ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
By "place of honor" I mean a place where you're a member of community in good standing. In Christianity that's going to church and confessing (+possibly making amends, depending on the nature of your sin), that's the "path to redemption", and if you're on it, no one will bother you unless you start bothering others.
Also, creepy megachurch pastors? Pedo Priests?
They exist, but their existence was overblown compared to literally any other human institution.
Allowing people in power to abuse that power is classic human dynamics. Cast not the first stone unless ye are free from sin.
I'm not talking about abuses of power. I'm talking about what the given worldview sees as a justified use of power.
The difference being that Christianity does have a place of honor for you, even if you're not a champion smiting the infidels. For the progressives it's the only route to honor and glory, and it will only last for as long as you're useful to them. It's very pagan, and I feel like that's insulting to vast swathes of pagans.
None of that actually gives you an honorable place in the feminist or progressive movement, just more derision. What you actually need to do is score wins for the tribe in the public arena, then they'll let you do the creepiest sexist shit you can think of, and will even sweep it under the rug for you.
It's actually as anti-Christian as anything can be.
Oh yeah, I was there too. Somehow all the never-Trumpers didn't like him either.
My argument is that the antipathy between the groups is not the same thing as what one group decides to do to the other based on those feelings, so you're completely misportraying my argument, and his as well.
Edit: I answered from the notifications, and lost the context a bit. The countries you listed made me think you responded to the other comment where I listed them. But since bringing them up doesn't make a lot of sense without the context of the other comment, I'll leave my original response, and add an extra at the end related to this one.
Just a nitpick
According to Statistics Finland, 89% of the current Finnish population were born to mothers who were permanently resident in Finland at the time of their birth
That's very weasily wording. A permanent resident is not necessarily a Finn.
The total population of the countries listed above is ~40 million, and the percentage of that population who are considered native to their respective countries is about 79%. So contrary to claims of it being an ethnostate, Israel is actually more ethnically diverse than the average of all the countries you listed.
Each of these countries has a smaller population than Israel, and if I understood your argument correctly, it was about absolute numbers, not relative diversity, something like: there's a lot of white people, so they're not going to die out any time soon. If their population lower, than they are at a higher risk.
Also, keep in mind Israel is the only country with an above replacement fertility rate, so they're doing better, even if the other countries are more homogenous.
And it hardly needs stating that, in pretty much all of the countries listed above, the lion's share of the non-native population is made up of people from ethnic backgrounds closely related to that of the native population e.g. 24% of Latvia is Russian
In the other thread you argued that I shouldn't throw the Mizrahim in the same bag as the Arabs, but you're telling me Latvians are basically the same as Russians?
Also, this feels like just trying to get back to the "whites are all the same, look how many of them are, they will not die out any time soon" framing, when my argument is that if you look at individual nations, which is what we're doing with Israel, their position is much more precarious, so we should worry about them more than we do about Israel.
So contrary to claims of it being an ethnostate, Israel is actually more ethnically diverse than the average of all the countries you listed.
Come on, it clearly is. It's a state specifically set up for the benefit of a particular ethnicity, with strit immigration controls, and non-universal rights for it's citizens. Israelis explicitly say that their country needs to be majority Jewish (and I agree with them). If Israel is not an ethnostate, then I just want European states to implement the same laws that will also make them not-ethnostates.
No, I don't think I am.
You were. With this:
The origin of antisemitism, or any hatred of minorities, is not just the behavior of that group.
you're changing the subject. Your original claim was that the other poster's statement implied that the holocaust was justified.
The original claim was about the origins of antisemitism, not about what their antisemitism inspired them to do.
I could have a burning frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for someone, and still not do anything about it. A sociopath might murder someone just because they were in the way, but without any hard feelings. You're just conflating two unrelated things.
punishable by getting run over by a steamroller.
"Hey bro, I heard you like cylindrical projections...."
Come on, the region of Germany he's from is literally in his name. As to his political views, he could only be a tanky if you're a big subscriber to horseshoe theory, or it turned out he really likes tanks (I think he's more into medieval warfare).
- Prev
- Next

...with the caveat that if a bunch of "underprivileged" people tell you you need to shut up and listen to them because you're privileged, that's what you have to do. That's not what I call "good standing".
Yeah, but they regularly put you in situations where it's hard to keep plausible deniability. Feminists thought that they have to say "trans women are women" just to be nice, and then they got told to wax feminine balls.
More options
Context Copy link