domain:badcyber.com
AvocadoPanic
just now
But just as people who want to "end masculinity" and "end the gender binary" are not talking about literally exterminating males
It seems to me they are clear advocating for eliminating what many people would think of when they think of males. While they may be allowing for XY individuals to still 'exist' in some sense, it's likely it would be in the sense that a woman can have a cock, balls and beard. Those aren't women, and their new men, won't be men.
They are talking about eliminating males in a real sense. We do them and ourselves a disservice by not believing they are sincere in their advocacy especially when they show us time and again who they genuinely are and what they believe.
You are being intentionally obtuse. You are obviously intelligent enough to parse Ignatiev’s actual beliefs
Obviously I understand Ignatiev's beliefs, better than you apparently. No, I don't think Ignatiev is calling for a literal murder of all white people. Instead he is using his own non-negligible cultural influence to deconstruct and pathologize White Identity, in an effort to undermine it. I understand that perfectly well, I more than most here understand that you don't undermine a race by just committing murder, you do it at a symbolic and ultimately cultural level. It remains an expression of a strong ethnic hostility even if it's not actually advocating for physical violence.
In that sense, it is also true that he wants to “abolish the black race”; not to abolish the African phenotype, but to abolish the idea that anyone should care what ancestral group an individual appears to descend from.
Citation strongly needed! He regards the Black Race as a social construct also, but one that is sympathetic and he does not call to Abolish Blackness. If you're going to provide a claim for that, please provide evidence. While you're at it- provide evidence that he called to Abolish Jewry. Of course he did neither such thing, it is Whites who who receive the enmity of his ideological worldview and no other racial group.
There’s no secret undercurrent of wanting to see Jewish people secretly privileging themselves while dissolving other macro-scale unchosen identities.
Calling for the Abolition of Whiteness while simultaneously declaring anti-semitism as "Crime against Humanity" is a far more important demand for Jewish privilege than the question over whether Jews at Harvard should be given dedicated kitchens. He is demanding Jewish privilege by socially deconstructing White identity while declaring in-kind criticism of Jewish identity to be a Crime against Humanity. His position on dining at Harvard notwithstanding, which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Please provide evidence Ignatiev called for the Abolition of Blackness or Jewry. He did not. He called for the Abolition of Whiteness, and he declared anti-semitism to be a crime against humanity. Which is exactly what I said in my original post.
When I’ve expressed enthusiasm about miscegenation between white people and East Asians, you’ve reacted with shock and horror, because you take it for granted that preserving the genetic purity of the white race is of considerable importance.
I challenged your absurdly naive notion that combining all the races of the world would magically combine all the relative strengths of each group into one superior specimen:
I do believe that the optimal genetic admixture of people in the future will be some combination of European, East Asian, Jewish, and a small but non-negligible amount of Amerindian. You might think this would be a mystery-meat catastrophe, but I think it would be a healthy and vital blending of the best each of these elements would offer.
That was the juvenile claim you made which I challenged.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
8m ago
I don't think "anti whiteness" is the same as "anti white," at least not the way you mean it.
I also don't believe you were not implying he only cares about Jews when you intentionally isolated his statement about anti-Semitism from his opposition to bigotry in general.
That context is significant, and you know you were trying to frame his words to mean somethingother than his intent.
You only mention him objecting to anti-Semitism, as usual implying that Jews only care about Jews and are enemies of everyone else.
There is no implication of that at all. My implication is exactly what I said: he is vehemently anti-white and he strongly objects to anti-semitism, which is a *very comm. Absolutely nothing about the context challenges that fact, there is no implication that he "only cares about Jews." He's a commie, I'm sure he cares about a bunch of stuff! But he's vehemently anti-white while strongly objecting to anti-Semitism.
That was my point, it is 100% true, it is not changed at all by the context, and it's not challenged by anything you wrote here.
@Amadan, would you agree that he's vehemently anti-white and he simultaneously strongly objects to anti-Semitism, regarding it as a Crime Against Humanity? If not, why not?
MonkeyWithAMachinegun
Dancing to Tom Paine's Bones
38m ago
Whoops, that's what I get for writing when I'm tired.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
43m ago
The modern theory of deterrence may look more like identifying the humps that disrupt the slippery slope, and trying to beat your opponent back to one of those humps but no further, versus... trying to push your humps as far up the slope as possible?
I think the term in the literature you're looking for is "escalation dominance."
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
56m ago
My advice for rulers, especially ones on the outs with major geopolitical powers...
It seems like "on the outs with major geopolitical powers" is doing a lot here. It's not even "be a democracy": nobody is threatening to invade Eritrea (not far from Yemen, also a dictatorship). It's not exclusively Muslim nations either (Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are in the club).
As best as I can tell, the only consistent rule seems to be "don't be jerks to your neighbors beyond your borders," but I'll accept there's some level of Realpolitik at play.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
58m ago
Again, I’m not saying that Ignatiev’s beliefs are good — I oppose pretty much every aspect of his worldview — but simply that they are sincere and internally consistent. They’re not hypocritical. He doesn’t appear to want any special carve-out for Jewish people, nor does he seem to have any special affinity for Jewishness on account of his own personal ancestral background.
Like, yes, many Jews, Ignatiev himself, are hardcore believers in deracinated progressive abolishment of blood ties. So are many non-Jews! If you want to oppose their beliefs — and I do! — it is a useless distraction to try and smoke them out as secret Zionist special-pleading hypocrites. We can just oppose their actual stated beliefs, which are bad enough, instead of grasping at straws to call them liars.
Your claim is that I was saying "Ignatiev only cares about Jews" when I said no such thing and would have no reason to believe this. I was saying *he is anti-white and he strongly opposes anti-semitism", which is a claim that is not refuted by anything you or anyone else has wrote in response.
More options
Context Copy link