celebrating variety shows, this analogy makes sense and is not totally alarmist and borderline idiotic!

And of course Athanaric, it never occured to you that his comments about race mixing wasn't an authoritarian demand to dip your penis in dirty arab vagina at the behest of the left (or the right wing being what it is, a demand for white men to become cucks), but rather the utopian fantasies of an aging liberal who thinks that maybe as we all begin to mix with other people we will have less reasons to be racist towards each other. How very Maoist of him. Your immediate referral to authoritarianism at even the slightest mention of race mixing are at this point almost freudian in nature.
"How nice it is that two people of different ethnic backgrounds can find love in each other without the constraints of racis- WHAT, YOUR BEING AUTHORITARIAN, PEOPLE SHOULD DATE WHOEVER THEY WANT, PEOPLE SHOULD DATE PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN RACE IF THEY WANT TO AND NOT PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES IF THEY DON'T WANT TO"

Actually, the funny thing is, Athanaric was being more politically correct than you were. Let's not forget that Italian immigrants to America were called "Guinea" as a racial slur, indicating that they came from the guinea coast of Africa, or in other words, they were discriminated against by lily-white anglo-saxons because of their darker skin tone:

In fact, since the Mediterranean region receives so much sunlight, those living near it have often been much darker than Temperate and Northern Europeans for centuries. Being pasty-white is actually not a good evolutionary trait to possess in areas with lots of sunlight(easier to get a sunburn; it's believed white skin evolved in extremely cold climates without much sunlight. Thus the whitest people in the world live in places like Finland and Norway)--hence why so many Mediterranean peoples can be described as having "olive" colored skin. Thus, "white people" is much more misleading and inaccurate than "indigenous Europeans", since quite a few ethnic groups inhabiting the European side of the Mediterranean have often had darker, non-white, skin tones for millennia(and have even been ethnically discriminated against for it; not that you particularly care). For example, I'm not sure it would be correct to term the Ancient Iberians or Greeks as "white"...

Let's not deal with this semantical bullocks as if the term "white" has any sort of academic value. When people say white, they are not talking about the japanese, nor the afgans, nor albino freakin nigerians. That southern europeans may at some point in history been considered less white than the northerners is nothing more than an inane trivia fact that at best shows how intrinsically european the term white is.

[Sir Adrian]

It never occurred because it wasn't. It is cognitive dissonance to claim to want to show diversity and only show a part of the groups that make up that diversity. Moreover showing diversity can be achieved without banning people.


The rest of your post is irrelevant opinion not backed up by fact so I will not address it.

[Love Mountain]

He is not arguing anything, he is actively excluding. Or does banning people not mean exclusion in your weird worldview?

You haven't explained how.

[Aexodus]

How is it possibly inclusive to ban a quarter of Houston’s population on your show, is what he’s asking.

[Love Mountain]

How is it possibly inclusive to ban a quarter of Houston’s population on your show, is what he’s asking.

Ah, he’s talking about the episode again. My mistake. I think I made the point fairly clearly. The episode was not about accurately representing Houston’s demographics. It was about emphasizing the multicultural elements of Houston by only showing non-White establishments.

[Prodromos]

Syrian "migrant" beheads neighbor in front of her sister, apparently for saying something "racist"

Part and parcel.

https://europe.infowars.com/syrian-m...racist-remark/

A Syrian man stabbed his 21-year-old neighbor 130 times killing her and leaving her sister in critical condition in Vetlanda, Sweden.

The original grievance against his upstairs neighbor was that she was too loud, but during his trial, he said he "lost control" because he believed the victim made a "racist" remark during a previous conversation, Sweden’s Fria Tider reports.

“I understood the ‘movement’ of the victim during the conversation before the [killing] as racist,” said the killer.

On the night of the February 20th killing, the sisters barricaded themselves in their bathroom, where they repeatedly apologized to their attacker.

“It’s [too] late,” he said.

The surviving sister played dead after being stabbed in the lung while the man cut off her sister’s head and began stabbing the body 130 times.

The 26-year-old Syrian man, who had been in Sweden since 2012, turned himself over to the authorities.

During the trial, a lawer asked a coworker of the victim if she had a history of expressing "any criticism of immigration."

In addition to not recalling such criticism, the coworker voiced how that could be connected to the murder.

The court sentenced the man to life in prison as well as having to pay the surviving sister $220,000 for her suffering; she is currently in a psychiatric department where she reportedly has constant suicidal thoughts.

The Judge reportedly had “special reasons” for the ruling despite the killer legally suffering from mental illness at the time of the murder.

An additional sentence for the killer was his expulsion to Syria, where he said he would be killed because of his profession as a “courier.”

"The Islamic State and the Free Syrian Army will kill me," he said.

Correspondingly, analysis has revealed that in the last four years, over 1,000 Europeans have been maimed or murdered by Islamist asylum seekers.

Not just Sweden I'm afraid.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu...-idUKKBN1ES173

Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

...

Around 17 percent of violent crimes in Lower Saxony that were attributed to refugees, for example, were suspected of being committed by North African asylum seekers who made up less than 1 percent of the state’s registered refugee population.

[Whitey McKnightey]

Do you really want me to show you instance upon instance of racism against Europeans again?

Did your examples happen within the context of complex systems of structural institutions of race- and gender coded socio-economic privilege that permeate our patriarchal, cis-normative society? Cuz if not, thanks but no.

[Infidel144]

The court sentenced the man to life in prison as well as having to pay the surviving sister $220,000 for her suffering;
....
An additional sentence for the killer was his expulsion to Syria, where he said he would be killed because of his profession as a “courier.”

Ummm....
How exactly is the dude going to pay 220,000 dollars while serving life in prison and how is he going to be deported to Syria?