*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

1. Lauren Southern is a man.
2. White nationalism and white supremacy are not the same thing, but in the Venn diagram of people who prescribe to the two, the overlap is definitely greater than either of the individual sides. With that having been said, virtually all white nationalists who are not white supremacists are also black nationalists and nationalists of various other races and ethnic groups.

Sound's like you're assuming that if I only were to realize that a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist, I'd go: Oh! That's not retarded then!
Well, no, it still is really retarded. We can talk about that if you want. But no trollerino pls. I'll get sufficiently triggered by whatever your real arguments are, I promise.

[spoonitnow]

Sound's like you're assuming that if I only were to realize that a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist, I'd go: Oh! That's not retarded then!
Well, no, it still is really retarded. We can talk about that if you want. But no trollerino pls. I'll get sufficiently triggered by whatever your real arguments are, I promise.

The most basic argument for white nationalism is that there is benefit in allowing different people to have their own homelands without having them forced into diversity for the sake of diversity. There are reasonable arguments and data to support this argument. Logically, you cannot be a white nationalist without also being an [insert race/ethnicity] nationalist. It's ultimately a sub-set of liking to have well-defined borders between things.

The problem is that a majority of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalists of any type aren't necessarily logical and don't necessarily give a shit about the reasonable arguments. When any type of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalism is combined with [same race/ethnicity] supremacy, it results in wanting to kill off everyone else and to create a master race and all of this other ridiculousness. Since most white nationalists, for example, are also white supremacists, it's easy to see how that's a problem.

For what it's worth, there's also the odd group who are white supremacists but who are not white nationalists. They tend to be the least violent or aggressive towards other racists/ethnic groups, and they also tend to feel they are simply being realists and that they have no reason to be hostile to other groups due to being the best or whatever.

For myself, I'm not a white nationalist, but I am a nationalist.

Edit: I want to point out also that the overwhelming majority of white supremacists are in the bottom 50 percent of the intelligence and socioeconomic pool.

Edit 2: Random but perhaps interesting, most people I have seen wanting to incorporate race play into their sex lives have been black women wanting to be degraded by a white man. Second place is white men wanting to be degraded by a black man, usually by fucking his wife/significant other in a cuckold arrangement (I suspect porn has something to do with this). Third place is Asian girls wanting to be dominated (note the difference in the verb) by white men.

[oskar]

The most basic argument for white nationalism is that there is benefit in allowing different people to have their own homelands without having them forced into diversity for the sake of diversity. There are reasonable arguments and data to support this argument.

How is being forced into diversity ethically different from being forced to separate? I don't even think there's an equivalency here. I think it's disingenuous to use the word "forced" when you're talking about living in closed proximity to different cultures because the culture part does not impede your personal freedom, but forcing people to separate impedes their personal freedom. If you have data, I'd love to see it. I like data driven arguments.

[spoonitnow]

How is being forced into diversity ethically different from being forced to separate? I don't even think there's an equivalency here. I think it's disingenuous to use the word "forced" when you're talking about living in closed proximity to different cultures because the culture part does not impede your personal freedom, but forcing people to separate impedes their personal freedom. If you have data, I'd love to see it. I like data driven arguments.

The argument isn't about being forced to separate: It's about having a home for people who are like you.

It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

Google is your friend: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe..._of_diversity/

[oskar]

The argument isn't about being forced to separate: It's about having a home for people who are like you.

To what end?
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.

Not sure how that analogy works unless you're advocating for separate bathrooms for ethnic groups.

Google is your friend: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe..._of_diversity/

Here's the actual study: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
(For future reference, I'm never interested in projections and interpretations. We're adults, let's just go to the source.)

So he's being very clear that diversity is very beneficial in the long term, but has some short term drawbacks. Unless you want to argue that the short term discomforts outweigh the long term benefits (much like exercising or eating carrots instead of twinkies,) I don't think this is a source you want to use to argue in favor of separatism.

[spoonitnow]

So he's being very clear that diversity is very beneficial in the long term, but has some short term drawbacks. Unless you want to argue that the short term discomforts outweigh the long term benefits (much like exercising or eating carrots instead of twinkies,) I don't think this is a source you want to use to argue in favor of separatism.

@bold, no, he's not. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. He mentioned a few things that are correlated with immigration, not diversity, and showed no causation in his arguments on the supposed benefits. Moreover, he speculated on the long-term with no data or argument whatsoever while overwhelmingly confirming the disadvantages in the short-term (without defining how short of a term short-term actually is) based on causality, not correlation. He also completely debunked contact theory, which is the argument the pro-diversity crowd clings to.

[oskar]

@bold, no, he's not. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. He mentioned a few things that are correlated with immigration, not diversity, and showed no causation in his arguments on the supposed benefits. Moreover, he speculated on the long-term with no data or argument whatsoever while overwhelmingly confirming the disadvantages in the short-term (without defining how short of a term short-term actually is) based on causality, not correlation. He also completely debunked contact theory, which is the argument the pro-diversity crowd clings to.

If you want to extend your argument that diversity has adverse economic effects in the long term, we can go there, but that's a slam dunk for me and pretty boring tbh.
I'd honestly rather not because I don't need diversity or immigration to be beneficial at all to argue against separatism. I'm more interested in this part:

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

[oskar]

Only first sentence relevant, but didn't want to quote out of context.

The most basic argument for white nationalism is that there is benefit in allowing different people to have their own homelands without having them forced into diversity for the sake of diversity. There are reasonable arguments and data to support this argument. Logically, you cannot be a white nationalist without also being an [insert race/ethnicity] nationalist. It's ultimately a sub-set of liking to have well-defined borders between things.

The problem is that a majority of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalists of any type aren't necessarily logical and don't necessarily give a shit about the reasonable arguments. When any type of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalism is combined with [same race/ethnicity] supremacy, it results in wanting to kill off everyone else and to create a master race and all of this other ridiculousness. Since most white nationalists, for example, are also white supremacists, it's easy to see how that's a problem.

For what it's worth, there's also the odd group who are white supremacists but who are not white nationalists. They tend to be the least violent or aggressive towards other racists/ethnic groups, and they also tend to feel they are simply being realists and that they have no reason to be hostile to other groups due to being the best or whatever.

For myself, I'm not a white nationalist, but I am a nationalist.

Edit: I want to point out also that the overwhelming majority of white supremacists are in the bottom 50 percent of the intelligence and socioeconomic pool.

Edit 2: Random but perhaps interesting, most people I have seen wanting to incorporate race play into their sex lives have been black women wanting to be degraded by a white man. Second place is white men wanting to be degraded by a black man, usually by fucking his wife/significant other in a cuckold arrangement (I suspect porn has something to do with this). Third place is Asian girls wanting to be dominated (note the difference in the verb) by white men.

I don't think you can "allow" people to have their own homeland without displacing other people, unless you want to find a nice patch of jungle and recreate your own Jonestown. Even if you could I don't think ethnicity or culture is a good deciding factor on who goes where, and ultimately I think it's unethical in any practical application that has a chance of working - urban gentrification is not what I would expect to ever yield results that would satisfy the condition of "people having their own homeland"

[spoonitnow]

Only first sentence relevant, but didn't want to quote out of context.


I don't think you can "allow" people to have their own homeland without displacing other people, unless you want to find a nice patch of jungle and recreate your own Jonestown. Even if you could I don't think ethnicity or culture is a good deciding factor on who goes where, and ultimately I think it's unethical in any practical application that has a chance of working - urban gentrification is not what I would expect to ever yield results that would satisfy the condition of "people having their own homeland"

Cool. Who cares?